Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Worst Topps set for photos? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=358292)

Balticfox 02-22-2025 02:17 PM

I'm opposed to Reggie Jackson in a New York Yankees uniform.

:mad:

D. Bergin 02-22-2025 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2498411)
I'm opposed to Reggie Jackson in a New York Yankees uniform.

:mad:

That's Ok. I'm opposed to him in an Angels uniform. ;)

Would love to have a copy of his 1977 Topps in an Orioles uniform though. His Yankees card for that year is pretty atrocious to.

rats60 02-22-2025 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2498411)
I'm opposed to Reggie Jackson in a New York Yankees uniform.

:mad:

Agree. His 1974 Topps is my favorite.

KJA 02-22-2025 04:34 PM

1990 Topps I always thought was pretty boring when it came to the photography.

JollyElm 02-22-2025 05:35 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Burger King saved the day for us kids in the summer of '77 by capturing Reg in his Yankees uniform.
Everyone was driving their moms bananas, begging them to bring us to BK to chow down a Whopper and try to land a REG-GIE instead of a (no offense) Fran Healy!!!!

Phenomenal times!! Seems like yesterday.

Attachment 652388

D. Bergin 02-22-2025 05:38 PM

Ah, forgot about the BK version. Much better then the standard Topps issue with the uncanny valley looking batting helmet.


https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/...Q1WPL._AC_.jpg

Gary Dunaier 03-02-2025 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye (Post 2497315)
I thought the 1958 Topps set was pretty lame

I'm not a fan of the '58 Topps because of the solid backgrounds. I've always wondered if Topps went this way to avoid having photos with Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds in the background, since that was the first year the Dodgers and Giants were in California.

Balticfox 03-02-2025 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier (Post 2500745)
I'm not a fan of the '58 Topps because of the solid backgrounds.

The brightly coloured solid backgrounds are precisely what I like about the 1958 cards! The set has far too many headshots though especially considering that there's mega room on the card for full body shots.

:(

Balticfox 03-05-2025 05:16 PM

Interesting about full photographic backgrounds and Topps cards. The 1957 Topps Baseball set was the first Topps sport card release with photo backgrounds. Then beginning in 1959 every Topps Baseball card set had the full photo background.

But this was unique to Topps Baseball issues. The Topps Football and Hockey sets all featured design art backgrounds. Some examples from my collection:

1959

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...1f07df340a.jpg

1960

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...6b1f842738.png

1963

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...10055a8474.png

1958-59

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...34a705236a.jpg

1959-60

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...3a4ee5530e.jpg

1960-61

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...5f97368aab.jpg

The first O-Pee-Chee/Topps Hockey cards featuring full photo backgrounds were the 1973-74 ones. And just like the 1973 Topps Baseball, they were absolutely dreadful. The Hockey cards actually continued to be dreadful for the next decade or so.

:(

timn1 03-08-2025 12:52 PM

agree - 1957 vs 1958
 
Long ago I did a run of Topps sets all the way back to 1956, but I could never bear to spend money on the 1958s - I kept putting it off. And then I started selling my sets to make money for prewar cards, and never did do it. On the other hand, The 1957 set is the only one I have always kept because it's so beautiful.

The comedown in Topps quality between these two years was horrendous!


Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B (Post 2497192)
It's refreshing to see that I'm not alone in not particularly caring for the '58's. The backgrounds in the '57's are so much of what made that set both perfectly of its era yet timeless to collect. The colors pop magnificently and have aged so nicely over the decades. And the backgrounds work so well with the jerseys.


Balticfox 03-14-2025 10:36 AM

In further defence of the 1958 cards, they have the most whimsical and thus the best backs of any Topps Baseball set:

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...b6deb771f3.png

Plus the set includes the single best shot of one of my very favourite players:

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...f47744542b.png

:cool:

Balticfox 03-14-2025 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timn1 (Post 2501896)
The 1957 set is the only one I have always kept because it's so beautiful.

I used to think that the 1957 set was rather boring because of the uninteresting design but I agree that it's chock full of fabulous player pics. Here are the last three cards I picked up from the set:

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...3d6bdd8e27.png

And of course the Lucky Penny card (without which no 1957 Topps Baseball set is complete) takes the 1957 set over the top!

