Is "modern" still "modern"?

[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?

[Vintagevault13]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[gopherfan]

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.

[novakjr]

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)....

[pawpawdiv9]

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

[rkrolewicz]

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!!

[JollyElm]

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.

[stlcardsfan]

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.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[brightair]

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.

[nolemmings]

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?

'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..

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.

[ALR-bishop]

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

[glynparson]

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.