Is "modern" still "modern"?
 

I just purchased a 1983 Topps Reggie Jackson on eBay and it hit me that it is a little strange to be calling a 30+ year old card "modern". The early 80's Topps cards have way more in common (card stock, design) with 60's and 70's sets than with today's cards. I was wondering if the definition of "vintage" should be expanded to at least include 1980 through the mid-80's. This would still keep the Junk Wax era that began in the late 80's classified as "modern".

What are your thoughts?

Ed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that anything produced after Topps went away from a series release format will always be "modern" to me. 1974 on in my book.

My line is when they started using white card stock.

My thoughts have always been 1981 and on is modern since the entire hobbies dynamic changed with Fleer and Donruss coming onto the national scene with others to follow. "If you print it, someone will buy it" seemed to be the montra of the 80's.
Drew

That seems to have been SCD's opinion as well, since they divided the Standard Catalog in half at that same point. The 1974-1980 era has too much in common with the early '70s to break it at 1974, although I understand the temptation with series vs. in-one-fell-swoop issuing.

I guess I look at from the standpoint of state of the industry as opposed to look of the card. 1981 and on, it wasn't just Topps, the industry hit a new way of doing business with everyone else able to jump on board.

Having said that, I don't know if I consider everything pre-1980 as vintage (that's another discussion), but I can see why 1981 and on has the title 'modern' attached to it.

And for what it's worth, 1983 Topps is one of the nicest designs ever.

1974 v 1980/1981
 

If either Bob or Jeff are correct, I do not qualify as modern

I have to agree that '81 does represent a line of demarcation of sorts. I'm going to present a different opinion though and suggest that at some point, we may shift the term modern to be redefined as starting with the insert chase.

Perhaps 1993 with Finest and their Refractors would be the early date for that. In my mind, there has to be some sort of delineation between the 80s cards and the current insert/chase type of collecting. If we don't call the insert/chase collecting "modern" than what do we call it?

That is along the lines of what I was thinking. Going back just a bit earlier, I remember the "feel" of collecting changed in 1989 when the Upper Deck Griffey card came out. The business moved from collecting sets to hoarding stars and rookies to resale for a fortune at a later date. I believe this has continued to this day in some respects.

I think there's been too many changes to the hobby in the past 30+ years to really lump into ONE era..

While I can understand the series/one shot breakup at '74. I think it's probably insignificant enough compared to other changes that were to come...

I'd probably agree with starting the modern era at '81, due to the expanded competition. From there, I'd possibly put another break at around '91 or '92ish...

Now while I understand how one might look at inserts or high gloss as the BIG change, I really think the biggest change might've come with '92 Bowman(a very similar argument could be made for the '91 classic 4-sport set)...I'd call it the prospect/rookie era... yes, there were minor league sets and smaller draft pick sets before, BUT from this point on, there seemed to be a rush by the companies to get the first card of a player out... Even with MLB's modern rookie card logo and rules, I still think that we're still in this era. Look at the Donruss/Elite sets recently, or the Just minors sets, or Bowman still with their Draft sets. When I usually buy a modern card, these are generally my go to sets.. Autographs/Relics aside, rookies and pre-rookies still own the hobby, and if they also happen to have auto's or jerseys, then it's just an added bonus...

I can agree that the '89 Upper Deck Griffey card, is responsible for this, and it would be easy to just pick that as the cutoff. BUT that was one card. The true change came when everyone tried to re-create the excitement of it... Collecting habits are one thing, but a true change would be when the production followed suit.. Beyond the prospect/draft sets and '92 Bowman, I also think that the re-introduction of (true)series was just another attempt by the companies to chase a players first card(while avoiding the XRC designation)....

I have always looked at 1980 and earlier as vintage. 1981 had Fleer and Donruss enter the scene.

