Worst Topps set for photos?
 

Is there a consensus on which set has the worst collection of player images? This, the Clemente, and many others makes me think 1973 might be the worst looking set of the bunch. Out of focus, dark, far away -- many look like zero effort was put into it.

Agree .. 1973

Easily 73 Topps. It’s much like popular music that took inspiration from the 60s (like 72 Topps) but once heavy drugs took over it became unfocused and lazy. Perhaps that’s a bit too deep but the production values were awful.

You're on to something with that assessment. At the same time, I love that set, as do so many others. If you like (admittedly grainy) action shots with lots of other players on the cards, this one is for you! The multi-player RCs are pretty awesome, though.

Funny, 1973 Topps actually has some of my favorite photos because of how unique they are. How often do you get to see scenes like this on a card? They might not be great likenesses - but it's fun seeing different aspects of the game. Much more interesting than some more recent sets which fall into ruts of boredom in which every hitter is shown hitting, every pitcher is shown pitching - and because of how blurry the backgrounds are and how careful the editing is, you can never see the crowd, the dugout, the umpires, random cars in a parking lot...

If all you care about seeing is the player's face (which is a valid attitude) then 1973 is not for you - but if you have more leeway...

(Photos taken from tcdb.com)

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.

73 rocks!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...a535aacbad.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...8f9513b98b.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b5dd8af841.jpg

1961, the year of bad, rushed capless portraits. 1973 at least tried something new but mostly failed.

69 is up there too. Lots of repeat images from earlier sets.

Can't locate the thread I did a long time ago about how cool the 1973 Topps set was with all of the (far from typically used) in-game action shots, but was able to locate the group of catchers (including airbrushed-jerseyed John Ellis playing first base) graphic I used to illustrate it...

Attachment 651639

I'd say the ones the year after an expansion. Either head shots with no hats, or hats with hideous airbrushed new teams.

There are a few to choose from.....

Butch.

Agree. look like football photos

Love this set.

Shooting a stationary target is quick, easy, and cheap. There are some good action shots, but others look like they either didn’t have the right camera equipment, didn’t know how to use it, and/or didn't bother trying again for a decent image.

although I don't think it can own worst overall, there were some gems in 1958. along with this legendary one, I'd add Yogi and Mossi.

I like 1973 because there are a bunch of the behind home plate perspective photos, which are my favorites.
https://www.heavy45s.com/JJwO2gMZm0WDKymYF3HVkA.jpg

I agree! The Rolling Stones did indeed venture in many different directions during the 1960's and stretched rock music boundaries in several.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...68e198ba88.jpg

After Sticky Fingers of 1971 though, the Stones' sound acquired a certain characteristic sameness of sound. They have nonetheless released a lot of great tunes even in the past fifty years (too many tracks for me to bother to mention actually).

;)

A photographer who worked for Topps during this era told me that Topps had strict film requirements, unfortunately that film, combined with the camera he used, wasn't so great for these action shots. Most of the photographers Topps used preferred the posed still shots.

I remember the George Scott card in 73 had a fake crowd background added in.

Now that is a gem, Andy — great framing.

Pity too since the actual card design is quite attractive.

:(

Agree with the '69 nomination. Lots of head shots either without caps or ones that have been airbrushed. And repeat images. I believe that I read somewhere that there was some contractual glitch between Topps and MLBPA in 1969 that contributed to this.

Every time I think about putting together a '69 set, I start thinking about the horrible photography and put it off.

Ditto. Ugly design and all those capless heads & airbrushed cards. Yuck.

I've always hated the '73 Topps set. In fact, this set is so ugly that Pete Rose himself refused to sign his regular issue '73 Topps card.

I vote for 1969 for the worst as well. I personally like the 1973 for the reasons stated above.

If we are including the borders in the discussion, I think the 1962 and the 1972 are tied for the worst overall. The 1972 in particular just looks horrific.

I don't think this is true. My favorite Rose auto in my collection:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...87a8841638.jpg

Lot of bad years to choose from 58, 61, 69, 73. 69 especially is a shame as I really love the design and at age 7 it was one of the first sets I bought as a kid. And then there's the all-star cards which look quite nice, but most of them have actdion shots that aren't related to the subject of the card. https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ews-all-stars/

I suspect they went from 2 and 1/4 film to 35 mm, which led to those mid 70's awful quality photos - though I like the composition of the 73's.

I agree with the '69 set being terrible in that it largely copied photos from the year before or even much earlier. That combined with all the "black caps" makes the 69 set really pointless if you have the 67 and 68 sets. There's maybe a hundred 1969 cards that are even remotely interesting.

