Options
To SMR Magazine Set Registry writers:
Buccaneer
Posts: 1,794 ✭✭
There is only one reason now that I renew my PSA membership - to get the SMR Magazine solely for the wonderful Set Registry articles (you know, the ones that feature a set, describing what the set looks like, what are the key and tough cards, etc.). I have cut out all (well, the ones covering 1950s through 1970s Topps) and saved them for bedtime reading on occassion. (I also cut them out so I can throw the rest of the magazine away, but that's another thread.) Anyway, I have a couple of requests for future articles:
1. Please, please provide a scan of the backs once in a while. You glowing describe what the cards look like, front and back, but never any scans of the backs.
2. Please do a better job in the selections of the scans. You wonderfully describe all of the different varieties of cards in the set but rarely do you show a variety in the scans. Case in point, I was reading the article on the 1964 Topps last night and on one page, you showed four Yankees cards (plus a Maris card couple of pages before). Couldn't you have shown a team card or a WS card or a LL card or something besides multiple scans on the basically the same card on one page?!? In other words, if you describe a particular card in your article in glowing terms (like a great combo card), show a scan of the darn thing so we can see what you describing. Makes sense?
3. In the content of the article, please provide a setting for the set. Everyone go back and re-read the 1964 Topps article that Peter did. He started off by talking about how it was a transition year from the doo-wop to the British Invasion, how we had a new President, and that 1964 represented the last of the good ol' days of baseball when the last NY teams was dominant. He then gave a brief summary of the previous years versions of the Topps sets and put 1964 design in context with the others. That was great writing. While I think all of these articles are fun to read, I like a little history/context lesson since buying and collecting cards of the 50s and 60s were before my time.
4. The ones that I have include 1964, 1971, 1963, 1960, 1961, 1958, 1955, 1965 and the new 1956 one. The 1977 and 1978 ones were ok but I didn't save those. Unless I missed them previously, there are more you could do from 1952 to 1972. Please work on those instead of other years or non-Baseball.
1. Please, please provide a scan of the backs once in a while. You glowing describe what the cards look like, front and back, but never any scans of the backs.
2. Please do a better job in the selections of the scans. You wonderfully describe all of the different varieties of cards in the set but rarely do you show a variety in the scans. Case in point, I was reading the article on the 1964 Topps last night and on one page, you showed four Yankees cards (plus a Maris card couple of pages before). Couldn't you have shown a team card or a WS card or a LL card or something besides multiple scans on the basically the same card on one page?!? In other words, if you describe a particular card in your article in glowing terms (like a great combo card), show a scan of the darn thing so we can see what you describing. Makes sense?
3. In the content of the article, please provide a setting for the set. Everyone go back and re-read the 1964 Topps article that Peter did. He started off by talking about how it was a transition year from the doo-wop to the British Invasion, how we had a new President, and that 1964 represented the last of the good ol' days of baseball when the last NY teams was dominant. He then gave a brief summary of the previous years versions of the Topps sets and put 1964 design in context with the others. That was great writing. While I think all of these articles are fun to read, I like a little history/context lesson since buying and collecting cards of the 50s and 60s were before my time.
4. The ones that I have include 1964, 1971, 1963, 1960, 1961, 1958, 1955, 1965 and the new 1956 one. The 1977 and 1978 ones were ok but I didn't save those. Unless I missed them previously, there are more you could do from 1952 to 1972. Please work on those instead of other years or non-Baseball.
0
Comments
The only thing I'd disagree with is #3. I don't give a damn about what was going on with the Beetles when a card set was issued. I'm reading SMR, not Rollnig Stone. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but that sort of context doesn't appeal to me at all in a baseball card magazine. The comparison to previous years' designs is welcome, however.
Joe
I've been a part of the articles on occasion and it's also fun being part of the story and getting our online recognition!
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
Dave
1957 Topps 99% 7.40 GPA
Hank Aaron Basic PSA 7-8(75%)
Dave Jacobs
Thankfully, I saw a post with a link to the story. Link
I only hope that many more scans were used in the printed version than those available in the on-line story.
Cheers,
MichaelG
TGF Collection
TGF Sports