Worst looking set of all time

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Since we have the favorite post war thread going how about we also a worst looking set of all time.<br /><br />I am going with the 1990 Topps set as this set answered the question, "how bad can you make cards look." It is also my set of choice for sighting in a rifle.<br /><br />Honorary metion is the 1940 Play Ball set. Compared to 1939 and 1941 this set is extremely unappealing to the eye.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kyle</b><p>1976 Shakey's Pizza.... ugly.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>pete</b><p>i'll have to get back but what if we try and post a picture as well (not of every card in the set though) might be hard since if its the worst, would we own any of them?<br />pete-

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>Like the Topps Cracker Jacks, for instance, or the T-206's. I appreciate the effort, and I think it would be cool if Topps made lithographic cards of modern players, but man, their modern takes on the vintage stuff just come across as ugly to me.<br /><br />Vintage wise, the W560's are damn ugly.<br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al Crisafulli</b><p>Easy.<br /><br />1943 M.P. & Co.<br /><br />Horrible-looking cartoon drawings that don't even remotely resemble the player depicted. Handwritten on the face of the card is the player's name - sometimes the artist ran out of room and scrunched the last few letters of the name together, so it would fit in the cartoon baseball where it was supposed to appear. Players weren't even depicted in the proper uniforms (red and white Yankee uniforms?). The printing registration was horrendous, the back descriptions poorly written, and because the cards were issued in strips that were mostly torn by children, the edges of the cards are almost always tattered.<br /><br />To make matters worse, the company used the SAME artwork again in 1949, issuing another set of 24 cards, but changed many of the players! Therefore, the drawing of the player used in the 1943 set for Jimmie Foxx was used again in 1949 for Ralph Kiner. The drawing of the player in the 1943 set for Mel Ott became Alvin Dark in 1949.<br /><br />Horrendous. I love them dearly.<br /><br />-Al<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1137094955.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p><img src="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w9316/w9316.jpg"><br /><br />They don't show up often though. Very odd 4 digit designation.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>E91s are the worst I've seen.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p> W560's get my vote.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jamie</b><p>it took years of technology to create the ugliest set of all time. behold, the etch a sketch card!<br /><br /><img src="http://i3.ebayimg.com/03/i/05/20/b4/1e_1.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>W565 Hands down. Looks like a kid got a hold of some scissors, and a typewriter and created his own set...<br /><img src="http://www.geocities.com/rhettmatthew_37/simmonsw565.JPG"><br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Grotesque images, terrible graphics, lousy stock, these sets have it all

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brett</b><p>those "W" Strip cards are just ugly.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>I like some of them. A few of them stumbled into some pretty cool graphic schemes. Some of them are so ugly, they're compelling. Like a train wreck. I like to display mine with my V100's and my Cuban photographic cards. The 20's were excellent for a wide variety of card types. Hmm, maybe that's another thread, if you could only pick one decade to collect cards from, whcih would it be? I think I'd take the 20's, but it would be a tough choice.<br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Mc</b><p>My vote goes to Tattoo Orbit self developers.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>The 1923 sepia tone "shoulderless" cards look bad...I would say the guy looks pretty upbeat for missing his arms...<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1137102888.JPG"><br />This one also makes Eddie look like my grandpa on his sailboat...would you like a whiskey sir? <br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1137104305.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>First you take some vomit, mix in some baby poop, a bad acid trip, dried blood, and plant pulp. Smear around bably cropped, blurry, and boring photos of ball players and glue to recycled snot green cardboard and you have 1990 Topps.<br /><br />Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>As far as I'm concerned, even the ugliest of vintage cards — 1943 MP & Co., 1938 Goudey and strip cards in general — can't compare with modern cards for bad design. After reading this thread, I looked up 1990 Topps cards, which several members of this board singled out for ugliness. Yes, they are truly ugly, but not significantly more so than literally dozens of modern sets. They kind of remind me of 1975 Topps, a benchmark in ugliness, bad design and unbearable color combinations. I'm betting the ugliest set hasn't even been invented yet. Now that the pool of modern card manafacturers is rapidly dwindling, my guess is that Topps will put even less effort into creating attractive cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>1990 Donruss is a close second to the Topps. Vintagewise, I agree with all of the above mentioned. I also am not fond of the 1950 Callahans. 1949 Leaf is a little ugly too.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>some nem 48 Leafs look pretty ugly.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>Any strip card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>and haven't followed modern for awhile, go to Ebay search, with a barf bag, and type in "1988 Donruss". Drink a beer, then come back to this site before the damage becomes permanent.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>Fits right in as one of the least attractive modern baseball sets.<br /><br />And those yellow borders just accentuate that problem

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>E91.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><img src="http://i19.ebayimg.com/04/i/05/e8/b9/bf_3.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>1916 Big Head set<br />