Worst Topps set for photos?

[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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think this is true. My favorite Rose auto in my collection:

[obcbobd]

Lot of bad years to choose from 58, 61, 69, 73. 69 especially is a shame as I really love the design and at age 7 it was one of the first sets I bought as a kid. And then there's the all-star cards which look quite nice, but most of them have actdion shots that aren't related to the subject of the card. https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ews-all-stars/

[SAllen2556]

I suspect they went from 2 and 1/4 film to 35 mm, which led to those mid 70's awful quality photos - though I like the composition of the 73's.

I agree with the '69 set being terrible in that it largely copied photos from the year before or even much earlier. That combined with all the "black caps" makes the 69 set really pointless if you have the 67 and 68 sets. There's maybe a hundred 1969 cards that are even remotely interesting.

s-l500.jpg

[robw1959]

And for the reason I stated, I question it's authenticity!

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I don't think this is true. My favorite Rose auto in my collection:

[hammertime]

LOL Pete Rose would sign anything.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by robw1959

And for the reason I stated, I question it's authenticity!

Then the costume the guy who signed it for me was wearing when he signed it was REALLY convincing.

For that reason, I question the authenticity of your source of information.

[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.