Monday, November 24, 2008

1986 Topps

I recently read a post at Night Owl Cards that said these cards were ugly. This is one of my favorite sets. I do have to admit I am slightly biased. This was not only the last time the Mets won the World Series but I was 6 years old at the time and these were the first baseball cards I ever saw. The funny thing is, even as a kid I never owned any. I didn't actually start collecting until 87. But these cards always held a soft spot in my heart. (Tear) Anyway, earlier this year I bought about 20, if I remember correctly, rack packs for $1 each. I got really close to the set, however I also ended up with tons of doubles and triples. I will be sending a bunch over to Night Owl but I still need a few more. Please help if you can.

3, 5, 6, 51, 53, 171, 267, 270, 300, 305, 350, 377, 389, 390, 455, 485, 506, 580, 610, 683, 790

So what do you all think? Are these cards ugly?

**Update**

Got a Christmas gift today in the form of 1 card off this list. It was Darryl Strawberry, a man with one of the most fluid swings i've ever seen. Big thanks to Mark at Stats on the Back for the help. Almost there.

2 comments:

night owl said...

My thing is more the photos than the design. The design is OK, just a bit too simplistic for me.

If you look at the photos of the sets immediately before 1986 (especially 1983 on), there's quite a drop-off with the 1986 shots. Loads of dark and out-of-focus shots. Some of the photo selection is bad. It's like they hired all new photographers for '86 and they were all bad.

I've seen some '86 cards with photos that were taken during spring training, when it's supposedly bright and sunny, and the photos are so dark they look like they were taken at night.

Selecting photos is part of my job. So I guess I'm extra sensitive to stuff like that.

paulsrandomstuff said...

Without a doubt, 1986 is the worst Topps set of the decade. The design is ugly, the cards were frequently miscut and too many of the photos look like leftovers from 1982 Fleer.