@dan89 said:
When 1981 Topps hit the shelves the whole neighborhood was saying this is crap. I stopped buying cards it was so bad. Can I appreciate Nolan Ryan and Yaz from this set, maybe, however overall it felt cheap.
My exact experience too. I actually stopped collecting (after 7 years) when I saw them.
I still don't get what you and some other have against 1981 Topps...and 1992 Fleer was a HUGE step up from the snoozer 1991's. Not to mention that was the first year of the truly great Fleer/Ultra insert sets!!
Did I forget to mention how awesome it is to try to collect master sets of mid 90s Fleer/Ultra? You know they could've just had dressed up basic cards, like some of the other guys. But Fleer and Ultra and later Flair insert sets were totally unique. And highly collectable.
This thread just goers to show that there are collectors for everything and thankfully we don't all have the same taste.
I have always collected what I like, not necessarily what is popular. I think I did OK over the years in building a collection that appeals to me, for me.
There are a lot of set designs that just brought nothing good to the table, but I still collected a lot of them because that is what was available at the time to add new cards. I don't regret it, but looking back through cards and reminiscing, I am never going to fawn over a 1995 Fleer base card. If I recall though, that was the year that had the double sided team leaders with the black sparkle design, which I did like and even discovered that you could often feel them through the wrapper. The early beginnings for pack searching was an unfortunate side effect.
I collect Steve Garvey, Dodgers and signed cards. Collector since 1978.
@dan89 said:
When 1981 Topps hit the shelves the whole neighborhood was saying this is crap. I stopped buying cards it was so bad. Can I appreciate Nolan Ryan and Yaz from this set, maybe, however overall it felt cheap.
Not pleasing to the eye for sure but it does have the toughest psa 10 to pull in existence. To date 0 Fernando Valenzuela psa 10’s exist!
@dan89 said:
When 1981 Topps hit the shelves the whole neighborhood was saying this is crap. I stopped buying cards it was so bad. Can I appreciate Nolan Ryan and Yaz from this set, maybe, however overall it felt cheap.
And they liked the thin Donruss cards and not-cut-straight-half-the-time Fleer cards better? How exactly did 1981 Topps "feel cheap"? Did they not use as good card stock (has anyone kept track of quality/type of card stock Topps used over the years?)?
@Centauri said:
Fleer 1990 is way worse than 91, IMO. In particular, the 91 Fleer Pro Vision is really cool. 1990 is completely unimaginative.
At least 1990 has some color variety. And I agree about the Pro Vision but I thought we were talking about the regular sets and not the inserts. For the early-mid 90s Fleer and Ultra most definitely had the best inserts, and like I said before, they didn't just dress up their basic cards like some of the other guys. No sir, their inserts were totally unique, and highly collectible.
@dan89 said:
When 1981 Topps hit the shelves the whole neighborhood was saying this is crap. I stopped buying cards it was so bad. Can I appreciate Nolan Ryan and Yaz from this set, maybe, however overall it felt cheap.
Not pleasing to the eye for sure but it does have the toughest psa 10 to pull in existence. To date 0 Fernando Valenzuela psa 10’s exist!
There are multiple 70's OPC baseball cards that are tougher (1973 #1 Ruth/Aaron/Mays or 1974 Fisk for example) to pull in a 10, but Fernando is certainly the most famous one among that difficult 10 category, with mythical chase lore associated with it as well as higher demand. I think the OPC ones are literally impossible to ever get a 10 due to manufacturing/cutting issues with specific cards in those sets, but the Fernando might have the potential to exist some day. Either way, I'm a much bigger fan of 1981 Topps/OPC than I am of some uglier early '90's sets.
Some cards should be basically impossible to get a 10 on, but usually there is at least one grader who will eventually overlook something and give the “impossible” grade. For example, the 1973 Hal Breeden card (even worse than the All Time HR Leaders card with the same issue) has notoriously horrible back centering when the front is centered. As of now there are only 18 9s and zero 10s, making it one of the toughest cards in the set. Hard to imagine there will ever be a 10.
Some cards should be basically impossible to get a 10 on, but usually there is at least one grader who will eventually overlook something and give the “impossible” grade. For example, the 1973 Hal Breeden card (even worse than the All Time HR Leaders card with the same issue) has notoriously horrible back centering when the front is centered. As of now there are only 18 9s and zero 10s, making it one of the toughest cards in the set. Hard to imagine there will ever be a 10.
Dude's ultra serious look conveys, no way in hell anyone ever gets a 10 on this card.
Love how the comment on the back of the card all about Mike Jorgansen. Breeden had very nice minor leagues stats.
The design felt like they put 81 together the week before. Generally, all issues from 81 were not that attractive and yes all look cheap in effort. 80 Topps and 82 and 83 look like masterpieces compared. I get the Fernando card and that one at this point will never happen in a 10…..
@dan89 said:
When 1981 Topps hit the shelves the whole neighborhood was saying this is crap. I stopped buying cards it was so bad. Can I appreciate Nolan Ryan and Yaz from this set, maybe, however overall it felt cheap.
And they liked the thin Donruss cards and not-cut-straight-half-the-time Fleer cards better? How exactly did 1981 Topps "feel cheap"? Did they not use as good card stock (has anyone kept track of quality/type of card stock Topps used over the years?)?
