Worst Topps set for photos?

[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

[D. Bergin]

I used to really dislike the 1973's, but they've grown on me through the years. Now I like how weird and interesting their choice of photos was. Would be even better if it wasn't for that thick white border, which I've never liked about the set either.

Absolutely love the card of Terry Crowley barreling towards Thurman Munson, with the ball just coming into the frame.

I'm going to have to go with the 1958's for worst. The horrible big heads (or little bodies) on the monochromatic backgrounds, along with the giant fonts.

The ironic thing is it was probably a nightmare for the graphic designers to put together, compared to the beautiful, yet simple 1957's that came the year before.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

It's refreshing to see that I'm not alone in not particularly caring for the '58's. The backgrounds in the '57's are so much of what made that set both perfectly of its era yet timeless to collect. The colors pop magnificently and have aged so nicely over the decades. And the backgrounds work so well with the jerseys.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I'm going to have to go with the 1958's for worst. The horrible big heads (or little bodies) on the monochromatic backgrounds, along with the giant fonts.

The ironic thing is it was probably a nightmare for the graphic designers to put together, compared to the beautiful, yet simple 1957's that came the year before.

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

It's refreshing to see that I'm not alone in not particularly caring for the '58's.

I have mixed feelings about the 1958 Topps issue. I rather like the basic design of the fronts with the player photo silhouetted against the brightly coloured background with team logos at the bottom. But in general the photo selection is really lousy. Far too many head shots. The set would have been much improved with many more waist up or thigh up shots. But the 1958's have my favourite card backs for any Topps Baseball issue up to at least 1970!

[Brick442]

Originally Posted by 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.

Attachment 651711

You are correct! 35mm 100 ASA film is what Topps required. Not great for the action shots.

[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.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by hammertime

LOL Pete Rose would sign anything.

...for a buck. Literally anything.

[byrone]

Regarding the 1973 Topps Reggie Jackson card, I think it was done as a joke.

In the book “The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book” Topps honcho Sy Berger while interviewed mentioned that he was a really good friend of Reggie Jackson. My guess is that is why the Jackson photo was used, kind of a “gotcha” thing between two guys.

[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.