How come the 1991 topps "1953 archives" never took off like topps heritage?
RipublicaninMass
Posts: 10,051 ✭✭✭
Discuss! Maybe if they started with 1952 it would have caught on? I always liked the set, and is very cheap right now. Was the market flooded with these?
0
Comments
That's a good question. Refresh my memory, weren't the 1953 archives essentially a reprint set (in other words, they weren't "current" players). Also, were the cards more glossy in nature as opposed to the real 1953's? In any case, it seems that "vintage" styled modern cards of current players / rookies do better than any attempts at a reprint, the following set notwithstanding:
<< <i>No autographs? No relics? No blasted single prints? Certainly, NO GUM!
That's a good question. Refresh my memory, weren't the 1953 archives essentially a reprint set (in other words, they weren't "current" players). Also, were the cards more glossy in nature as opposed to the real 1953's? In any case, it seems that "vintage" styled modern cards of current players / rookies do better than any attempts at a reprint, the following set notwithstanding:
True, I think the current players are the reason for the failure. No GUM ?? Well maybe Lothar would just buy singles instead of packs, he loes the stuff. I liked the "missing cards" of Williams, Hank Aaron , nice o pull those or a mantle from a pack.
The UV glossy cards just didn't get it.
Plus, people were just getting into the "insert" mania and this set was a letdown except for the Mantle card.
mike