and the ugly

[Matthew80]

The ugliest Topps issue among postwar years?

I'm having a difficult time choosing between '69, '70 and '76. I guess I'll go with '70.

The gray borders are just so blah, they can't be overlooked. The lack of genuine action shots doesn't help, either.

[savedfrommyspokes]

For me it is the 73s as they are too plain.

[39special]

I'd say either '73 or '74.

[RobertGT]

1973 by FAR.

Clearly Topps was cutting corners. Combine that with horrible photography (i.e. a picture of a guy sliding into second - looks like it was taken from 300 feet away; shadows across players faces, etc); uninspired design, weak quality control and flimsy card stock and viola! - you have the worst issue ever produced by Topps.

[novakjr]

Based solely on design, I always though 1986 was terrible. Although that may be compounded by the fact that it's pretty much the most worthless set topps ever produced. Not a single notable rookie past Fielder.. If you lump in the Traded set, then I guess it becomes a somewhat noteworthy year for rookies.

All that aside, '73 was wrong on so many more levels, as Robert stated..

Design only-'86
Complete and total failure on almost every level of production-'73
Total worthlessness-'86

[Robextend]

I always thought '78 was pretty ugly.

[Gr8Beldini]

I always assumed "Postwar Years" meant 1947 through 1980, so the hideous 1982 and 1986 sets shouldn't count.

I think that 1976 is one of the nicer sets in terms of design and photography. It gets no love because of the lack of decent rookie cards. Conversely, 1975 is pretty ugly with terrible photography (check to see how many shadows cover players' faces - Seaver, Palmer to name two) but everyone loves '75 because of the great RC's included. For my 2 cents the ugliest postwar sets are 1959, 1968, 1974, 1975, 1979 and 1980.