Worst Topps set for photos?

[egri]

Originally Posted by John1941

Funny, 1973 Topps actually has some of my favorite photos because of how unique they are. How often do you get to see scenes like this on a card? They might not be great likenesses - but it's fun seeing different aspects of the game. Much more interesting than some more recent sets which fall into ruts of boredom in which every hitter is shown hitting, every pitcher is shown pitching - and because of how blurry the backgrounds are and how careful the editing is, you can never see the crowd, the dugout, the umpires, random cars in a parking lot...

If all you care about seeing is the player's face (which is a valid attitude) then 1973 is not for you - but if you have more leeway...

(Photos taken from tcdb.com)

Was the Alvarado picture taken during spring training? It must have either been then, or they had a game at an underfunded public high school, because that doesn’t look like a MLB stadium.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

'73 Topps is my birth year set, and I've always been a bit conflicted by it. I only own a few cards from that set but recently it has grown on me due in part to all the weird camera angles and colors and an overall sense of self-awareness about perhaps being interested in cards from my own lifetime. I don't know if it makes sense to anyone else or not, but I have come to appreciate cards like '73 and '69 because they are so period specific. I'm a postwar collector who traditionally hasn't been interested in much of anything beyond about '65. However, even I have come to appreciate the airbrushing and some of the cheap parlor tricks used by Topps in the late 60s on into the 70s. However, I can see how collectors older than me might be completely turned off by these cards. Heck, I still have a ton of cards and sets from the 50s and 60s that I want, and I'm not certain when I'll put serious effort into the 70s.

[luciobar1980]

I think 73 is prety sweet as it has a lot more action shots. The actual quailty can be a little rough/dark though? But I kinda like it.

[butchie_t]

69 set has a special place in my heart. First real time I actively started collecting (I was 9 years old). I LOVE that set, but understand the reasons stated here.

And I have that set completed as a master set. When doing that with that set was affordable.....

Cheers,

Butch

[packs]

Not a Topps set but I never liked the photography for the 1955 Bowman set. The television design aside, I've always thought the photo choices were extremely dull. Most of the same poses repeated over and over again with different players. Seems like everyone was either in their batting stance, had just swung the bat, or had their hands on their knees. Over and over and over again.

[lumberjack]

After 1957, which was the best designed of the Topps' sets, it just got worser.
The guys who did the book on gum cards back in the '70s said the '58 Bob Cerv looked like a gravy boat had landed on top of his head.

Topps always had problems, the cards were too busy in the mid fifties, the same head shot would be used year after year and they were always airbrushed like a senior high school photograph.

Let's face it, they were making these things for kids. Hurdy-gurdy worked and after '57, Topps got cute with the designs.

You would think the point of the card would be to show off the player and the ball park background. The '57 of Elmer Valo has him pulling a bat out of the rack and there is a TV camera next to the dugout. It was like being there.

And what's with no hats.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Love that Valo. He signed one for me a long time ago. Wish I could say the same about the Paul Smith with the tower.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Let's face it, they were making these things for kids. Hurdy-gurdy worked and after '57, Topps got cute with the designs.

Yes, but cards are for kids! That's what gives them their charm and makes them fun! I wouldn't collect them otherwise.

[uyu906]

I dislike any of the sets with lots of capless head shots. To me, they are the worst baseball card photos. I like all of the action photos in the 1973 set, but agree that some of the photos could have been in better focus.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by egri

Was the Alvarado picture taken during spring training? It must have either been then, or they had a game at an underfunded public high school, because that doesn’t look like a MLB stadium.

The Alvarado picture was almost certainly taken at the White Sox spring training in 1972 in Sarasota FL. There's a palm tree in the top right, and the player playing catch with Alvarado is Jorge Orta, who is shown wearing #38 on his 1973 Topps #194 card even though he wore #6 in the regular season - Phil Regan wore #38 in 1972.

Source: https://nightowlcards.blogspot.com/2...opps-luis.html

[ALR-bishop]

No hats were at times a fall back when players changed teams, there was epansion and when Marvin Miller made Topps blink about players' license fees

[Brick442]

The background on this card is the best they could do “pre-photoshop”. The added crowd seems to be looking in the wrong direction… anyone ever see the un-altered version?

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

I thought the 1958 Topps set was pretty lame except for those All-Star cards. The Musial is a classic.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

I thought the 1958 Topps set was pretty lame except for those All-Star cards. The Musial is a classic.

The 58 mays is my favorite mays topps card.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

The 58 mays is my favorite mays topps card.

The Willie Mays All Star card is alright but the regular card is a boring head shot.

Originally Posted by packs

I always thought the 58 Clemente was a really nice card. I also like the Koufax.

The Bob Clemente card is alright but the Sandy Koufax card is another boring head shot.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

I thought the 1958 Topps set was pretty lame

I'm not a fan of the '58 Topps because of the solid backgrounds. I've always wondered if Topps went this way to avoid having photos with Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds in the background, since that was the first year the Dodgers and Giants were in California.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

I'm not a fan of the '58 Topps because of the solid backgrounds.

The brightly coloured solid backgrounds are precisely what I like about the 1958 cards! The set has far too many headshots though especially considering that there's mega room on the card for full body shots.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Brick442

The background on this card is the best they could do “pre-photoshop”. The added crowd seems to be looking in the wrong direction… anyone ever see the un-altered version?

While I didn't see an answer to your question, here is a neat article on the card from SABR.

[perezfan]

Any card made after 1971 looks super cheap and mass-produced to me. I just can't spend money on them. Just my opinion, and I know many/most will disagree.