Why Topps Archives Stopped At 1954???

[theseeker]

I can't help but notice that the Topps Heritage cards are getting as much buzz as any of their current offerings. Which brings me to my question.....Why did Topps stop their Achive sets in 1995 with the 1955 set?
They sold well in the excess-product era and I recall that Topps came out with a statement at the news of the release of the 1955 set that the 1983/1952 and 1991/1953 reprint sets not only did no harm to the value of the originals but seemed to have increased their values by spurring interest. So why no continuation of the complete sets beyond those years rather than the endless hodge-podge of insert reprint releases that followed?

[ALR-bishop]

Not sure. Is it your understanding the 54 Reprints sold as well as the 52s and 53s ? I have the regular sets, but did buy the reprints as well. In my mind the 54 issue was a big disappointment because you had to spend a fair amount of extra money to "complete" that set with the 2 Upper Deck Williams cards, and if you were so inclined the UD Mantle card. Plus they did a "Gold" 54 reprint too ( pack inserts) and am not sure how that may have impacted their margins/sales of both products. Plus, if you take a look at the listing for Topps baseball in SCD ( 2011 catalog) for 1994 there are 9 sets/items listed, including the two 54 reprints. In 1995 there are 19 listings. Alternative Topps products really started to proliferate after 1994

[Bob Lemke]

According to my recollection of an informal talk with a Topps honcho back in the day, they gave up on the Archives complete-set notion because they needed to sign each player or his heirs to a new contract, and it was just too big a hassle to find them all and deal with sometimes unreasonable demands.

[ALR-bishop]

Makes sense Bob. As I recall they missed a on a couple of the 52 reprints because of difficulty getting needed family consent of deceased players

[theseeker]

Originally Posted by Bob Lemke

According to my recollection of an informal talk with a Topps honcho back in the day, they gave up on the Archives complete-set notion because they needed to sign each player or his heirs to a new contract, and it was just too big a hassle to find them all and deal with sometimes unreasonable demands.

Thank you, Bob. That makes sense, although I can't help but think how much I like the '55's and '56's. Would have loved to have seen those redone.With the leg work for the three previous years already done..............................

[darkhorse9]

Could I be the only one that thinks the 1954 achive set was ugly? They just looked weird in glossy paper and new card stock. The "cards that never were" just looked bad.

The 1953 set doesn't suffer as bad (although those extended set cards were pretty ugly too.)

The 1956 set might have looked sharp, but after that....

[Bob Lemke]

I agree that the concept was a fish out of water.

Many of those of us who collected the originals found the down-sized glossy cards jarring. And the "extended" cards in 1953 were butt-ugly.

Younger collectors, by and large, couldn't have cared less about guys like Angel Scull and Bobby Young.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Bob Lemke

Younger collectors, by and large, couldn't have cared less about guys like Angel Scull and Bobby Young.

Which is one advantage of the Topps Heritage line - the older designs with current players that the younger fans can relate to. It's just a shame Topps couldn't have waited a year to begin the series, because then they'd be able to market them as today's players in card designs from 50 years ago (the 2012 Heritage set uses the design from the 1963 Topps).

[Rich Klein]

The other issue was the archive set also were created during the hobby boom. After 1994, sales of cards started to dry up and the archives set were not only as Bob said, a bit aggravating to get all the players involved but also were not going to sell enough copies to make the project worthwhile.

That is why Topps tried the Dodgers archives in 1995 and that ended the sets until the heritage sets began in 2001

Regards
Rich

[theseeker]

"fish out of water" ? I must be swimming upstream , again, because I really love the complete reprint sets. And Topp's were by far the best. As far a players from eras before ones time-- as a set builder, I've always found the commons to be as interesting and more fun than the star cards. For the younger collector, is there more interest in a common player from the fifties, if the card is an original?

[ALR-bishop]

John--Better a fish out of water than butt ugly

Al

[theseeker]

Al, you did manage to put it in perspective for me.

As for the legendary Bob Lemke, not seeeing how a younger generation collector could have interest in the Angel Scull card? Why I'm stunned. If that three panel cartoon on the card back, on how he was doing well on the field (destined to be a AAAA player,) but didn't understand any English until a Spanish speaking women introduced him to some college students to help teach him, isn't inspirational to the younger collector, I'm in the wrong hobby. *edited to insert smilie face and change the tone*

[GoldenAge50s]

I saw Angel Scull play ball & met him in 1951. He lived in an apt right across the street from my grandparents!

[toppcat]

The only good reprint set Topps did was the 52 set. Standard sized but on thick cardboard and with regular gloss. I filled in the missing cards with actual 52 Topps myself, althoguh I did get a second Billy Loes when the Dodgers Archives set was released.