Roberto Clemente Signature "Bob"

[cgjackson222]

Not from Clemente's mouth, but his friend Osvaldo Gil says in this video that Roberto Clemente didn't want to be called Bob at 20:38: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwGfbgg88fY

[frankbmd]

Calling him Bobbyo should satisfy both sides.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not from Clemente's mouth, but his friend Osvaldo Gil says in this video that Roberto Clemente didn't want to be called Bob at 20:38: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwGfbgg88fY

This is a piece of actual evidence.

~Ten seconds before it, Dick Groat calls him Bobby.

For: Osvaldo Gil says in this documentary that he corrected people who called him Bob or Bobby to Roberto.

Against: Similar testimony of several teammates and Pirates, Bartirome's foremost. That he sometimes signed his name as Bob. That he continued to give Topps his rights for almost nothing even as they called him Bob, as many people did.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is a piece of actual evidence.

~Ten seconds before it, Dick Groat calls him Bobby.

For: Osvaldo Gil says in this documentary that he corrected people who called him Bob or Bobby to Roberto.

Against: Similar testimony of several teammates and Pirates, Bartirome's foremost. That he sometimes signed his name as Bob. That he continued to give Topps his rights for almost nothing even as they called him Bob, as many people did.

It could be he was OK with people with whom he was close calling him Bob or Bobby but not with the world in general. I would get that if it was true. My family always called me Pete but I never went by that otherwise.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It could be he was OK with people with whom he was close calling him Bob or Bobby but not with the world in general. I would get that if it was true. My family always called me Pete but I never went by that otherwise.

Yes, this point has been made several times. I guess Greg isn't buying it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yes, this point has been made several times. I guess Greg isn't buying it.

And if it really was his common and acceptable nickname, why didn't other companies use it, and why did Topps change it back in 1970?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And if it really was his common and acceptable nickname, why didn't other companies use it, and why did Topps change it back in 1970?

Why did they change it to Bob in 1957 in the first place? His name is Roberto on his 1955 and 1956 Topps cards, why change it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Why did they change it to Bob in 1957 in the first place? His name is Roberto on his 1955 and 1956 Topps cards, why change it?

Unless Topps has some sort of documentation of both changes in their archives, we will never know.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It could be he was OK with people with whom he was close calling him Bob or Bobby but not with the world in general. I would get that if it was true. My family always called me Pete but I never went by that otherwise.

It very well may be. I just don't know why we would ignore evidence to assume that. That doesn't make sense. Gil's claim is not this, that he liked one name from friends and another from the public. He says Roberto corrected "everyone". Other testimonies don't seem to mesh with this, the only piece of evidence found in favor of the general narrative.

Again, just go with evidence. That's it.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yes, this point has been made several times. I guess Greg isn't buying it.

This has increasingly become a part of the Clemente legend as time has passed; I would guess because it fits with our cultural perspective in 2023 but I won't claim to know others thoughts without direct evidence. I buy whatever evidence shows, not whatever people say or like. I know that evidence, then conclusion, instead of the reverse, is a generally unpopular concept on the board.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

It very well may be. I just don't know why we would ignore evidence to assume that. That doesn't make sense. Gil's claim is not this, that he liked one name from friends and another from the public. He says Roberto corrected "everyone". Other testimonies don't seem to mesh with this, the only piece of evidence found in favor of the general narrative.

Again, just go with evidence. That's it.




This has increasingly become a part of the Clemente legend as time has passed; I would guess because it fits with our cultural perspective in 2023 but I won't claim to know others thoughts without direct evidence. I buy whatever evidence shows, not whatever people say or like. I know that evidence, then conclusion, instead of the reverse, is a generally unpopular concept on the board.

You are biased just like every human. You just like to hide it in your talk about Aristotle, and reason. If I had a nickel for every time you used the phrase "Any claim to fact should have an evidentiary basis" while at the same time showing your biases, I could afford a '52 Mantle .

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You are biased just like every human. You just like to hide it in your talk about Aristotle, and reason. If I had a nickel for every time you used the phrase "Any claim to fact should have an evidentiary basis" while at the same time showing your biases, I could afford a '52 Mantle rookie.

Obviously every person has a bias - I have many of them. I claim we should separate statements of my opinions from claims to actual fact. I claim that we should provide evidence for a claim to fact. Feel free to point out a claim to fact here that is incorrect.

I think that claims to fact should be built on evidence, and that the research should be before the conclusion. You know, very basic logic of the middle school variety. I know that’s unpopular with people that prefer to not have an evidentiary basis or have to ascertain facts. I have never noticed a correlation between being correct and ignoring an evidentiary basis. If my biased dumb ass can handle basic logic, I’m sure you brilliant gentleman may do so as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me, the 1970 change -- on its face -- is at least some evidence supporting the general narrative.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And here's another issuer from 1963 calling him Roberto.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/11572172299...Bk9SR4DPyZmAYg

[nolemmings]

Not taking sides here, but I note that Clemente's 1967 Topps card has a facsimile signature of "Bob". Assuming it was taken from an actual handwritten exemplar, it would seem he had signed in this way. I suppose it could be fake or that Topps scoured all over to find a "Bob" sig to reproduce. I could not find such usage in any of his other cards, including Kahn's, Kellogg's and a couple of local issues. Maybe our friends from the autograph side can shed some light on how frequently Clemente signed as "Bob".

[packs]

Hate to burst the bubble in the room but in my opinion I see a rushed and squished Roberto and not the "Bob" everyone's talking about. Look at the first letter of the signature. It looks just like the facsimile R for Roberto's signature which leads me to believe it is an R and not a B.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Hate to burst the bubble in the room but in my opinion I see a rushed and squished Roberto and not the "Bob" everyone's talking about. Look at the first letter of the signature. It looks just like the facsimile R for Roberto's signature which leads me to believe it is an R and not a B.

But it very clearly cuts off after "b." So you think he signed it "Rob" Clemente? Very confusing.

Speaking of his facsimile sigs, what's going on with 1959?