If you were looking at inserted chase cards, 1992 Topps had the Gold cards that everyone went nuts for. I bought 3 or 4 cases to get the gold cards and scratch off the inserted lottery cards. I was so pissed when I found out that others were using a light to cheat and find winners every time. I didn't do that, and I got back a ton of Gold "Winners". I was irate.

Anyhow, to stop the rambling, I think that 1992 was the first year of the inserts, and also the first year of white card stock. 1993 was the first year of shiny white card stock. At least for Topps.

I hate all the refrators and junk of today...they might as well call it the LSD era nowadays. Trying to catch kids with the new sparkling and shiny stuff.
I grew up on the 80's stuff, mainly those 89 Donruss cards and early 90's topps cards.
I managed to get some 85-87s in there too.
I would not place these as part of modern at all...not even a Ozzie or Ripken. Call it the 20th Century Era. 80's -2000

How about adding categories.

Pre war = pre war vintage
Post war to 1973 = post war vintage
1974-1980 = modern
1981-1992 = Expansion
1993 - 2005 = insert era
2006 - present = shiny crap made only by topps

Yes and no, IMO. I think the changes were more significant, and they began in 1973, not 1974. That was the first of what I consider the "canned" 660 series sets-- five in a row of exactly that same size, with the cards printed all at once and available all at once (at least in parts of the country for '73). It also was the first year where Topps began to transition to "action" rather than posed photos as the standard card depiction, having experimented with a couple handfuls of such photos in 1971 from some New York games and then creating a subset of "in action" cards for 1972. I know it's all relative to where you were at any particular time, both geographically and developmentally, but for me 1973 marked the beginning of a new era in cards and the end of a better one.

ERAs
 

Since I have used the SCD Catalog as my want list and checklist for Topps and Fleer, which is what I collect, and since it uses 1980 as a cut off, like Bob, that is what I used for my first divider

Up until 1994 I collected every set or card or insert or test set listed for Topps in SCD. Because of the huge proliferation of products for Topps starting in 1994, I then cut back to just the main sets and any updates. I later expanded to include Heritage sets as well. So for just me personally, 1994 became my second cut off date

I'm a newbie, what is SCD Catalog?

I would love to have a way to keep track of my cards digitally in an online catalog...does SCD allow you to do this?

Yeah, I didn't mean to completely diminish the significance. I just don't think it was significant enough to be the start of a major era... Major change at the time, YES. Major change, in terms of lasting impact on the hobby. Not so much... It's one of the reason's I'm undecided on where the current era should start. Yes, high gloss, inserts, autographs, refractors and the such were major changes, but the competition factor that started in '81 is what really fueled all of those. I think the pre-rookies/inserts probably more currently fuel the hobby, and could be more worthy of an era change than high gloss..

'73 is a nice debate, but it wasn't exclusively a single series release for everyone, as that appears to have been a test to see what they would do going forward. So I'd be more inclined to look at '74 as the first decidedly single release year..

double post...

Here's some of those cutoffs don't work for me.

White cardstock --- Mid 60's and especially 68,69, and 70. and late 70's with basketball. Yeah, the thin stuff started in 93, but there was a lot of white stock earlier.

Inserts? ---- Early 60's. Sort of stopped in 73-4 with the team checklists, but there were other inserts throughout the early 80's in certain packs.

Shiny? - Much of what Topps makes isn't. (A+G, Gypsy Queen, most of heritage....) Even the base stuff isn't much different than 89 UD.

So maybe 81 works as the year the competition began. (Of course ignoring 51-55 and 59-60)

I see the cards as a continuing thing, each decade has it's "thing", and also for the most part some throwbacks and sets ahead of their time.

Steve B

I was discussing this thread today with a co-worker and he suggested that "modern" began when gum was no longer included in the packs. While it was an off-the-cuff, lighthearted comment, maybe it makes sense.

I learned alot about the industry and how collectors look at things through this discussion. Thanks for sharing.

