From coolest set to lamest set?

[jason.1969]

Just picked up a 1965 Topps Embossed Ernie Banks for a friend. A few thoughts--

I have to imagine kids in 1965 thought this was the coolest set ever! Gold baseball cards AND three dimensional. I could TOTALLY see a kid having to trade TWO regular Ernie Banks cards for just one of these embossed ones.

But nowadays, all I can do is hate this set when I look at some of the cards. The players are practically invisible, the likenesses are poor, and the backs are pretty much blank. No bio or stats on the back either.

So this gets my vote for the set that seemed the coolest when it came out but now seems super lame. Any competition for this honor?

[Bestdj777]

1968 Plaks had to have at least seemed cool to kids. Pretty lame though.

[GasHouseGang]

I always thought the 1967 Topps "Who Am I?" set seems like it could be fun when you're a kid, but if the cards aren't scratched they seem lame in a PSA holder.

[G1911]

I would think E91. The first 1908 series was among the first widely distributed sets since the 1880’s, so it probably was the first baseball cards a lot of kids had. Series 2 and 3 using the same images and going generic surely hurt. Today they are generally disliked.

T201 is in a similar boat. I like them, but many of the images barely resemble the player they are supposed to depict. The innovative design must have seemed really cool and different to kids in 1911.

For postwar, I would think Topps checklists. They sell for good money now due to scarcity in unmarked conditions, but I think few actually like them, they just sell to set collectors. At the time, with no Beckett or online checklists, I would have been thrilled to get one so I knew how many cards there were and who was in the current series. The amount of marked checklists out there indicates many kids of the time sure made use of them

[jason.1969]

These are great candidates! And yeah, those checklists used to be essential!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

I'll throw in the 1981 Fleer and Donruss sets. When they suddenly appeared out of nowhere it was hella cool having more than just Topps out there, and we had no idea what kind of cards would be included. They didn't follow the long established Topps guidelines of what a set should look like. I still love them to this day due to nostalgia, but holy heck, the blurry, out of focus shots of Fleer and the tissue paper thin Donruss stock make these an abomination!! (Still love them though.)

[G1911]

81 Fleer and Donruss is a great one.

Another candidate - 1952 Red Man. Not an expert on how they were received st the time, but they seem to have been popular and featured colorful, great artwork of most of the big stars. That Red Man reused the same images for 4 straight years has greatly hurt the appeal of all the sets today

As a 90’s kid, a lot of the fanciful 90’s cards definitely belong. Fleer Metal, Pacific Crown Royale (most pacific sets, really) were beloved by the kids in my town. Shiny, die cuts, we thought they were awesome. Those colorful inserts every set seemed to have that were pretty tough pulls back then (1:72 and such) got us excited. Today, this stuff is seen as shiny crap by most collectors of even modern material

[Econteachert205]

The late 1980's topps big cards and 3ds seemed cool at first, but then were shunned pretty hard.

[JustinD]

1992 Topps Kids, looked cool for 10 seconds and then you realized they were terrible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not quite an answer to the question posed, but along the same lines, game used cards in general.

[jason.1969]

Am wondering about 1975 Topps Minis. I didn't start collecting till 1978 but at the time these lil suckers seemed to carry extra appeal. Nowadays they seem kinda pointless.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[Neal]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I'll throw in the 1981 Fleer and Donruss sets. When they suddenly appeared out of nowhere it was hella cool having more than just Topps out there, and we had no idea what kind of cards would be included. They didn't follow the long established Topps guidelines of what a set should look like. I still love them to this day due to nostalgia, but holy heck, the blurry, out of focus shots of Fleer and the tissue paper thin Donruss stock make these an abomination!! (Still love them though.)

agreed!

I thought this was the coolest card ever when it came out


TripleThreat.jpg

[sthoemke]

1991 Topps Stadium Club

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by Neal

agreed!

I thought this was the coolest card ever when it came out


Attachment 327332

I still like the 1981 Fleer cards. Now the 1981 Bowman's are terrible. But I thought that even when they were issued.

