Roberto Clemente Signature "Bob"

[Peter_Spaeth]

IF Clemente hadn't objected to Bob, why did Topps change his cards back to Roberto in 1970?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IF Clemente hadn't objected to Bob, why did Topps change his cards back to Roberto in 1970?

Somewhat of a fair point, but if it was indeed his objection that stopped the practice, it took him about 13 years to say something, so he couldn't have cared all that much.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Somewhat of a fair point, but if it was indeed his objection that stopped the practice, it took him about 13 years to say something, so he couldn't have cared all that much.

Just because it took Topps 13 years to change it back to Roberto doesn't mean it took Roberto 13 years to object.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just because it took Topps 13 years to change it back to Roberto doesn't mean it took Roberto 13 years to object.

Exactly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not a primary source, but from the Hall of Fame.

Another practice of the media also upset Clemente. It did not involve his teammates, but rather had to do with his heritage and ethnicity. A number of writers and broadcasters insisted on calling Clemente “Bob” or “Bobby,” instead of his given name of Roberto. Even Clemente’s baseball cards listed him as “Bob Clemente,” a practice that persisted through the 1969 Topps set. Clemente did not like this practice, an effort at Americanizing him. He felt that it was disrespectful to his Puerto Rican and Latino heritage. When members of the media interviewed him and called him Bob or Bobby directly, he would correct them. “My name is Roberto Clemente,” he said repeatedly. In spite of his complaints, the practice of referring to Clemente as Bob, especially in print, would continue throughout the 1960s.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just because it took Topps 13 years to change it back to Roberto doesn't mean it took Roberto 13 years to object.

OK, maybe, but maybe not. Let's say he objected early on and "Topps were being assholes" for years after the fact. If it truly mattered so much to him, why didn't he just pull a Maury Wills and tell Topps to take a hike when it came to using his image, etc.? Surely, Roberto didn't need their insulting chicken scratch or a new dishwasher or whatever. He could buy whatever he wanted without Topps' paltry payout.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

OK, maybe, but maybe not. Let's say he objected early on and "Topps were being assholes" for years after the fact. If it truly mattered so much to him, why didn't he just pull a Maury Wills and tell Topps to take a hike when it came to using his image, etc.? Surely, Roberto didn't need their insulting chicken scratch or a new dishwasher or whatever. He could buy whatever he wanted without Topps' paltry payout.

Suppose he wanted his cards available to the young Latin fans for whom he was a hero and pioneer>

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

OK, maybe, but maybe not. Let's say he objected early on and "Topps were being assholes" for years after the fact. If it truly mattered so much to him, why didn't he just pull a Maury Wills and tell Topps to take a hike when it came to using his image, etc.? Surely, Roberto didn't need their insulting chicken scratch or a new dishwasher or whatever. He could buy whatever he wanted without Topps' paltry payout.

Originally Posted by JollyElm

There's no argument either way here with me, just pointing out some facts. We'd have to ask each player if labeling him 'Bob' on his card was what he wanted. Is there any first-hand info from Mr. Clemente himself?

We are supposed to make the assumptions required to arrive at the conclusion that was determined desirable before the inquiry, and dismiss the primary evidence and testimony of his friends that there was not a real issue here.

[cgjackson222]

Random tidbit: Roberto Clemente Walker chose the number 21 because his 3 names added up to 21 letters:

""He was hitting nothing but line drives and making lots of outs," recalls infielder Geene Freese, whose Forbes Field locker was next to Clemente's. "Meanwhile, I'm hitting blooper all over the place and batting .340. I told him, "You have a terrible number there. He said "What do you mean?" I said, "13 that's unlucky".

Clemente resolved to find a new number. He wrote out his full name-R-o-b-e-r-t-o-C-l-e-m-e-n-t-e-W-a-l-k-e-r (in Hispanic cultures, the mother's maiden name follows the father's surname)--added up the letters and decided 21 was a good fit.

The number was available because first baseman Tony Bartirome, who opened the season wearing 21 had been sent down."

Source: Indiana Gazette article by Bob Fulton, June 17, 2005

[Casey2296]

Bob/Roberto debate notwithstanding, I'm no autograph expert but a cursory search of his known signatures makes the 55 look suspect as hell.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IF Clemente hadn't objected to Bob, why did Topps change his cards back to Roberto in 1970?

Maybe because he was also and more commonly known by Roberto.

Any claim to fact should have an evidentiary basis, whether I like it or not. If there is no evidentiary basis, it is just a myth people have created. There’s not a separate rule set for claims I like or dislike. Maybe there is a real source for this claim, but I’ve never seen one and nobody ever provides one. Thus I am skeptical of the claim, as one should be of any claim to fact they hear from anyone about anything for which no evidence surfaces. In this particular instance of the general “Bob” legend, the source even contradicts the story being told and unequivocally does not say what the article claims. There are many stories of history told that I like; but it doesn’t make them so.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Maybe because he was also and more commonly known by Roberto.

Any claim to fact should have an evidentiary basis, whether I like it or not. If there is no evidentiary basis, it is just a myth people have created. There’s not a separate rule set for claims I like or dislike. Maybe there is a real source for this claim, but I’ve never seen one and nobody ever provides one. Thus I am skeptical of the claim, as one should be of any claim to fact they hear from anyone about anything for which no evidence surfaces. In this particular instance of the general “Bob” legend, the source even contradicts the story being told and unequivocally does not say what the article claims. There are many stories of history told that I like; but it doesn’t make them so.

Of course a primary source would be better, but I am betting there are all sorts of things we accept as received wisdom for which there are no primary sources.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course a primary source would be better, but I am betting there are all sorts of things we accept as received wisdom for which there are no primary sources.

Yes people believe many myths. That doesn’t make it correct, or true or wise. If we choose to believe myths we like just because we like them, without evidence, we are not rational people.

1) We have, for the narrative: unsourced claims of current writers and internet boards, and that Topps called Clemente Bob on only some, instead of all, of his Topps cards.

2) We have, against: that he sometimes signed as Bob and primary sources claims that at least some of his friends called him Bobby and that there is apparently no evidence he objected (if it exists, it can be posted and terminate the debate instantly).

To believe 1 over 2, with the evidentiary body provided, demands throwing reason away to select what one would like to select anyways.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes people believe many myths. That doesn’t make it correct, or true or wise. If we choose to believe myths we like just because we like them, without evidence, we are not rational people.

1) We have, for the narrative: unsourced claims of current writers and internet boards, and that Topps called Clemente Bob on only some, instead of all, of his Topps cards.

2) We have, against: that he sometimes signed as Bob and primary sources claims that at least some of his friends called him Bobby and that there is apparently no evidence he objected (if it exists, it can be posted and terminate the debate instantly).

To believe 1 over 2, with the evidentiary body provided, demands throwing reason away to select what one would like to select anyways.

It would be nice to know where the Hall of Fame writer got his facts.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It would be nice to know where the Hall of Fame writer got his facts.

That is how we should feel about any and all claims to fact, and the importance of citing one’s sources (and then checking said sources; many times it turns out the document cited does not say what the writer claims it says, as in the SABR case) and prioritizing evidence over feeling.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's interesting that in 1963 Fleer called him Roberto. Also 1962 and 1963 Post Cereal. I think too all the Kahn's issues. Supports, somewhat, the Topps were assholes about it theory.