Attachment 651711

I used to really dislike the 1973's, but they've grown on me through the years. Now I like how weird and interesting their choice of photos was. Would be even better if it wasn't for that thick white border, which I've never liked about the set either.

Absolutely love the card of Terry Crowley barreling towards Thurman Munson, with the ball just coming into the frame.

I'm going to have to go with the 1958's for worst. The horrible big heads (or little bodies) on the monochromatic backgrounds, along with the giant fonts.

The ironic thing is it was probably a nightmare for the graphic designers to put together, compared to the beautiful, yet simple 1957's that came the year before.

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.

Was the Alvarado picture taken during spring training? It must have either been then, or they had a game at an underfunded public high school, because that doesn’t look like a MLB stadium.

'73 Topps is my birth year set, and I've always been a bit conflicted by it. I only own a few cards from that set but recently it has grown on me due in part to all the weird camera angles and colors and an overall sense of self-awareness about perhaps being interested in cards from my own lifetime. I don't know if it makes sense to anyone else or not, but I have come to appreciate cards like '73 and '69 because they are so period specific. I'm a postwar collector who traditionally hasn't been interested in much of anything beyond about '65. However, even I have come to appreciate the airbrushing and some of the cheap parlor tricks used by Topps in the late 60s on into the 70s. However, I can see how collectors older than me might be completely turned off by these cards. Heck, I still have a ton of cards and sets from the 50s and 60s that I want, and I'm not certain when I'll put serious effort into the 70s.

I think 73 is prety sweet as it has a lot more action shots. The actual quailty can be a little rough/dark though? But I kinda like it. :D

69 set has a special place in my heart. First real time I actively started collecting (I was 9 years old). I LOVE that set, but understand the reasons stated here.

And I have that set completed as a master set. When doing that with that set was affordable.....

Cheers,

Butch

Not a Topps set but I never liked the photography for the 1955 Bowman set. The television design aside, I've always thought the photo choices were extremely dull. Most of the same poses repeated over and over again with different players. Seems like everyone was either in their batting stance, had just swung the bat, or had their hands on their knees. Over and over and over again.

worst set
 

After 1957, which was the best designed of the Topps' sets, it just got worser.
The guys who did the book on gum cards back in the '70s said the '58 Bob Cerv looked like a gravy boat had landed on top of his head.

Topps always had problems, the cards were too busy in the mid fifties, the same head shot would be used year after year and they were always airbrushed like a senior high school photograph.

Let's face it, they were making these things for kids. Hurdy-gurdy worked and after '57, Topps got cute with the designs.

You would think the point of the card would be to show off the player and the ball park background. The '57 of Elmer Valo has him pulling a bat out of the rack and there is a TV camera next to the dugout. It was like being there.

And what's with no hats.

I have mixed feelings about the 1958 Topps issue. I rather like the basic design of the fronts with the player photo silhouetted against the brightly coloured background with team logos at the bottom. But in general the photo selection is really lousy. Far too many head shots. The set would have been much improved with many more waist up or thigh up shots. But the 1958's have my favourite card backs for any Topps Baseball issue up to at least 1970!

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

:)

Love that Valo. He signed one for me a long time ago. Wish I could say the same about the Paul Smith with the tower.

Yes, but cards are for kids! That's what gives them their charm and makes them fun! I wouldn't collect them otherwise.

;)

I dislike any of the sets with lots of capless head shots. To me, they are the worst baseball card photos. I like all of the action photos in the 1973 set, but agree that some of the photos could have been in better focus.

You are correct! 35mm 100 ASA film is what Topps required. Not great for the action shots.

The Alvarado picture was almost certainly taken at the White Sox spring training in 1972 in Sarasota FL. There's a palm tree in the top right, and the player playing catch with Alvarado is Jorge Orta, who is shown wearing #38 on his 1973 Topps #194 card even though he wore #6 in the regular season - Phil Regan wore #38 in 1972.

Source: https://nightowlcards.blogspot.com/2...opps-luis.html

No hats were at times a fall back when players changed teams, there was epansion and when Marvin Miller made Topps blink about players' license fees :)

The background on this card is the best they could do “pre-photoshop”. The added crowd seems to be looking in the wrong direction… anyone ever see the un-altered version?

I thought the 1958 Topps set was pretty lame except for those All-Star cards. The Musial is a classic.

The 58 mays is my favorite mays topps card.

This card always makes me think of Gomer Pyle.

I always thought the 58 Clemente was a really nice card. I also like the Koufax.

