Worst Topps set for photos?

[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.

[timn1]

Long ago I did a run of Topps sets all the way back to 1956, but I could never bear to spend money on the 1958s - I kept putting it off. And then I started selling my sets to make money for prewar cards, and never did do it. On the other hand, The 1957 set is the only one I have always kept because it's so beautiful.

The comedown in Topps quality between these two years was horrendous!

Originally Posted by 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]

In further defence of the 1958 cards, they have the most whimsical and thus the best backs of any Topps Baseball set:



Plus the set includes the single best shot of one of my very favourite players:

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by timn1

The 1957 set is the only one I have always kept because it's so beautiful.

I used to think that the 1957 set was rather boring because of the uninteresting design but I agree that it's chock full of fabulous player pics. Here are the last three cards I picked up from the set:



And of course the Lucky Penny card (without which no 1957 Topps Baseball set is complete) takes the 1957 set over the top!

(Sadly not mine.)

[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.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Maybe he made it up to him later on. I really love Reggie's 1978 card. Classic Reggie in the batters box, with the sunglasses and the follow through.

When I was a little kid opening up packs my uncles bought me in 1978, that was THE card to get.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Maybe he made it up to him later on. I really love Reggie's 1978 card. Classic Reggie in the batters box, with the sunglasses and the follow through.

When I was a little kid opening up packs my uncles bought me in 1978, that was THE card to get.

That’s an all-time capture on that card. I’ve always liked the history of this one from the same set — got it signed by Reggie last year:

[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.