Thursday, June 18, 2020

revisionist history

anybody else notice that topps photoshopped chief wahoo out of their 2019 sets?

to their credit, topps moved to the block c logo for indian cards in 2017 which was ahead of mlb's schedule for the retirement of the offensive logo, but you could still find chief wahoo in the card images.  the indians were allowed to use chief wahoo through the 2018 season, which they did, primarily through both a sleeve patch and one of their alternate hats.

i didn't really notice until i saw this 2019 topps insert card

it's very likely that the lindor photo is legit - the batting helmets in 2018 had the block c and i can see something on his left sleeve where the patch would be - but roberto alomar's helmet is a different story.  alomar never wore the block c, and so topps has replaced chief wahoo with the team's current logo.

further investigation shows that topps was selecting photos (even for bob feller cards) that didn't use the chief wahoo logo on caps, or that didn't show the sleeve patch.  i did find one card that had chief wahoo on it, but only one, and it was one of those commemorative medallion cards. the truth is that topps pretty much photoshopped chief wahoo out of existence.  if you look through getty images and compare to the cards that were issued, it becomes obvious. case in point, here's jose ramirez's 2019 topps card
no wahoo on the left sleeve.  now here's a getty images photo that is from the same at bat.
now with wahoo.  my guess is that topps' licensing agreement included the lack of use of the logo in 2019, but maybe they did this because there was no reason not to.

i have a friend who is a big fan of the cleveland indians. he has used every cliched excuse and provided legion explanations for why the team name should not be changed. he also feels strongly that there was nothing wrong with the chief wahoo logo.  personally, i don't see how one could not understand the issues with that logo, if not the name itself, and i was happy when it was announced that chief wahoo was being retired by the team.  it's easy for me to be critical given that this isn't "my" team, but i think the logo issue transcends simple fandom. even jim thome asked to be featured in the block 'c' cap on his hall of fame plaque, even though it wasn't the logo during his tenure with the team.  my friend loves thome, but thought this was an unnecessary move.

it will be interesting to see how topps addresses this in the future. will they modify any 1952 topps bob feller reprint cards or ignore them altogether?

on a lighter note, here's another card from the same insert series that caught my eye.
the photo used for roger maris comes from an old-timer game (my guess is 1981 based on the black armband on maris' sleeve). the card made me think of those cards in the 1994 upper deck all-time heroes set that featured a bunch of stars from yesteryear playing in an old-timers game sponsored by upper deck. i wish there would be an old-timer game insert set issued someday (using photos from the past, preferably), similar to the first pitch inserts topps put out a few years ago. i'd be all in for that set, even if there were some logos photoshopped out.

5 comments:

  1. This is my journalism background talking but it's not cool to erase and alter photos. I know Topps has done this for ages, but it's why I bring it up so often when they do it. It's creating lies within the photo.

    But I have no issue with getting rid of the Wahoo logo. Times change and whether there was a legitimate reason for using it at one point, that time is gone so arguing for it does seem like a waste of time.

    That said, Topps could have chosen photos without the logo showing instead of playing god with the picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never really thought about altering photos as creating lies... but it's totally true and obviously not cool. As for MLB and Cleveland deciding to no longer use Chief Wahoo as their logo, I tip my cap to them. I'm a big fan of nostalgia and there was a time when I thought that the Cleveland Indians hat was one of the coolest out there. But at the time, I wasn't thinking about how it could be offensive. Now that I know... I'm glad to see it go.

      Delete
  2. Great eye, Jim. I'll reserve my comments regarding Chief Wahoo for now, but let's just say I did enjoy my only visit to Insurance Company field on the Friday night during the National bb card convention a few summers ago. What I am very curious about is the what the folks sitting around the table at Topps these days are debating in regards to the potential uniform 'advertisements' that may be a part of the solution in getting the players on the field in what remains of 2020. Do they photoshop 'out' an advertisement that is a direct competitor (hello Panini opportunity) to themselves? Or do they allow something completely inane like 'Chico's Bail Bonds' if it somehow suits them? Let's just hope this talk gets negotiated away and never surfaces again!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I noticed Topps trying to eliminate Chief Wahoo in last year's Archives set, but it was kind of hal-assed: https://diamond-jesters.blogspot.com/2019/10/archives-indians-and-awkward-seperation.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. I didn't notice this, good eye! I'm not sure how I feel about Topps messing with older photos but I'm 100 percent in support of the name change, and if I hear another white person try to argue about how it's not offensive, I'm gonna lose my mind. (Same goes for Atlanta, too.)

    ReplyDelete