 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Which set was the worst set produced by Toops in the 1960's | |||
| 1960 |
   
|
12 | 10.91% |
| 1961 |
  
|
13 | 11.82% |
| 1962 |
  
|
5 | 4.55% |
| 1963 |
  
|
6 | 5.45% |
| 1964 |
  
|
16 | 14.55% |
| 1965 |
  
|
3 | 2.73% |
| 1966 |
|
3 | 2.73% |
| 1967 |
|
9 | 8.18% |
| 1968 |
|
35 | 31.82% |
| 1969 |
|
8 | 7.27% |
| Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
07-09-2015, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
1968, because nothing says baseball like burlap!
__________________
Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running on-line collecting club www.oldbaseball.com 
|
|
#2
07-09-2015, 12:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The cramped style of 1960 with its two picture, horizontal format does it for me. Yuck times a million!! They were trying to put ten pounds of gum into a five pound bag.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land  https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. 
|
|
#4
07-11-2015, 09:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
To me, it was a toss up between 1962, 1968, and 1969. 62's are notoriously difficult to find in great shape, but when you find them, they are gorgeous. There are at least 100 cards in the 1969 set (or more) that are just wretched. But, many of the cards are quite attractive. So, this leaves 1968. Nothing awful, but just bland. Burlap equals boring.
__________________
Actively bouncing aimlessly from set to set trying to accomplish something, but getting nowhere
|
|
#5
07-11-2015, 11:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Criteria
I already voted ('68 for me), but all the comments got me thinking. What is your criteria for voting? For me, in order it is:
1. Design (layout, font, borders, ...) 2. Photography (all head shots, in action shots, crispness, ...) 3. Player inclusion (who are the rookies, last cards, ...) 4. Backs (readability, years of stats, ...) 5. Relevance to me ('77 was my first year collecting, I was born in '66, ...)
|
|
#6
07-11-2015, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
To me it was design, photography, and backs. I can't go with player inclusion, otherwise sets like the 1955 Topps set would be hammered because of all the stars missing. I actually don't hate the 1968's. If I compared them to some of the sets of the 80's, I'd take the 68's in a heartbeat. But, compared to the cards from 63-67 and the 60's, it was a no brainer for me.
__________________
Actively bouncing aimlessly from set to set trying to accomplish something, but getting nowhere
|
|
#7
07-11-2015, 02:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Please send all the ugly cards to me
__________________
[FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]CampyFan39
|
|
#8
07-11-2015, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Set him your worst
Chris is a contrarian collector
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Vote! Worst Topps produced set of the 50's | almostdone | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 60 | 12-27-2015 07:03 PM |
| What was the last year Topps produced their cards in series? | wilkiebaby11 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 6 | 05-21-2015 02:38 PM |
| 2003 Topps Vintage Embossed ( 1961 #85 Gil Hodges ) One of Two Cards Produced | DinoPro | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 03-08-2015 01:15 PM |
| My vote for worst slab design | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 12-20-2005 10:39 PM |
| Vote for Worst Condition Card on EBAY | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 25 | 04-15-2004 10:54 AM |
Hybrid Mode