May I suggest that the 80s be called "pre-modern", or just "The 80s", and anything post-1989 be considered "modern". 89 UD, 92 Bowman, 93 refractors, it is all pretty close to 1990. Maybe 1974-1980 is "post-vintage", or maybe even better "post-post-war", or "post-war-squared" :)

It's fun just reading about this!!

I'm in the camp with the people who consider 1974 and on to be 'modern.' Being that 1973 was the last year cards were issued in series, that's where I draw the line.

Centering is the key for me. When they started using lasers or whatever they use now and every card comes out perfectly centered, that is modern to me.

I could see the "modern" insert argument being made down the road as well.

modern
 

In 1957 Topps inaugurated the 2.5" x 3.5" format in a way that has, more or less, become the trading card standard ever since. Having started collecting just before that time, I consider 1957 and on, "modern", and 1973 and later, "packaging". But I can see that for young'uns, even the early '90s will seem vintage.

1981 is a good demarcation. I stopped collecting new stuff in 1994 and frankly don't recall when the move first went to inserts/chase cards as in fancy holograms/foils/refractors, then inserts such as autographs, then game used inserts then retro (old cards included in new card packs). Are more than one of these worthy of their own distinction and demarcation?

That's fine David, everyone has an opinion and after this I'll stop beating my dead horse. IMO, 1973 was key for three reasons: production, set composition and distribution. Production: It was the first time that the cards were all printed and ready to go by late December early January; i.e. before any Spring player moves. Prior to that, you could still count on some of the high number cards to reflect late moves. Not so as of 1973.

Set Composition: 1973 was the first set to reduce the set size by a significant number of cards and settle on what would become a standard set size of 660 cards for five years. Also the 1973 composition was the first to dedicate a significant number of the player's standard/main cards to action photos, taking a road that would never lead back.

And yes, distribution. It was the first set to be issued all at once, rendering series meaningless. You say it was a test. I propose that leaving the cards in series one last year was the test, and/or that this was done to hedge against distribution problems with jobbers at the regional and local levels. OPC was distributed all at once in 1973. So was Topps football. Clearly the decision had been made and there was no reason to await "test" results. The article shared by Howie in another thread concerning the then upcoming 1973 baseball card set contained a statement by a Topps exec that the majority of the country would be receiving the cards all at once, which of course sounds much different than a test. It may in fact have been distributed in this fashion to much of the nation--the evidence is unclear. There was no reason to issue the cards in series, given that there were no upgrades or differences from those who got them all at once. A good portion of the country had entire sets assembled while others waited for so-called high numbers. In sum, the commitment by Topps to go all at once started in 1973 and for this and the other reasons turned a page in card collecting history IMO. Maybe not as noticeable a demarcation as to what happened later, but noteworthy nonetheless.

Old
 

Richard--you are not old. You are just from a vintage year

If 1973 was more readily available
 

all as one series in baseball as you are arguing, why is the series wax so much easier to find than the all in one series wax? I know many people who collected in 1973 I have yet to meet one that tells me it was easier to find the all in one series cards. I also feel the supposed sp status of the high number checklist, it certainly appears to be a much tougher card than anything else in the set. Helps the argument that the 1973 topps set needs to remain a vintage issue. I would demarcate at 1974-1988 as some sort of pre-modern or whatever moniker you like, and 1989 on as modern.

1973
 

There is a great discussion of this in an earlier thread. In it quite a few people recalled being able to buy all the cards at one time in various locations. I will try to run it down and post a link.

The only 'proof' I have ever seen that 1973 was released all at once is the last series wax packs from that year that advertised that the cards came from all series. But that was only the last series packs. Every other series had been released the normal way throughout the spring and summer, then Topps but some of the lower series cards in the high series packs. This is a very far cry from the ridiculous claim that Topps released the full set from the beginning of the year. There is absolutely no proof that that was the case. And Topps themselves has always said that 1974 was the first year they issued the entire set all at once. So I believe them.

