Why Topps Archives Stopped At 1954???

[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.