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...6e5574284e.jpg (Sadly not mine.)

;)

ALR-bishop 03-14-2025 11:38 AM

5 Attachment(s)
And a Lucky Penny to go with the card :). And other inserts

perezfan 03-14-2025 12:04 PM

Here's another vote for 1958 being the worst set in terms of aesthetics. Far too many boring head-shots and photos that all look the same. There are a few exceptions, but the vast majority of the '58 set is a snooze-fest.

BillyCoxDodgers3B 03-14-2025 12:43 PM

Someone mentioned the recycled head shots from 1954-56. Yes, that gets old in a hurry, but the action shots on the '56s are a bit of a saving grace most of the time. Definitely my favorite of those three years. That was the only vintage set I went after as a youngster, and I'm sure glad I did it when things were still cheap. Although I haven't collected unsigned cards in about 35 years, I will die with those '56s. I rarely look at them, but like knowing they're there. I'd have gone after the '57s as well, but had a kid-sized budget and just happened to land face first into the '56 Mantle via a trade, so the decision was almost made for me by that lone acquisition.

Balticfox 03-15-2025 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2503134)
And a Lucky Penny to go with the card :). And other inserts

Wow! A 1957 Baseball salesman's sample card! But why did the crew at PSA merely authenticate it without putting a number on the label?

And I love the actual Bazooka-Blony Lucky Penny and all the unnumbered insert cards! I actually need two Lucky Pennies as well as two "Lucky Penny"cards since these were also distributed with the Robin Hood cards in 1957 and I have a full set of these.

And all those insert cards! Do you know how many different insert cards were distributed in 1957 Baseball packs?

:confused:

johnts1 10-01-2025 11:56 AM

Although I love the '73 Bench card. I love his '76 as well, and which ruled supreme, what's up with Rose's FIRST action card? Looks like a foul popup at a half empty Candlestick Park.

Yoda 10-01-2025 01:13 PM

How about prewar? I personally abhor the Big Head set. Poorly drawn cartoons gone bad.

Chris-Counts 10-01-2025 07:45 PM

Once Topps started using game shots in 1971, they got really lazy. They were already heading down that path around 1960, when the endless capless head shots start appearing. Due to expansion, the 1961 and 1969 sets have a ton of these images.

commishbob 10-01-2025 08:36 PM

The '58 set gets a lot of abuse, much of it deserved. But it holds a special place in my heart as those colorful rectangles were the first cards I laid eyes on. A kid from down the street in my Long Island neighborhood showed up one day with a small handful of them, and I was mesmerized. I remember that moment all these decades later, and it led directly to this lifelong obsession. I built it, I blogged it, I love it!

Long live the Topps '58 set!

Balticfox 10-01-2025 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B (Post 2497057)
I've taken flak about it over the years, but I've always said pretty much the above about the Stones. In the 60's, they were something else; always trying new ideas and going so many different directions at the same time. Having to compete with the Beatles (like everybody else) likely forced them to bring their "A" game. Then, the 70's rolled around. For me, their material sounds too similar after the 1960's. Too many drugs and less creative juices/effort. But that's just my perception; it's neither right or wrong. The band is known for its age-defying longevity, but I really wonder what sort of extra reverence they may have been afforded if they had met their end after, say, Altamont and never reunited. 60's Stones were a thing of strange beauty.

Here's another one of my favourite Stones' photos from the 1960's:

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...db63cf338a.jpg

:cool:

Balticfox 10-01-2025 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris-Counts (Post 2541685)
Once Topps started using game shots in 1971, they got really lazy. They were already heading down that path around 1960, when the endless capless head shots start appearing. Due to expansion, the 1961 and 1969 sets have a ton of these images.

Agreed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by commishbob (Post 2541690)
The '58 set gets a lot of abuse, much of it deserved. But it holds a special place in my heart as those colorful rectangles were the first cards I laid eyes on. A kid from down the street in my Long Island neighborhood showed up one day with a small handful of them, and I was mesmerized. I remember that moment all these decades later, and it led directly to this lifelong obsession. I built it, I blogged it, I love it!

Yes! That's what collecting is all about for me as well.

:cool:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:48 AM.