Yet this same guy comes on here constantly saying how he got all the Topps cards from day 1 in 1973. He is either mistaken or purposely BSing everybody.

Silly Guy
 

I do not think I am the silly guy...at least this time

And Todd is actually a very experienced collector. There is an honest debate on that point and I do not think it helps to insult folks about their views on it.

I started buying whole sets in 1972 and so do not have any experience on pack issues from 1973

Here is one of the prior threads. There is another I have not found

http://net54baseball.com/showthread....ght=topps+1973

One correction here, Topps and Upper Deck both issued cards from 2006 through 2009, Topps has had the BB Card monopoly since 2010.

Rich

Wow. Thanks for the thread link Al.

Part of the fallout of being bombastic is you look like a tool when you're shown to be wrong (I've been there). Al cited a thread, widely read and with several contributors, showing that many here recall receiving the cards all at once, and including an old hobby mag article in which a Topps exec comments on how it was the intent to distribute in this manner to the majority of the country. I cannot believe you did not read that; however,even before that in the thread where you first called my "claims" ridiculous and absolutely without proof, the following two collectors chimed in:


So put it to bed--you were and are wrong.

Yep. 2010 would be the topps line. I think 2006 is the "official rookie logo" line.. It's one of the main reasons I would probably look at the "pre-rookie/draft pick" craze as a more important cutoff in the early 90's, than inserts.

Although, whether you're looking at inserts or draft picks, we're looking at pretty much a two year window. 1990-1991. 1990 for inserts due to the Reggie Heroes set. And I also feel that both were a direct result of the companies trying to recreate the excitement of the '89 UD Griffey..

The only reason I say 1991 for draft picks rookies, would be the Classic 4 sport set. It might've been the first draft pick set that was pack available. Although 1992 Bowman might be a better set to target for a cutoff, because it was both a MLB release, and solely baseball...

I'd look at 2006 as a more important cutoff that 2010. Partially due to the "rookie logo", and partially due to it being the major point of MLB stepping in and trying to control production. Rookies seem more important because it's the one thing that MLB really addressed to make a change. I don't recall them really taking any steps towards addressing inserts. That's why I tend to lean towards the rookie angle as a breakoff in the 1990s as opposed to inserts. I'll take this quote off of the Donruss wiki page

"In the late summer of 2005, Major League Baseball created new license criteria for cardmakers in response to collectors' complaints that: 1) the market had become too fragmented and confusing; and 2) rookie cards were becoming too scarce, with diminished importance due to the race between makers to feature unknown players first. MLB chose to renew only its licenses with Topps and Upper Deck, tacitly sealing the fate of Donruss and Fleer. The last baseball product shipped by the company was the third series of the Playoff-branded Prime Cuts memorabilia cards."

This is really the first year where collectors now had to pick a side. Do we view the MLB "rookie logo" cards as a rookie, or a player's first card? I've always leaned towards first card(at least in this era).

Prior to this point, we still had all these Just sets, and other assorted draft pick sets. BUT they weren't that big of a deal because(for the most part) most of those players still had MLB licensed cards in those same years... The "rookie logo" change really forced us to give a harder look at the relevance of the "pre-rookie" type sets.. Including Bowman rookies, which from this point on were lumped into that category...

If you take all of the public statements made by Topps over the years, into the 1970's and probably well into the 90's or even a bit later, I would wager at least half of them were either incorrect or outright lies. As I found out when researching my book, their PR department basically would say whatever suited them at any given time. The real story (mostly) is found in actual documentation, such as trade journals, jobber correspondence and retailer promotions. Topps had no idea about their own history for decades.

Now as to nomencalture, how about:

19th Century = self explanatory
Pre War = before WW1
Mid War = between the world wars
Post War = 1946 to 1980
Expansion = 1981 to 1992 (although "expansion" could confuse folks as no teams were added in the time frame, maybe "boom"?)
Modern = 1993 to 2005
Post Modern = 2006-Present

I think anything produced through 1980 is considered "vintage" by the majority of collectors but your experience may vary. Also, more and more it seems "modern" refers to a time period after the 1980's. It's meaningless but a fun little exercise to compartmentalize it all. In my book I subdivided what was really just a nine year period (1948-47) into about five categories, so anything is possible.

