Topps/Donruss/Fleer sentiments throughout the 80's
jrinck
Posts: 1,321 ✭✭
If you were a pack buyer in the 80's then you no doubt ranked Topps, Donruss, and Fleer in order from best to worst. The interesting thing about these three companies is that their rankings/sentiments changed frequently throughout the 80's. Here are my sentiments throughout the 80's:
1980: Topps is the only game in town. With nobody to compare them to they were the default leader.
1981: Topps is the king. Many people didn't even know about Fleer and Donruss because they were brand new and nothing to write home about.
1982: Topps is still king, but many stores start to carry Donruss and Fleer, making Topps somewhat hard to find in some places. In comparing quality, Donruss had more colorful pictures while Fleer cards seemed more sturdy. Topps cards, however, had league leader and all-star cards, and just looked "tougher".
1983: Topps rules this year primarily because of the inset pictures. Donruss slips down because the design looks too much like 1982's. Fleer's design was just ugly.
1984: Donruss actually takes the lead over Topps this year because of the somewhat innovative design and cool pictures, even though availability is limited. Topps and Fleer copied too heavily from the previous year's design, and thus get downgraded.
1985: Donruss, with the black borders, takes a commanding lead, even though it is STILL difficult to locate. Topps' design looks washed out, while Fleer's is uninspired despite having some nice photography.
1986: Topps gains a bit with the neat design, but Donruss still edges out the top spot because of all the buzz about the Canseco rookie. Fleer once again relies on a previous year's design and suffers, despite having a Canseco of their own.
1987: A good effort could have elevated Topps, but Donruss kicks some serious tail with the cool black borders. Fleer does a nice redesign with blue borders, but can't gain any ground on Donruss, but overtakes Topps. Topps tries the retro 1962 look but fails miserably.
1988: A bad year for all three. Donruss fails to inspire, while Topps fails to innovate. Fleer looks nice, but even it isn't enough compared to previous year's efforts. In other words, a boring year.
1989: Another dismal year for the big three, made even worse for them by the arrival of Upper Deck, which reaches a new echelon in card design. Bowman tries a comeback, but the big cards not only don't fit into any normal plastic sheets, but they are so ugly that nobody would want to put any in a sheet, anyway.
1980: Topps is the only game in town. With nobody to compare them to they were the default leader.
1981: Topps is the king. Many people didn't even know about Fleer and Donruss because they were brand new and nothing to write home about.
1982: Topps is still king, but many stores start to carry Donruss and Fleer, making Topps somewhat hard to find in some places. In comparing quality, Donruss had more colorful pictures while Fleer cards seemed more sturdy. Topps cards, however, had league leader and all-star cards, and just looked "tougher".
1983: Topps rules this year primarily because of the inset pictures. Donruss slips down because the design looks too much like 1982's. Fleer's design was just ugly.
1984: Donruss actually takes the lead over Topps this year because of the somewhat innovative design and cool pictures, even though availability is limited. Topps and Fleer copied too heavily from the previous year's design, and thus get downgraded.
1985: Donruss, with the black borders, takes a commanding lead, even though it is STILL difficult to locate. Topps' design looks washed out, while Fleer's is uninspired despite having some nice photography.
1986: Topps gains a bit with the neat design, but Donruss still edges out the top spot because of all the buzz about the Canseco rookie. Fleer once again relies on a previous year's design and suffers, despite having a Canseco of their own.
1987: A good effort could have elevated Topps, but Donruss kicks some serious tail with the cool black borders. Fleer does a nice redesign with blue borders, but can't gain any ground on Donruss, but overtakes Topps. Topps tries the retro 1962 look but fails miserably.
1988: A bad year for all three. Donruss fails to inspire, while Topps fails to innovate. Fleer looks nice, but even it isn't enough compared to previous year's efforts. In other words, a boring year.
1989: Another dismal year for the big three, made even worse for them by the arrival of Upper Deck, which reaches a new echelon in card design. Bowman tries a comeback, but the big cards not only don't fit into any normal plastic sheets, but they are so ugly that nobody would want to put any in a sheet, anyway.
