Is "modern" still "modern"?

[Vintagevault13]

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

[HRBAKER]

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.

[brewing]

My line is when they started using white card stock.

[almostdone]

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

[bobsbbcards]

Originally Posted by almostdone

My thoughts have always been 1981 and on is modern

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.

[journeyto407]

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.

[ALR-bishop]

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

[terjung]

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?

[brewing]

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

[nolemmings]

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...

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.

[ALR-bishop]

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

[journeyto407]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

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

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?

[novakjr]

double post...

[steve B]

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

[Vintagevault13]

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.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

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..

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by brewing

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

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

Rich

[nolemmings]

Wow. Thanks for the thread link Al.

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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.

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:

Originally Posted by spec

Todd is right on the money. I ended 16 years of collecting out of packs when Topps did not issue the 1973 set in series -- at least in the Boston/Brookline, Mass. area. Since 1959 I had purchased a box each time a series came out, discovering even at the age of 12 that that was the most efficient way to get all the cards in a series, at least when you lived in a rural area as I did until 1967. That strategy did not work when all 660 cards were distributed at once, so I just bought the entire set from a dealer.
Bo.b Richa.rdson

Originally Posted by onlyvintage62

It has been verified (even by Topps), that parts of the country had all the cards released at once. It was a marketing test to see how it would impact sales.

The reason being is that they were losing money by printing cards in series, as demand fell off by the 6th and 7th series.

I know that the entire states of California and Florida - at least- had the card released in one shot.

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

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

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.

[nolemmings]

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?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

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

Rich

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...

[toppcat]

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.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by toppcat

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...