The first "shiny" cards

[judsonhamlin]

I think 1988 Score doesn’t get enough love, in context. Action photos and a decent format and color on the reverse. Kind of weak on rookies but the Reggie subset was decent. Compare that to the late ‘80’s Topps, Fleer and Donruss efforts and it stands out. Insane overproduction didn’t help and UD stole their thunder the next year but, still…

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I think 1988 Score doesn’t get enough love, in context. Action photos and a decent format and color on the reverse. Kind of weak on rookies but the Reggie subset was decent. Compare that to the late ‘80’s Topps, Fleer and Donruss efforts and it stands out. Insane overproduction didn’t help and UD stole their thunder the next year but, still…

I agree. I wouldn't call them "shiny" cards, but they certainly are premium compared to the other 1988 offerings.

[JustinD]

I call the 1990 Topps Mylar the first shiny.

If you have qualms with a test issue, then I would go with ProSet holograms. I think the 1990 Stanley Cup was the first of those. Then they went nuts in 91’ and the holographic cards were everywhere. I sure ate a ton of Denny’s to work on that Grand Slam set, lol.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I think 1988 Score doesn’t get enough love, in context. Action photos and a decent format and color on the reverse. Kind of weak on rookies but the Reggie subset was decent. Compare that to the late ‘80’s Topps, Fleer and Donruss efforts and it stands out. Insane overproduction didn’t help and UD stole their thunder the next year but, still…

Agree. I actually thought that Score would really take off and take over the top spot. I though the photography was great and the backs were the best of any card I'd seen up to that point. If they just didn't have those little nubby things on the corners. And if UD hadn't come out the following year. And..And.....

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Agree. I actually thought that Score would really take off and take over the top spot. I though the photography was great and the backs were the best of any card I'd seen up to that point. If they just didn't have those little nubby things on the corners. And if UD hadn't come out the following year. And..And.....

Ah, you must have bought them early. The nubby corners were the first run, Followed briefly by ones with two nubby bits just off the corners and finally the rest of the year with normal corners.

Add in variations, and re-screening, and it's a wonderfully complex set that's still cheap enough to be collected that way.

[steve B]

Wouldn't the Topps Tiffany sets count? Or just pack issued stuff?

[Chicosbailbonds]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I think 1988 Score doesn’t get enough love, in context. Action photos and a decent format and color on the reverse. Kind of weak on rookies but the Reggie subset was decent. Compare that to the late ‘80’s Topps, Fleer and Donruss efforts and it stands out. Insane overproduction didn’t help and UD stole their thunder the next year but, still…

Agree, i really like that score set.