Worst Topps set for photos?

[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.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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



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

Big smile with his hat on and the nice blue background. Not boring at all to me.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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



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

Disagree 1000 percent. To each his own.

[JustinD]

Another vote for the boring head shots and half-hearted efforts of 69’ here.

That said am I the only one that thinks much like the infamous Brooks Robinson Gomer Pyle impression, that Reggie is doing one hell of a Redd Foxx impression in 73’? It’s what I see every single time.

[ALR-bishop]

Following up on Darren's post above

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awrh...Nlk9tfESn6aWc-

[darkhorse9]

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

Agree. Willie Mays wore his hat since 1952, but apparently lost it in 1961.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

I hear that. Here's '61 in a nutshell:

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

I don't like the 1961 Topps set at all. Not only are the player shots bad, but the fundamental design is boring. The only reason I'm willing to even consider any of the cards for my present day collection is that the cards form part of my childhood card collecting memories.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I'm not sure why people blast sets for blurry photos or questionable airbrushing and don't flinch a bit at the 1961 set.

Almost every picture is blurry to some extent. Several pictures look almost like bad paintings.

And, as for hatless, there are by my count 96 pictures without hats in that set. That sixteen percent of the entire set. The 1969 set has 120 hatless shots but a bigger set by almost 100 cards.

96/587 = 16.4%. 120/664 = 18.1%. Add that there are also about 100 players whose cards are reused photos and that is why 1969 is considered worse.

[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.

[Balticfox]

Interesting about full photographic backgrounds and Topps cards. The 1957 Topps Baseball set was the first Topps sport card release with photo backgrounds. Then beginning in 1959 every Topps Baseball card set had the full photo background.

But this was unique to Topps Baseball issues. The Topps Football and Hockey sets all featured design art backgrounds. Some examples from my collection:

1959



1960



1963



1958-59



1959-60



1960-61



The first O-Pee-Chee/Topps Hockey cards featuring full photo backgrounds were the 1973-74 ones. And just like the 1973 Topps Baseball, they were absolutely dreadful. The Hockey cards actually continued to be dreadful for the next decade or so.

[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.