My hat is off to 1967 for the bright color palette that reminds me of Kodachrome which itself has proven so easy to love. 1966, by comparison, looks drab and muddy with poor flesh tones. The players in 67 look to have blood in their veins. Also appreciate any photos taken at spring training right after wind sprints. Nothing like a sweat soaked, gasping closeup. Fred Gladding comes to mind.
The photo quality in 67 is higher than most of the 60s, although 65 is good, and the overall quality control of the printing process is good. In my experience 67 had few mis-cuts and centering problems and the images are free of dust, dirt, smears, printer lines and other crap that plagues other years like 1961. (did they ever clean the printing presses and plates that year?) 69 had lots of miscuts.
68 is tough to like, although the color quality is close to 67 the burlap border is big and fugly. I'd like to know how they chose that. If that was the best idea they had I wonder what they rejected.
The layout for the 63s works for me. Big Photo, small photo, bright colors that go to the edges at the bottom, easy to read card backs. I really like them/
Speaking of card backs, 61's are the worst. What joker thought that tiny black on green statistics was a good idea. I need a magnifying glass to read them.
|