[brian1961]

From coolest to lamest during my childhood, my thoughts immediately went to the 1964 Topps coins inserted one to a wax pack. Particularly, the first 120 coins, with regular backgrounds. Then, in only one year, Topps inserted those ugly, pathetic, and downright lame Embossed cards in their 1965 wax packs. As a child I thought they were horrible. For whatever reason, I saved them, but never, ever did I cherish any of them.

Fast forward to about 1973, and as a 19-year old, I was attending the huge Midwest Sports Collectors Convention, in Troy, Michigan. At this point, among many interests, I was purchasing any Topps coin I did not have, of those early series, or perhaps the #1-120 coins were only in just the first series wax. Anyway, a dealer was there with some of the '64 coins. I had no checklist; so if I spotted a coin that looked unfamiliar to me, I bought it. He had Mickey Mantle among his coins. I had never seen a Mickey Mantle in the '64 Topps 1-120 coins; I had both the blue background All-Star coins, but this one was a total surprise.

Just a buck, and that Mick was mine! One of my many favorite purchases during that glorious convention. I need to have PSA grade it, regardless of what their grader gives it, since I know it's in great condition, and the holder will protect it.

Oh, and you could just bet a bucket of buzzards I didn't buy any of those '65 Topps Embossed!

'Nuf said. Y'all have a nice Labor Day weekend!

---Brian Powell

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brian1961

From coolest to lamest during my childhood, my thoughts immediately went to the 1964 Topps coins inserted one to a wax pack. Particularly, the first 120 coins, with regular backgrounds. Then, in only one year, Topps inserted those ugly, pathetic, and downright lame Embossed cards in their 1965 wax packs. As a child I thought they were horrible. For whatever reason, I saved them, but never, ever did I cherish any of them.

Fast forward to about 1973, and as a 19-year old, I was attending the huge Midwest Sports Collectors Convention, in Troy, Michigan. At this point, among many interests, I was purchasing any Topps coin I did not have, of those early series, or perhaps the #1-120 coins were only in just the first series wax. Anyway, a dealer was there with some of the '64 coins. I had no checklist; so if I spotted a coin that looked unfamiliar to me, I bought it. He had Mickey Mantle among his coins. I had never seen a Mickey Mantle in the '64 Topps 1-120 coins; I had both the blue background All-Star coins, but this one was a total surprise.

Just a buck, and that Mick was mine! One of my many favorite purchases during that glorious convention. I need to have PSA grade it, regardless of what their grader gives it, since I know it's in great condition, and the holder will protect it.

Oh, and you could just bet a bucket of buzzards I didn't buy any of those '65 Topps Embossed!

'Nuf said. Y'all have a nice Labor Day weekend!

---Brian Powell

65 was my first year. The Embossed were awful, no definition to the faces. 68 Topps Game were awful too. Back then my friends and I also had these little HOF statuettes, seeing them now most of them are just terrible likenesses.

[MCoxon]

What about Sportsflic cards, which I think were super-hot for about 3 months in 1987, and then super cold. I remember reading Beckett Monthly guides on "what's hot" and "what's not", and I'm pretty sure in 1 or 2 months, Sportsflics were #3 hot and #1 cold, or something crazy like that

[rats60]

Agree with Peter and Brian, those 65 Topps Embossed cards were never cool. They were always lame. The other insert from 1965 was the cool one, the 1965 Topps Transfers. We all had t-shirts with them all over them. Today they aren't very collectible.

[JollyElm]

To me, the problem with inserts was always the set size. In the late 70's/early 80's Topps hockey cards had cool inserts of the top players, and we ended up with 100 of each, because they didn't offer too many different players.

[Bigdaddy]

Have to agree on the '81 Donruss. I thought the Fleer cards were OK, but Oh, those Donruss. Horrible, blurry photos, terrible distribution and the gum always stuck to the cards. All hat, no cattle; at least in 1981.

Also, I thought the Topps Stadium Club cards did not age well. They were one of the first 'premium' card sets from Topps and people chased them down in every mini-mart and corner drug store in America. They just don't hold up well.

And don't forget the Starting Lineup figures of the late 80's. Again, they were hugely popular at the time, but look almost cartoonish now.