I can agree with those breakdowns. Really don't completely get where the cutoff at '93 comes from, But I agree it should be somewhere around there...

Nomenclature
 

Dave---how in the heck am going to remember all of those ? Can you send me a laminated index card ?

And what will come after post modern ? Ultimate Modern ?

Technically, I think current is always "modern". Once an age is identified as complete, I believe that's when it's given an appropriate name. Kinda like with comics...

Golden
Atom
Silver
bronze
iron
dark
modern

starting with the silver age, the eras are generally also broken down into, early/mid/late.

Maybe that's how we could look at cards.

post-war
early age would be up until- topps became(for the most part) the lone producer...
mid-up until 73(or 74) when topps went to single series
late-topps single series..

81-91ish as it's own age..
81-85 might be early(competition)
86-91ish might be late.(competition with rookies starting to take center stage)

then maybe 91ish-2009 as it's own "age". due to it being the era where rookies and inserts ruled production, up until topps was given sole license....I don't have the date breakdowns but maybe....

early-could be early inserts, parallels, draft picks...
mid- maybe when autographs, manufactured short prints and everything became a part of the base sets..
late- 2006 when the "rookie logo" rules took effect

2010 to current, topps/modern age....

Hahahaha!! Are you speaking to me or yourself??? You only offer anecdotal evidence of people saying they got the cards all at once when the only proof Topps issued cards 'all at once' is the last series pack that I mentioned before. Yet you continually try to prove everyone in the world is wrong except you. Go away.

The more you post the worse you look on the subject. A Topps exec quoted in a 1973 hobby mag and first-hand accounts from a half-dozen or so people here and yet you say that I am the only one claiming they were released at once against "everyone in the world". There's no fixin stupid.


EDITED TO ADD: BTW, what do you say to spec and onlyvintage62-- they're mistaken or BSing everyone? And the half-dozen or so people who say they received the 1973 cards all at once, from various places coast to coast-- mistaken or frauds? And Bill Haber's comment from Topps in Howie's post-- anecdotal hog wash or misleading tripe?

1973 Topps Rak Pak with numbers 430, 490 and 622 showing:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...s81406227.jpeg

Box topper from "All 660" series boxes:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...psc186d266.jpg

Al just remember this simple acronym: 1PMPEMP(U) :D

Topps
 

I do agree with Dave, who has done more research on Topps than anyone I know...see his blog and publications....that you can put little stock in what Topps says or said about their current or historical product publicly.

None of their execs in the period in question could have foreseen the fanaticism displayed by me and others here about their little pieces of cardboard that were developed initially as a way to sell candy and gum. I bet if you had tried to discuss variations with them you would have gotten a blank stare followed by..."Oh you mean screw ups"

They absolutely were
 

available in all in one series i have a wax box. that said the series wax is far easier to find. Many people probably did see the all in one series wax but it was not as readily available as the single series, that is just a fact. It is far easier to find say a 1973 Clemente than a 1973 Bob Boone. Anyone that thinks they were not available all in one series is incorrect that does not mean that more were not issued as series. A statement by an executive or anyone else usually means little to me I go with the evidence, and the evidence is though available in all in one series form the 1973 packs issued in series, and collections of cards found are most often in series form not all in one.

Topps was moving more an more product via Rak Paks by 1973 and it's certainly how I bought the majority of cards in the early 70's. You would have to look at a lot of Raks but I have to think many were all 660 or at least had several mixed series..

1973
 

I have enjoyed and learned some interesting stuff from this and the prior thread. As is often true in looking at a historical question, the answer may not be a simple yes or no. It is great sharing hobby experiences and knowledge in threads like these