0
Comments
Ben
Jrinck,
Your assesment holds true until 1987.Donruss definately was good but Fleer was the undisputed king that year.While maybe not the best design,they were tough to find and commanded a premium that made them worth the chase.Same thing with 1988 on a lesser scale as far as the chase goes and they were the much nicer design of the the big three.Also,the rookie cards in 88 Fleer were the more sought after cards in comparison.
Good post!!
Vic
With regards to 1989 Bowman,One might say that they were among the rarest of big issues by the major four companies along with the 1988 Topps Bigs.Could these two sets be real sleepers in years to come due to their scarcity.
Just a point to ponder!!!
Vic
hot as any card could be. Bonilla too. Anyone else always pick up a traded set too?? My dad
had the choice in 84 to buy a topps traded set for 20 bucks or a Fleer Update set for 18...he picked
the topps! LOL
Maybe Im not old enough, but the 80's wern't about money, you just tried to get one of each guy!
Kevin
loth
it was the collectors decade...90's and early 2000's have been the card companies decades so far
about the hobby not being like gambling! LOL
Kevin
I remember being 8 years old in 1983 and my dad buying me some 83 Topps packs. Just looking at those cards bring back memories. I love the mid 80's sets from 83 to 87. 1988 and 1989 were awful due to mass production and absolutely no rookies. I still remember busting open my first box of 88 Score. Boy, aren't those worthless now! But, oh, the memories! How many of you remember how hot the 84 Donruss Mattingly was? or the 86 Donruss Canseco? Didn't the 86 Donruss Canseco reach $100? Now you can get them for about $3.00 on Ebay. Which card was "THE CARD OF THE 80'S"?
I nominate:
84 Donruss Mattingly
86 Donruss Canseco
85 Topps McGwire
89 Upper Deck Griffey.
What about "BUST CARD" of the 80's:
Any 88 Gregg Jeffries
Any 85 Gooden
Shane
Shane
Hrbek!
Kevin
Shane
85 topps McGwire
85 topps don fleer Clemens
82 Topps Ripken
83 Topps don fleer Boggs, Gwynn and Sandberg
80 Topps Henderson
89 UD Griffey
#2 to me would be the 1981 Topps 5 x 7's (white backs)...NICE
Steve
As for not being about money, there was some of that, as mentioned already. Every show you went to had $100 Canseco RC's, and 84 Donruss Mattingly's almost as much. But, not nearly as bad as today's lottery ticket packs.
Thats funny. I used to put those cards over a light bulb and win all the time!
Website
<< <i>Jrinck,
Your assesment holds true until 1987.Donruss definately was good but Fleer was the undisputed king that year.While maybe not the best design,they were tough to find and commanded a premium that made them worth the chase. >>
I agree with in two ways:
1) 1987 Donruss was far easier for me to find than Fleer. I could get boxes of '87 Donruss at Toys R Us all day long at 50 cents a pack. Ditto for rack packs of '87 Donruss at Meijer's (I still remember spending an hour sitting on the floor at Meijer's with my mom searching through the newly stocked rack packs looking for that elusive Mark McGwire, LOL. My mom was great "Honey, is this guy any good?" - great memory).
2) In 1987, Fleer released their Tin set. Remember how incredibly on-fire that set was when it came out? They were going to be impossible to find, etc, etc. Sure it didn't work out that way, with Fleer apparently repeating serial #s, etc, but that doesn't change how hot it was at the time!
Plus, Fleer's set just LOOKED better.
Tabe
www.tabe.nu
<< <i>Jrinck,
Your assesment holds true until 1987.Donruss definately was good but Fleer was the undisputed king that year. >>
Fleer and Donruss are a toss-up for that year. I was just expressing how I felt. Fleer's '87 IS nice, but I liked the sharp black borders on the Donruss better. Topps, on the other hand, began a long decline with their '87 effort. I could buy box after box of Topps at virtually every 7-11 type of store, but the only Fleer and Donruss boxes I found were either at commercial flea markets or shows. Normal stores didn't seem to carry Fleer or Donruss, at least in my area.
