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]

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.

[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).

[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)

[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

[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?

[perezfan]

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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

73 rocks!

[G1911]

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

[campyfan39]

Agree. look like football photos

Originally Posted by G1911

1961, the year of bad, rushed capless portraits.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Lucas00]

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I think its pretty crazy 58 is a disliked set based on headshots, I guess people don’t like color.

Love the color! The headshots not so much.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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.

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.

[Brent G.]

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.

[puckpaul]

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.

[JollyElm]

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!!!!!!!!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rats60

1969 is bad because of too many hatless players and reused photos.

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.

[JoeWillyMammoth]

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

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by JoeWillyMammoth

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

Either throwing or having a medical emergency.

[D. Bergin]

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.