@dan89 said:
When 1981 Topps hit the shelves the whole neighborhood was saying this is crap. I stopped buying cards it was so bad. Can I appreciate Nolan Ryan and Yaz from this set, maybe, however overall it felt cheap.
Not pleasing to the eye for sure but it does have the toughest psa 10 to pull in existence. To date 0 Fernando Valenzuela psa 10’s exist!
81 Topps Fernando 10s exist. They're just sitting in 9 holders.
@dan89 said:
The design felt like they put 81 together the week before. Generally, all issues from 81 were not that attractive and yes all look cheap in effort. 80 Topps and 82 and 83 look like masterpieces compared. I get the Fernando card and that one at this point will never happen in a 10…..
But you said you and your gang (not street gang I hope! I mean like Fat Albert and all the gang or Peanuts gang or Scooby-Doo gang and what not) singled out 1981 Topps. And I do in fact like the 1982 and 1983 designs. Sadly 1982 was the last year for the cartoons on the back for the rest of that century :,( You know there's a song called 1982!
I must have a dozen Fernandos that look like 10s on the front. Then you turn them over and they should probably be 7s due to how awful the centering is in each direction.
Comments
My exact experience too. I actually stopped collecting (after 7 years) when I saw them.
It is said the Sports Card Hobby is a Sausage Fest, so whats one more Wiener.
Totally agree 1981 Topps Baseball, 1991 Bowman Baseball, 1990 Donruss Baseball, 1991 and 1992 Fleer Baseball, 1988 Donruss Baseball, 1990 Score Football. I'll add 1987 Fleer Baseball, never liked powder-blue...
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I still don't get what you and some other have against 1981 Topps...and 1992 Fleer was a HUGE step up from the snoozer 1991's. Not to mention that was the first year of the truly great Fleer/Ultra insert sets!!
Did I forget to mention how awesome it is to try to collect master sets of mid 90s Fleer/Ultra? You know they could've just had dressed up basic cards, like some of the other guys. But Fleer and Ultra and later Flair insert sets were totally unique. And highly collectable.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
This thread just goers to show that there are collectors for everything and thankfully we don't all have the same taste.
I have always collected what I like, not necessarily what is popular. I think I did OK over the years in building a collection that appeals to me, for me.
There are a lot of set designs that just brought nothing good to the table, but I still collected a lot of them because that is what was available at the time to add new cards. I don't regret it, but looking back through cards and reminiscing, I am never going to fawn over a 1995 Fleer base card. If I recall though, that was the year that had the double sided team leaders with the black sparkle design, which I did like and even discovered that you could often feel them through the wrapper. The early beginnings for pack searching was an unfortunate side effect.
Not pleasing to the eye for sure but it does have the toughest psa 10 to pull in existence. To date 0 Fernando Valenzuela psa 10’s exist!
And they liked the thin Donruss cards and not-cut-straight-half-the-time Fleer cards better? How exactly did 1981 Topps "feel cheap"? Did they not use as good card stock (has anyone kept track of quality/type of card stock Topps used over the years?)?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Fleer 1990 is way worse than 91, IMO. In particular, the 91 Fleer Pro Vision is really cool. 1990 is completely unimaginative.
At least 1990 has some color variety. And I agree about the Pro Vision but I thought we were talking about the regular sets and not the inserts. For the early-mid 90s Fleer and Ultra most definitely had the best inserts, and like I said before, they didn't just dress up their basic cards like some of the other guys. No sir, their inserts were totally unique, and highly collectible.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
There are multiple 70's OPC baseball cards that are tougher (1973 #1 Ruth/Aaron/Mays or 1974 Fisk for example) to pull in a 10, but Fernando is certainly the most famous one among that difficult 10 category, with mythical chase lore associated with it as well as higher demand. I think the OPC ones are literally impossible to ever get a 10 due to manufacturing/cutting issues with specific cards in those sets, but the Fernando might have the potential to exist some day. Either way, I'm a much bigger fan of 1981 Topps/OPC than I am of some uglier early '90's sets.
@miwlvrn
Some cards should be basically impossible to get a 10 on, but usually there is at least one grader who will eventually overlook something and give the “impossible” grade. For example, the 1973 Hal Breeden card (even worse than the All Time HR Leaders card with the same issue) has notoriously horrible back centering when the front is centered. As of now there are only 18 9s and zero 10s, making it one of the toughest cards in the set. Hard to imagine there will ever be a 10.
Dude's ultra serious look conveys, no way in hell anyone ever gets a 10 on this card.
Love how the comment on the back of the card all about Mike Jorgansen. Breeden had very nice minor leagues stats.
The design felt like they put 81 together the week before. Generally, all issues from 81 were not that attractive and yes all look cheap in effort. 80 Topps and 82 and 83 look like masterpieces compared. I get the Fernando card and that one at this point will never happen in a 10…..
81 Topps Fernando 10s exist. They're just sitting in 9 holders.
But you said you and your gang (not street gang I hope! I mean like Fat Albert and all the gang or Peanuts gang or Scooby-Doo gang and what not) singled out 1981 Topps. And I do in fact like the 1982 and 1983 designs. Sadly 1982 was the last year for the cartoons on the back for the rest of that century :,( You know there's a song called 1982!
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Don't forget these two 10s from the song Fernando!
Beatles who?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I must have a dozen Fernandos that look like 10s on the front. Then you turn them over and they should probably be 7s due to how awful the centering is in each direction.
wow, still no mention of ProSet. 1990 hockey had more errors than correct cards.