I do fondly remember opening a box of '87 Topps, though, in the dining room of my Dad's house. I remember where I was sitting, what time of day it was, and how I neatly spread out the wrappers after opening each pack. No serial killers barged in, nor was their any particular form of bad weather--it was just a random day. It's funny how people remember certain mundane events like this.
80's wax is still probably the cheapest to buy raw, but when it comes to grading, different story. You can bust 2-3 cases of many 80's products, and still not get that GEM MT 10 of your favorite player. (I don't count the tiffany/glossy products, they are easy grades.)
The toughest, in my opinion is 1988 Donruss. Yes, you can still probably get a case for $50, but any PSA 10 from this set is a rarity. Only 17 10's from 4000+ graded. It's too bad this set has such a bad rep in the marketplace, otherwise it would be worth grading more of it.
However, I did get a PSA 10 1988 Donruss MVP McGwire on my very first submission in 1998, which got me started in this crazy business.
Don't know how old you are, or what you were doing at the time, but here's my recollection of events.
1981: Fleer makes very noticeable impact on hobby. Innovative ideas include: numbering cards in team order (not done to any significant extent since mid 60-s FB); placing teams pretty much in order of finish from prior year, and white card stock. Topps: decent effort. Donruss: horrible quality control, blurry pics, off centered, thin card stock and hideous collation.
1982: Fleer: photography not so good, but innovations include tri-colored backs with team logos. Topps: meager attempt, looks like a hockey card set. Donruss: vast, vast improvement on all levels, set of the year, although Fleer would have won if its photography had not been so dark.
1983: Great year!! Here I could not disagree with you more. I believe that Fleer set is one of the three best sets of the 80's. Finally, someone got off the white border parade--first time in 8 years. Great Gwynn, Sandberg, Boggs and Ripken cards. Topps: set very strong, nice touch with the two photos. Donruss: can you say re-run? Overestimated their set from the year before.
1984: Fleer: extremely clean design--cannot believe you say it looks like the previous year--I see no resemblance at all. Fleer is clearly the most innovative of the companies druing the first half of the decade. Topps: Many people don't like this set--I do, although I wish they had larger photo area and less border. Donruss: OK, I'm bracing myself for the abuse, but here goes: UNIMAGINATIVE!!! Someone comprised a set of mostly portrait shots (compare Fleer and Topps), decided they needed something in the way of a design mark, so put some yellow squiggly lines, and voila. Many of the cards- at least the ones I bought-had horrible color control-- the caucasians were often green or red tinted in the face and the blacks were purplish red. IMHO, scarcity drove this set, not beauty.
1985: Can you say mass production? Topps effort was nice, the team logos and Olympic cards were good touch. Fleer was disappointingly unexciting. Donruss. Black borders, make the squiggly lines red, and limit production. At least the photography was better.
1986: Topps. Butt ugly, stupid black stripe with block print team name taking up too much space. Fleer. Very nice blue borders makes it condition senstive, pretty nice design, still not awe inspiring. Donruss. Made you dizzy to look at them, but at least something new.
1987: Another great year for design, but zillions made. Topps: I really liked the wood grain border (anything but white at least once in awhile) and team logos (takes me back to earlier classic sets). Fleer; Great design, not overstated. Donruss: best effort since '82--very nice set.
1988: YUCK, YUCK and YUCK. Fleer was the least offensive, and might even reach the level of average. Topps was ugly. Donruss was bonechillingly ugly--the worst set ever designed. Our fathers would not even wear golf pants that ugly! Score brought some innovation to its first set, especially as relates to the great photography quality.