Being an expansion year certainly didn't help matters, and the 'dreadshots' were over-the-top plentiful.

Here's what you find with a "1969 Topps Padres" eBay search...


Attachment 651763


Very hard for a kid to get excited about all of the old man noggins coming out of packs that year.

While I didn't see an answer to your question, here is a neat article on the card from SABR.

The Willie Mays All Star card is alright but the regular card is a boring head shot.

The Bob Clemente card is alright but the Sandy Koufax card is another boring head shot.

:(

Big smile with his hat on and the nice blue background. Not boring at all to me.

Any card made after 1971 looks super cheap and mass-produced to me. I just can't spend money on them. Just my opinion, and I know many/most will disagree.

Disagree 1000 percent. To each his own.

Another vote for the boring head shots and half-hearted efforts of 69’ here.

That said am I the only one that thinks much like the infamous Brooks Robinson Gomer Pyle impression, that Reggie is doing one hell of a Redd Foxx impression in 73’? It’s what I see every single time. :D

topps 1969
 

Following up on Darren's post above

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awrh...Nlk9tfESn6aWc-

58 followed closely by 69 for the obvious reasons already stated.

I’m going with Mark on anything past 1971. But in particular anything past 1975.

I think its pretty crazy 58 is a disliked set based on headshots, I guess people don’t like color. 1953 topps is THE headshot set. So it should be widely disliked as well, and if I remember correctly from a thread several years ago, it was many peoples least favorite set from the 50s. Which I probably agree with, not because of the headshots, because I don’t like the art style.

That 1973 Reggie card boggles my mind, I can barely tell what he is doing in that shot!

Love the color! The headshots not so much.

;)

Either throwing or having a medical emergency.

The George Scott background is a real Rorschach test (or Horror Movie) for me. Every time I look too hard at it, I see a bunch of big headed apparitions scattered throughout the crowd.

Hope I’m not the only one. :eek:

I agree with this. 1958 is bad because of too many headshots. Don't forget the "armless" cropping of Gino Cimoli. However, the Clemente is one of the best looking Topps cards ever. The Mays AS and Mantle AS are awesome, and we get the first Musial and last Williams.

1969 is bad because of too many hatless players and reused photos. However, there are plenty of nice cards in the low series, Bench, Banks, Brock, Clemente, Gibson, Kaline & F. Robinson. The last 3 series we get the 1969 spring training photos and players in uniform for the 4 expansion teams.

I dislike 1953 more because of too many headshots and the poor artwork. The Whitey Ford may be the worst. I know this will be a minority opinion, but I dislike the photos for 1952 Topps even more than 1958 and 1969. Again too many headshots and the colorizing of the black and white photos has always looked weird to me.

I mean, is there a worse card for a hall of famer than that Reggie?? People with no experience in my sophomore year of high school photo journalism class shot better action shots of gym class.

The photos are mostly portraits, but with the overall design being so ugly, i find 1974 the worst. Collected it as a kid and the passage of time has not made me the slightest bit nostalgic for it.

What adds to the utter horror of the 1973 Topps Reggie photo is that's his MVP year!!!
Thus, the card naturally gets featured so much more often than any of his other non-rookie cards!!!! You simply can't avoid the squished face craziness!!!!!!!!

68-69 were the worst. The one thing about the 73's are the action shots were similar to 71 and 72. It was the technology of the day.

And for the reason I stated, I question it's authenticity!

LOL Pete Rose would sign anything.

There are plenty of great action shots long before 1973, but apparently the Topps people had no idea what film and equipment to use. Maybe they should’ve called Sports Illustrated.

Then the costume the guy who signed it for me was wearing when he signed it was REALLY convincing.

For that reason, I question the authenticity of your source of information. ;)

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.

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

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.

:(

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.

When we were kids, we also felt the 1969 design was basically a copy of 1968, with that color circle.

So overall I would say 1969 was the laziest effort Topps put out.

...for a buck. Literally anything.

Regarding the 1973 Topps Reggie Jackson card, I think it was done as a joke.

In the book “The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book” Topps honcho Sy Berger while interviewed mentioned that he was a really good friend of Reggie Jackson. My guess is that is why the Jackson photo was used, kind of a “gotcha” thing between two guys.

Maybe he made it up to him later on. I really love Reggie's 1978 card. Classic Reggie in the batters box, with the sunglasses and the follow through.

When I was a little kid opening up packs my uncles bought me in 1978, that was THE card to get.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/...AC_SL1112_.jpg

That’s an all-time capture on that card. I’ve always liked the history of this one from the same set — got it signed by Reggie last year: