Worst Topps set for photos?

[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.

[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.

[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-

[iwantitiwinit]

58 followed closely by 69 for the obvious reasons already stated.

[Lucas00]

I’m going with Mark on anything past 1971. But in particular anything past 1975.

I think its pretty crazy 58 is a disliked set based on headshots, I guess people don’t like color. 1953 topps is THE headshot set. So it should be widely disliked as well, and if I remember correctly from a thread several years ago, it was many peoples least favorite set from the 50s. Which I probably agree with, not because of the headshots, because I don’t like the art style.

[JoeWillyMammoth]

That 1973 Reggie card boggles my mind, I can barely tell what he is doing in that shot!

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I think its pretty crazy 58 is a disliked set based on headshots, I guess people don’t like color.

Love the color! The headshots not so much.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by JoeWillyMammoth

That 1973 Reggie card boggles my mind, I can barely tell what he is doing in that shot!

Either throwing or having a medical emergency.

[D. Bergin]

The George Scott background is a real Rorschach test (or Horror Movie) for me. Every time I look too hard at it, I see a bunch of big headed apparitions scattered throughout the crowd.

Hope I’m not the only one.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I’m going with Mark on anything past 1971. But in particular anything past 1975.

I think its pretty crazy 58 is a disliked set based on headshots, I guess people don’t like color. 1953 topps is THE headshot set. So it should be widely disliked as well, and if I remember correctly from a thread several years ago, it was many peoples least favorite set from the 50s. Which I probably agree with, not because of the headshots, because I don’t like the art style.

I agree with this. 1958 is bad because of too many headshots. Don't forget the "armless" cropping of Gino Cimoli. However, the Clemente is one of the best looking Topps cards ever. The Mays AS and Mantle AS are awesome, and we get the first Musial and last Williams.

1969 is bad because of too many hatless players and reused photos. However, there are plenty of nice cards in the low series, Bench, Banks, Brock, Clemente, Gibson, Kaline & F. Robinson. The last 3 series we get the 1969 spring training photos and players in uniform for the 4 expansion teams.

I dislike 1953 more because of too many headshots and the poor artwork. The Whitey Ford may be the worst. I know this will be a minority opinion, but I dislike the photos for 1952 Topps even more than 1958 and 1969. Again too many headshots and the colorizing of the black and white photos has always looked weird to me.

[Brent G.]

I mean, is there a worse card for a hall of famer than that Reggie?? People with no experience in my sophomore year of high school photo journalism class shot better action shots of gym class.

[puckpaul]

The photos are mostly portraits, but with the overall design being so ugly, i find 1974 the worst. Collected it as a kid and the passage of time has not made me the slightest bit nostalgic for it.

[JollyElm]

What adds to the utter horror of the 1973 Topps Reggie photo is that's his MVP year!!!
Thus, the card naturally gets featured so much more often than any of his other non-rookie cards!!!! You simply can't avoid the squished face craziness!!!!!!!!

[Chicosbailbonds]

68-69 were the worst. The one thing about the 73's are the action shots were similar to 71 and 72. It was the technology of the day.

[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.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by Chicosbailbonds

68-69 were the worst. The one thing about the 73's are the action shots were similar to 71 and 72. It was the technology of the day.

There are plenty of great action shots long before 1973, but apparently the Topps people had no idea what film and equipment to use. Maybe they should’ve called Sports Illustrated.

[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.

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rats60

1969 is bad because of too many hatless players and reused photos.

When we were kids, we also felt the 1969 design was basically a copy of 1968, with that color circle.

So overall I would say 1969 was the laziest effort Topps put out.

[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:

[Balticfox]

I'm opposed to Reggie Jackson in a New York Yankees uniform.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I'm opposed to Reggie Jackson in a New York Yankees uniform.

That's Ok. I'm opposed to him in an Angels uniform.

Would love to have a copy of his 1977 Topps in an Orioles uniform though. His Yankees card for that year is pretty atrocious to.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I'm opposed to Reggie Jackson in a New York Yankees uniform.

Agree. His 1974 Topps is my favorite.

[KJA]

1990 Topps I always thought was pretty boring when it came to the photography.

[JollyElm]

Burger King saved the day for us kids in the summer of '77 by capturing Reg in his Yankees uniform.
Everyone was driving their moms bananas, begging them to bring us to BK to chow down a Whopper and try to land a REG-GIE instead of a (no offense) Fran Healy!!!!

Phenomenal times!! Seems like yesterday.

1977burgerkingreggiejackson.jpg

[D. Bergin]

Ah, forgot about the BK version. Much better then the standard Topps issue with the uncanny valley looking batting helmet.

[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.

[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.)

[ALR-bishop]

And a Lucky Penny to go with the card . And other inserts

[perezfan]

Here's another vote for 1958 being the worst set in terms of aesthetics. Far too many boring head-shots and photos that all look the same. There are a few exceptions, but the vast majority of the '58 set is a snooze-fest.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Someone mentioned the recycled head shots from 1954-56. Yes, that gets old in a hurry, but the action shots on the '56s are a bit of a saving grace most of the time. Definitely my favorite of those three years. That was the only vintage set I went after as a youngster, and I'm sure glad I did it when things were still cheap. Although I haven't collected unsigned cards in about 35 years, I will die with those '56s. I rarely look at them, but like knowing they're there. I'd have gone after the '57s as well, but had a kid-sized budget and just happened to land face first into the '56 Mantle via a trade, so the decision was almost made for me by that lone acquisition.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

And a Lucky Penny to go with the card . And other inserts

Wow! A 1957 Baseball salesman's sample card! But why did the crew at PSA merely authenticate it without putting a number on the label?

And I love the actual Bazooka-Blony Lucky Penny and all the unnumbered insert cards! I actually need two Lucky Pennies as well as two "Lucky Penny"cards since these were also distributed with the Robin Hood cards in 1957 and I have a full set of these.

And all those insert cards! Do you know how many different insert cards were distributed in 1957 Baseball packs?