MLB logo (1960 Topps Mantle)

[JollyElm]

Time for a bit of fun with a logic tangent:
The logo was obviously designed so the player could be perceived to be either a left handed or right handed batter (I have always seen a righty), but logically speaking this 'batter' is clearly a lefty. Why? If the graphic was an actual photograph, then you would have to take into account the position of the baseball. If the batter was a righty, the ball would be in the background (and based on perspective and distance, appearing smaller than normal), and conversely a lefty would have the ball in the foreground (appearing slightly larger). (Of course, it's assumed the pitch is over the plate and not way inside, way outside or about to hit the batter.) If the ball in the logo was in the background, the size wouldn't match up at all. In reality, it would be much too big, the size of a softball, whereas a ball in the foreground (closest to the viewer) would make it much closer to the actual size it should be. Conclusion: left hander.

[frankh8147]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Time for a bit of fun with a logic tangent:
The logo was obviously designed so the player could be perceived to be either a left handed or right handed batter (I have always seen a righty), but logically speaking this 'batter' is clearly a lefty. Why? If the graphic was an actual photograph, then you would have to take into account the position of the baseball. If the batter was a righty, the ball would be in the background (and based on perspective and distance, appearing smaller than normal), and conversely a lefty would have the ball in the foreground (appearing slightly larger). (Of course, it's assumed the pitch is over the plate and not way inside, way outside or about to hit the batter.) If the ball in the logo was in the background, the size wouldn't match up at all. In reality, it would be much too big, the size of a softball, whereas a ball in the foreground (closest to the viewer) would make it much closer to the actual size it should be. Conclusion: left hander.

Fun 'tangent'! That's interesting and based on that, I agree, the batter was a lefty...unless...he was a switch hitter!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by frankh8147

Fun 'tangent'! That's interesting and based on that, I agree, the batter was a lefty...unless...he was a switch hitter!

The bat and knuckles of the hand are behind the body. It is a righty and the profile looks like Killebrew.

[jthorst75]

Crazy, I was always under the impression that it was Clemente. Not sure if I heard that or read about it...

[JollyElm]

And my logic also applies to the bat. The handle looks pretty thick, and therefore it is in the foreground, closer to the viewer. If this batter was a righty, the bat would be in the background, further away from the viewer, and would thus appear thinner/smaller than 'normal.' Again, lefty.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And my logic also applies to the bat. The handle looks pretty thick, and therefore it is in the foreground, closer to the viewer. If this batter was a righty, the bat would be in the background, further away from the viewer, and would thus appear thinner/smaller than 'normal.' Again, lefty.

The dudes a righty... As you probably know Brooks was unable to do the photoshoot for the logo that day so they opted, begrudgingly at that, for Killer 😬.

I agree with what you stated before that they designed the logo to view either a righty or lefty. I’ve pretty much seen a righty, but when I try I can see the lefty as well. As you probably are aware Killer used a “pretty thick” bat and he was definitely a righty.

[JollyElm]

From the link on the first page of this thread:
Creation[edit]
According to Dior, the logo was created in a single afternoon. Contrary to popular belief, the silhouette was not modeled on future Hall of Famer Harmon Killebrew,[1] or any specific player[2] but was drawn with reference to photographs of several players.[3] The silhouette was chosen specifically because of its ambiguity: the batter could be right- or left-handed and of any ethnic background.[3]

[jchcollins]

Growing up I always understood it to have been based on Killebrew, but then sometime later I saw on some MLB blog where supposedly MLB claimed that was not true. I have no idea. Will agree the '60 Mantle AS looks like a plausible candidate.

[frankh8147]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Growing up I always understood it to have been based on Killebrew, but then sometime later I saw on some MLB blog where supposedly MLB claimed that was not true. I have no idea. Will agree the '60 Mantle AS looks like a plausible candidate.

In the last few days, I read about 10 articles on this with half saying it was Killebrew and half saying it wasn't - it does look like him though!