1972 Milton Bradley Baseball Forum

Most 1969 and 1972 Milton Bradley cards have no indication, front or back, of any team name, logo, etc. Those that do are very subtle (like the Cubs stripes showing in Ernie Banks' uniform). Yet, a team name has been assigned to every player, apparently just based on whatever team the player actually was with at the time, as opposed to anything on the card itself. That would seem to go against the site guidelines for team names - or at least is not supported by them.

Here's an example: Richie Allen has the same front in the 1969 and 1972 sets -- a basic, logoless black-and-white photo that could be of just about any team. The back, like all of the other cards in the set, just has game piece information. Yet in the 1969 set, he's labeled on this site as a Phillie, and in the 1972 set as a White Sock. How can the same card have two different team designations?

Am I missing something, or should each player have "No Team" in his listing?

"No Team" would be my vote.

These game pieces weren't meant to have a team associated with them. That way the game would never become outdated.  If we follow the guidelines they should be "No Team".

I wish the team name would stay, so team collectors would have a reason to collect the ones of their team

mark

As a team collector myself, I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time, in my case, since they use the same photo for Dick Allen in both years, and he was with the Phillies when the first photo was taken, should he also have Phillies listed as rthe team for the second one, even though he wasn't with the Phillies at the time of that release?

Unfortunately, because of situations like that, this set really shouldn't have the teams listed.

Team designations shouldn’t matter to a team collector, you know who “belongs “. My 72 Topps Tom Haller IA is in my dodger book because the photo is clearly an action shot of him in Dodger blue.  I say no team designations and make your own rules

My concern in losing the team designations is not the veteran collector that is familiar with the players of the era, but instead the younger or less experienced collector that may not have on their radar if no team designations exist.

Mark 

I'm with Mark on this. These cards are from their playing days, not college or any other gimmick. Collectors want to associate them to a team, whether it be the team they follow or another. 

Why does it matter to someone if the team is designated? If it shows up in the team list of cards and they don't want it, then just don't mark it as a want. I wish people quit looking for these types of things just to mess up other people's collections.

I agree with the “No Team” voters

I had the 1969 game as a kid, but not the 1972 game.  I believe the lack of team logos on the cards was probably more a licensing issue rather than anything else.  Inside the game was a pamphlet that listed all the teams with players associated with that team.  I remember thinking as a kid, why is Luis Aparicio pictured in an Orioles style uniform, when he hadn't played for them for several years.

I couldn't find the pamphlet, but eBay seller blackhorsegames has a complete game for sale currently and one of the photos shows the pamphlet with team designations.  I assume 1972 might have had the same type pamphlet.  The 1970 game was smaller and mostly All-Stars.