1989: Upper Deck arrives, and the age of innocence ends. Donruss and Fleer are not unattractive, just not that nice. Topps--unattractive, overproduced and looks like it was ut together with about 15 minutes of planning.
ebay id: nolemmings
Point well taken.I apologize if I came across as questioning your assessment too harshly.I was only giving my assessment of the card market from a "most desirable"point as a collector as well as a card shop owner at the time.I did not take into consideration that this might be from your collecting viewpoint.I had(or have) no desire to demean your post.As I stated,I think that this is a very good post and made me reflect on the great old days of card collecting when I really got back into things.Fairly good product,easy accessibility as far as finding wax or racks,and a pretty good sort as far as opening up boxes when it came to building sets.And best of all(in my opinion)no CR@P(chase cards)
Vic
I like your assessment very much (though it seems like you favor Fleer cards a little too much)... I was collecting as a teenager in the 80s and my recollection is quite vivid... I agree with you especially on the 84 Donruss. I hated that set. The design was bad. Yellow stripes for every team? The Red Sox cards looked awful. The line screens on the photos were coarse. The photos were horribly color corrected. There are occasional attractive cards in the set (Mike Schmidt comes to mind) but overall, scarcity in relative 80s terms (I once read that they only cut production about 20 percent that year) is the only appeal that set has had ever had.
Oddly, you note that the 89 Topps set looked like it was put together in a few minutes. Ironically, I interviewed with Topps for a job as a designer that year. The interviewer made it a point to talk about the extreme effort that went into that year's card design (all the player names were on curves and typeset by hand!), among the most difficult they had ever done to date he claimed. Boy, the design should never reflected the effort!
I think you short change the 88 Topps set a bit. It is clean. The typography is easy to read. The photos are crisp and bright throughout (a consistency only Topps has mastered, even today). If it had a couple key RCs, I think people would have a higher opinion of this set. The 88 Score is very overlooked as well. The first set to have full color backs with photos! This set was a gorgeous one at the time, but it was eclipsed quickly by Upper Deck and Stadium Club.
My 5 bests from 1981 to 1988:
1) 1983 Topps
2) 1987 Donruss
3) 1988 Score
4) 1986 Topps
5) 1983 Fleer
You make some excellent observations-very interesting to hear about the '89 Topps design. I will reassess my views of 88 and 89 Topps, and you are right about brightness and clarity for Topps. I just wished they would have ridded themselves of that drab gray stock, that lent itself to pretty average at best reverses.
I am unbashedly a Fleer fan, or was. I always felt they kept Topps on their toes for a few years. One thing I forgot to mention is that they were far and away the best at collation. I remember that both in 1983 and 1987 I actually opened a box of 540 different Fleer cards--no doubles!!! This was still in set hey day, when you (or at least I) was not hunting for 10 copies of each hot rookie in each box.
That probably skewed my opinion of Fleer quite a bit.
I see where you listed 86 Topps as one of your favorites. That seems to be a popular set, or at least far more so than I give it credit. Just curious, what is it you like about that set?
ebay id: nolemmings
I can see why your experience with Fleer would give you good feelings (500+ cards and no doubles -- yeah!)... and Topps cardboard stock was drab when the others used white stock. But, you forget Topps was the only one with gum. And their cards always smelled the best!! The others always smelled like ink and varnish (especially Donruss).
One thing I like about Fleer was the inserts! They were the first to do it with their Future HOF inserts in 86 and subsequent All Star Team inserts. It was fun pulling those "back in the day"!
I like the 86 Topps set because the design is very clean with good typography and nice use of accent colors in the team letters and positions. And black is a color that never clashes with team colors, so you get a nice dramatic look. (If you disagree, look at any 1988 Donruss Padres card -- yuk!). I think if the Bonds, Canseco, or Maddux (even Palmeiro) rookies had managed to sneak into that set, it would be one of Topps 10 best efforts ever. It looks like 1964 meets 1971 and has a kid!
I think the most overlooked base set of the 80's is 85 Donruss. It had those impossible black borders and two HOF rookies in Clemens and Puckett. I believe it to be the most condition sensitive set in the 80's. That's why I have kept my factory sealed set. Maybe one day I will bust it out and have some of them graded.
My favorite brand though has always been Topps. They have the tradition that the others do not have.
What's the most expensive set? 1984 Fleer Update?
Also, I wish someone could shed some light on this. Why does the 89 Fleer Tin Glossy set book higher than the 87 Fleer Glossy set? Limited production? I have the 89 with PSA 9's of the Griffey and Johnson. I couldn't believe it when I saw that the Griffey booked at $115.
Shane