Worst Topps set for photos?

[Brent G.]

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.

[Beercan collector]

Agree .. 1973

[Bkrum]

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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

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.

[John1941]

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)

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Bkrum

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.

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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

73 rocks!

[G1911]

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

[Kutcher55]

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

[JollyElm]

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...

1973catchers.jpg

[butchie_t]

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.

[campyfan39]

Agree. look like football photos

Originally Posted by G1911

1961, the year of bad, rushed capless portraits.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

73 rocks!

Love this set.

[Brent G.]

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.

[bbcard1]

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.

[hammertime]

I like 1973 because there are a bunch of the behind home plate perspective photos, which are my favorites.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

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.

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



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).

[Brick442]

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.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by hammertime

I like 1973 because there are a bunch of the behind home plate perspective photos, which are my favorites.

Now that is a gem, Andy — great framing.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

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.

Pity too since the actual card design is quite attractive.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

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

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.

[Bobbycee]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

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.

[robw1959]

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.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

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.

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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by robw1959

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

[obcbobd]

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/

[SAllen2556]

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.

s-l500.jpg

[D. Bergin]

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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

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.

[egri]

Originally Posted by John1941

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)

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.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

'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.

[luciobar1980]

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.

[butchie_t]

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

[packs]

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.

[lumberjack]

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

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.

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

It's refreshing to see that I'm not alone in not particularly caring for the '58's.

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!

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

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

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

[uyu906]

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.

[Brick442]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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

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

[John1941]

Originally Posted by egri

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.

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

[ALR-bishop]

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

[Brick442]

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?

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

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

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

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.

[KJA]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

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.

This card always makes me think of Gomer Pyle.

[packs]

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

[JollyElm]

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...


1969padresheadshots.jpg


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

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Brick442

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?

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

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

The 58 mays is my favorite mays topps card.

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

Originally Posted by packs

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

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