Worst Topps set for photos?

[darkhorse9]

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

Agree. Willie Mays wore his hat since 1952, but apparently lost it in 1961.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

I hear that. Here's '61 in a nutshell:

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

I don't like the 1961 Topps set at all. Not only are the player shots bad, but the fundamental design is boring. The only reason I'm willing to even consider any of the cards for my present day collection is that the cards form part of my childhood card collecting memories.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

96/587 = 16.4%. 120/664 = 18.1%. Add that there are also about 100 players whose cards are reused photos and that is why 1969 is considered worse.