Cards Are Subjective

 Hello Friends!

I watched a video earlier by Baseball Replay Journal on YouTube about the 10 ugliest sets from the junk wax era. Some of the usual suspects were there.. 91 Fleer, 90 Donruss, 88 Donruss, 90 Topps.. But there were others that I do like that they considered ugly. Part of it was the mass overproduction, but some of them I just feel different about. 

I did voice my enjoyment for some of the sets they posted, but I also mentioned a few of my own. I don't get upset or attack people for their opinions on things like card asthetics.. Opinions are like assholes, afterall... We all have them.. (And I'll let you fill in the rest) 

So I wanted to take a look at the timeframe they used, 1986-1993. And I picked out my own... 

So let's take a look. These are in no particular order. 

1987 Fleer. I don't know what it is about this set. It's no ugly per se, but it's so boring. I think the late 80s Fleer in general had that problem. You'd have years like 84 with interesting photos, then other years like this where the border alone puts you to sleep. 

I don't mind the backs. They're readable. The hot/cold boxes remind me of Tetris.. 

1988 Donruss This set is one of those weird ones. I don't like it too much (I dislike 89 more, but didn't grab that one.. Derp) but I also have the set. 

This one.. Aside from the general darkness of the card, is the variations.. Oh GOD the variations.. 

Dot, no Dot, Inc. Inc , borders in different places, etc.. Some years to get the full master set, you're looking at almost 1200 cards.. WTF?!?

Backs are typical Donruss. I do find this year tough to read though. 

1989 Fleer.. As I mentioned, most late 80s Fleer I just can't deal with.. This year though, with the weird lines on the front and photo editing is just annoying. I think there's something like 4 variations of the Randy Johnson card shown here. 

The backs are alright. 

1991 Fleer Ultra.. I liked the idea of it. There's something missing though. I don't know if it's the solid grey borders on the top and bottom, or if it's the large logo reminding you what set this is.. Just doesn't hit right.. But again, I've completed this set... 

The backs are interesting in a way. The three pics of the player can be interesting. But there is something else I want to mention about this set.. 

The errors!! All of the errors!! For what was supposed to be a premium product they did zero quality control on it. 

1992 Score Honestly, I have a love hate relationship with Score in general. I don't know what it is. There's a lot I like about the cards but 92 is just odd for me. It might be the frame breaking.

Now the backs.. I think the stats could be a little darker colour.. I do like the writeups for the players, something that Score was famous for.. 

1992 Topps And really by extension, 1992 OPC. 

It's honestly a clean look, but there's that element of boredom again. Now, keep in mind I started collecting in 1992. This should have been in my wheelhouse. I have an OPC factory set and just what I need from the Topps for team sets and player collections. I just can't explain what I don't like about this. 

The backs are readable. Some of them have the fisheye style stadium photos as well, which I do like. They're missing from long-time players like Carlton Fisk, Gary Carter, and Nolan Ryan though. 

1991 OPC Premier The first attempt at a standalone set by O Pee Chee. It's... Ok? Some of the photography is either too close, too awkward, or just odd choices. 

Here's the back.. Big picture of the player. Big logo of the team. Big copyright logos. One line of four stats.. In a way it feels very slapped together in 15 minutes.. 

1992 OPC Premier If I mentioned the 91 set I have to mention the 92 set. It's another year of very questionable photography. Like this shot of Mark Whiten's back.. 

The only way you can tell really that this is a different set from 91 is there's the 92 after Premier. 

Otherwise, the photography is more awkward choices of either close cropping, weird decisions, or kneeling poses. 

And the backs.. Again, big picture of the player. Big team logo.. Big Year reminder.. Same one line of the same four stats..Big copyright logos.. 

The back seems better arranged than the previous year, but I'm still not a fan... But I have the full set... (Go figure)

Sportflics No specific year.. The whole run of them.. Kind of like the hologram phase we went through with collecting, the magic motion phase was something that maybe we could have done without. It's hard to get the angle you want for the photo, it doesn't scan well.. They're hard to sort through. 

Finally the backs.. Another instance of giant logos and tiny type... Not to mention, if you're taking a quick look to see the card number, you might get confused by the number in the baseball.. That's the uniform number.. The card number is on the other side. 

The players name isn't even large enough to be quickly noticed. 

So those are my choices.. I'll also mention that really, aside from 1993 Upper Deck, I'm not a fan of Upper Deck.. Most of 1993 sets are blanks for my mind. 

Agree? Disagree? Let me know! Just... Keep it respectful please.