Master Index of Archived Threads
Is Shea?
Edgy MD Dec 02 2013 08:02 AM |
Looking at this card and wondering...
|
Benjamin Grimm Dec 02 2013 08:20 AM Re: Is Shea? |
For a moment I wondered why a Detroit Tiger was at Shea, but then remembered that it was the home of the Yankees for two years back then.
|
Edgy MD Dec 02 2013 08:24 AM Re: Is Shea? |
Which kind of gives Shea an edge, I think.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 02 2013 11:21 AM Re: Is Shea? |
Topps is/was based in New York. Presumably, so were most experienced photogs they used, right? Makes sense that they'd try and catch everyone in one place, and minimize expenses.
|
seawolf17 Dec 02 2013 11:23 AM Re: Is Shea? |
I've always maintained that the overwhelming majority of card photos from that era were taken in New York and Chicago.
|
batmagadanleadoff Dec 02 2013 11:31 AM Re: Is Shea? |
|
Yes. But did it matter? Other than two seasons, Topps wasn't going to get any pics of American Leaguers at Shea.
|
batmagadanleadoff Dec 02 2013 11:32 AM Re: Is Shea? |
|
NY and the Bay Area (SF/Oak)
|
Edgy MD Dec 02 2013 11:43 AM Re: Is Shea? |
An advantage Yankee Stadia II has is that there were more teams in the AL from 1977 to 1993. The disadvantage is that Shea spans YS I and II and covers both leagues the two years in between.
|
Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 02 2013 01:58 PM Re: Is Shea? |
The company shot a lot in spring training, too, where you could get bunches of teams.
|
batmagadanleadoff Dec 02 2013 04:06 PM Re: Is Shea? |
Prior to interleague play, and not including the 1974 and '75 seasons, I don't think Shea had an edge over YS. It's true that Topps couldn't photograph NL players in YS -- but that advantage was offset by the fact that Topps couldn't photograph AL players at Shea. Isn't this obvious? Does this need to even be posted? And then, as Edgy pointed out, after the '76 season, the AL would have a team edge over the NL that would last until '93. But to be sure, someone should count the cards. What era? I dunno. Let's go '70's. Because that's when I collected cards more than ever.
|
Zvon Dec 02 2013 10:04 PM Re: Is Shea? |
Yea, why don't we start a thread and whenever we come across a Shea backround card we'll collect it in the thread. Don't even have to worry about decade, just gather em up, sort em out later. That be kool.
|
Zvon Jul 05 2014 12:22 PM Re: Is Shea? |
I'll start:
|
Zvon Jul 05 2014 03:19 PM Re: Is Shea? |
Two more.
|
batmagadanleadoff Jul 06 2014 12:20 PM Re: Is Shea? |
These might be the first Topps base set cards to use photographs taken at Shea.
|
Zvon Jul 06 2014 03:45 PM Re: Is Shea? |
Is that the old Polo Grounds beer sign behind Dillon?
|
batmagadanleadoff Jul 06 2014 04:16 PM Re: Is Shea? |
||
Dillon's '64 rookie card photo was shot at the Polo Grounds. But a part of the Shea scoreboard is visible in Locke's photo. Fisher's gotta be in a Met uniform. Pinstripes at Shea on a 1970 card = Mets uniform.
|
MFS62 Jul 06 2014 05:26 PM Re: Is Shea? |
Its weird seeing the name Jerry Hinsley.
|
Zvon Jul 06 2014 05:34 PM Re: Is Shea? |
|
Well that fact that he's at Shea knocks the White Sox theory out of the water, agreed. But is that the off color outfield wall from early '67? On the card you display it looks a little darker. I'll check a few more copies.
|
Zvon Jul 06 2014 05:48 PM Re: Is Shea? |
|
batmagadanleadoff Jul 06 2014 06:13 PM Re: Is Shea? |
|
How would you even be able to tell? That sliver of green just over Fisher's right shoulder -- that's padding, right? Thus it's not even a clue -- right? Or am I missing something?
|
Zvon Jul 06 2014 09:25 PM Re: Is Shea? |
||
Padding? I see the grass, the warning track, and a blurred out bullpen (plexi-glass sections) and a lil bit of OF wall. And beyond that the silhouette of the Shea stands.
|
G-Fafif Jul 07 2014 01:16 AM Re: Is Shea? |
It's also possible Jack Fisher wandered into Shea in a fugue state in 1969, not knowing what uniform, cap or stadium he was in and the Topps photographer just happened to snap him looking totally lost.
|