and the ugly

[Matthew80]

The ugliest Topps issue among postwar years?

I'm having a difficult time choosing between '69, '70 and '76. I guess I'll go with '70.

The gray borders are just so blah, they can't be overlooked. The lack of genuine action shots doesn't help, either.

[savedfrommyspokes]

For me it is the 73s as they are too plain.

[39special]

I'd say either '73 or '74.

[RobertGT]

1973 by FAR.

Clearly Topps was cutting corners. Combine that with horrible photography (i.e. a picture of a guy sliding into second - looks like it was taken from 300 feet away; shadows across players faces, etc); uninspired design, weak quality control and flimsy card stock and viola! - you have the worst issue ever produced by Topps.

[novakjr]

Based solely on design, I always though 1986 was terrible. Although that may be compounded by the fact that it's pretty much the most worthless set topps ever produced. Not a single notable rookie past Fielder.. If you lump in the Traded set, then I guess it becomes a somewhat noteworthy year for rookies.

All that aside, '73 was wrong on so many more levels, as Robert stated..

Design only-'86
Complete and total failure on almost every level of production-'73
Total worthlessness-'86

[Robextend]

I always thought '78 was pretty ugly.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I agree that the 1986 set sucked. I have always hated that set and not just for the fact that it's worthless, but just because the design was terrible. As a kid I couldn't wait for the 1987 set to come out so I woudn't be picking up the 86s anymore.

As far the 70's sets, I like all of them.

Thanks,

AndyH

[VinTX]

I can't really say that I think any of them are really UGLY per se. There are certainly some that are kind of boring and/or dull...but ugly? nah...

[Gr8Beldini]

I always assumed "Postwar Years" meant 1947 through 1980, so the hideous 1982 and 1986 sets shouldn't count.

I think that 1976 is one of the nicer sets in terms of design and photography. It gets no love because of the lack of decent rookie cards. Conversely, 1975 is pretty ugly with terrible photography (check to see how many shadows cover players' faces - Seaver, Palmer to name two) but everyone loves '75 because of the great RC's included. For my 2 cents the ugliest postwar sets are 1959, 1968, 1974, 1975, 1979 and 1980.

[Matthew80]

I can't really say that I think any of them are really UGLY per se. There are certainly some that are kind of boring and/or dull...but ugly? nah...

+1. I stand corrected...

'86 did stink, and heavily, although I was focusing my thinking on 52-79.

I always thought the '73 action shots were okay, and the white borders with the little silhouette, IMO, are much better than some of the others.

[SMPEP]

Wow. Guess I'm the minority opinion here. I actually like 1973 the BEST of any set in the 1970s. The 1973 Aaron card inparticular is a favorite of mine. That was the set that made me decide to start collecting actually.

My worst set would be that ugly monstrosity .... 1972.

Cheers,
Patrick

[howard38]

.

[paul]

No discussion of ugly sets would be complete without mentioning the 1990 Topps set. Yuck.

[SMPEP]

Howard - I considered 1975 too, but at least I liked the look of the All Star cards in that year. Can't think of one single card in the 1972 set that I like the look of. (Okay now that I say it - I do like the Clemente card - but that's the only one. So for me that gives 1975 an edge over 1972.)

Cheers,
Patrick

[almostdone]

50's none
60's 1968
70's tie 1972 and 1975
80's 1987 (bad attempt of 62 remake)
90's 1990
Drew

[Harliduck]

1950's - If I had to pick one - 58's
1960's - Again, love them all, but - 61's
1970's - 72, 79
1980's - 89
1990's - 90


I also love the 73's...great set.

[hangman62]

Never cared too much for - 1958 T and 1976 T

[4k6]

Another vote for 1972 Topps

Over the top, gaudy, arch-design as if the emphasis is on the background rather than the actual photo. And then the posed shots of players wearing their warm-up jackets (Tom Seaver, Ron Santo...), the not so active "In Action" shots (Hank Aaron casually jogging the bases), the Boyhood Photos, and the flat out bizarre Award cards.

But I still like the set.

[tonyo]

My Least favorite:

1950's : 58, runner up 59
1960's : 68, runner up 60
1970's : 70, runner up 79

My most Favorite:

1950's : 55, runner up 57
1960's : 67, runner up 69
1970's : 73, runner up 72. I actually like all the 70's especially 71 thru 78. 72 is sentimental since that is the first year I collected as a kid.

I genuinely like 73's at least as much as any 70's set. Simple design, nice font, cool icons for positions, even the pitcher's icons differentiated LHP and RHP. Plus alot of the photography is really cool imo. I guess that is the first year topps included actual action photos as the main card for many players in the set. Love the Clemente in the 73's as well. Thought it was a fitting shot with his face in shadows.

[stlcardsfan]

I'd vote for 68 as pretty darn ugly. The wood grain border (which varies throughout the set) and all the hatless head shots make it pretty brutal.

Count me in on a big fan of the 73 set.

[jdeptula]

1950's : 57 if I had to pick one, though I pretty much like them all

1960's : 69 - pink backs (!!!) and almost identical to 67 on the fronts
60 - alternating colors on the letters on the front are blinding

1970's : 72, 73, 75 - can't decide which one I hate the most. Probably 72

[skelly]

As far as the 70's sets go, I really have an issue with the back's on the 76 & 79 sets being hard to read due to the dark reverse. Who cares you say, but remember, the stats on the back were important in the pre-internet days, and I consider the backs to basically be more important than a cards front in some ways. Personally I think the 69, 70, 73, 75 and 78 have the best backs from that era. As far as the fronts go, I actually like all the sets from the 70's.