So, apparently Topps 2009 has made an unexpected but welcome appearance at certain Target locations. That should make a lot of bloggers' weekends a lot happier.
I'll be missing out on the party. I'm flat broke this weekend, and the mortage payment is due, so I won't be performing any budget magic in order to free up a few dollars. To top it off, it's a very busy weekend at work (Super Bowl and all, you know), so I probably won't even get near a Target until next week.
So, I'll just have to live vicariously through y'all. You better come through! I want to see EVERY card in the pack. Don't even skip over the Washington Nationals. Because even when I do get to a Target, who knows if they'll even have the cards. The card-mobile will probably get stuck in one of our six-foot snow drifts on the way to the store.
All of this means I'm looking for ways to keep myself entertained. Fortunately dayf came through with a post yesterday on American Heritage. Not that I find American Heritage interesting, but his mention of the back of a card that he found unreadable gave me a thought. He said that one of the cards (the Will Rogers) might be "the hardest to read back I've ever seen."
I've actually reflected a time or two on what the worst card backs were, in terms of readability. So I quickly scanned through my collection and came up with a few. And I think I've got dayf's card beat. I put this list together super quickly, so I know I missed several lousy backs, but that just means I can assemble "Lousy Backs, the Sequel: Back With a Vengeance." I bet you can't wait for that.
On with the list:
7. 1964 Topps. If I had put more thought into this, I would have scanned the back of one of these cards. The orange backs are kind of bizarre. And the orange numbers on the white background are kind of disorienting. It puts me in the mind of creamsicles. Which I love by the way.
6. 1970 Topps. "Readability" doesn't just mean whether you can read the type. It also means whether the design helps you read the back or makes you want to go "Gaaaaa!" I imagine when collectors first saw the bright yellow and blue backs they had to hold the cards at arm's length. It's jarring at first look.
5. 1996 Fleer Ultra. I don't know about you, but I find a card back with three different faces of a player, all in close proximity, slightly alarming. It certainly doesn't make me want to read the stats.
4. 1975 Topps. This is my favorite set of all-time, so I'm not happy it is on this countdown, but I must admit the backs aren't that great. Black type on a dark red background? Green type on a pinkish background? No wonder all the little kids in '70s sitcoms had glasses. They couldn't read the backs of their baseball cards!
3. 1998 Fleer Legends of Today. I'm sure someone who was collecting in 1998 can figure this card back out. But I can't, and that makes it unreadable to me.
This back of Raul Mondesi's card has me confused. There appears to be rankings for power, speed and fielding. The more baseballs that are lit up the better. I get that. And there's a list of top performers in each category (Killebrew, power; Brock, speed; Brooks Robinson, fielding). I get that, too. But why is there a photo of Bob Gibson next to Killebrew's name, Rollie Fingers next to Brock's name and Jim Kaat next to Robinson's name?
This is the Eric Karros back in which the photos match with the names. I'm sure there's a logical reason. But that whole confusion aside, these cards are typical of a lot of 1990s card backs. Stadium Club started something with their pitch charts, etc., and then everything went haywire from there. I really don't want to see line graphs on the back of my baseball card.
2. 1976 Topps. This is kind of the gold standard for unreadable card backs. Stacks of black type on a dark green background. Topps loved dark green for its backs in the '70s. They used it in 1971, 1974, 1976, 1977 and 1979. In fact, 1974 could have made this list. But 1976 was the year in which Topps strained the most eyes.
1. 2004 Topps Fan Favorites. Here is a card that will make you run out for Lasik surgery tomorrow. Wow. You can barely tell who the subject of the card is (it's Sparky Anderson).
Since it's from the Fan Favorites series, it's a repeat of a past card design. This is from the 1985 Topps design, which did, in fact, feature a green background and red type. But they placed the type on a white background in the '85 set. Why they put red on green like this is a mystery. As hard as it is to read here, it's not that much easier to read holding it in your hand.
I think I've caused enough eye strain for one post. It's bad enough that we spend so much time staring at a computer.
Happy 2009 card hunting! Pull a Dodger for me!
I'll be missing out on the party. I'm flat broke this weekend, and the mortage payment is due, so I won't be performing any budget magic in order to free up a few dollars. To top it off, it's a very busy weekend at work (Super Bowl and all, you know), so I probably won't even get near a Target until next week.
So, I'll just have to live vicariously through y'all. You better come through! I want to see EVERY card in the pack. Don't even skip over the Washington Nationals. Because even when I do get to a Target, who knows if they'll even have the cards. The card-mobile will probably get stuck in one of our six-foot snow drifts on the way to the store.
All of this means I'm looking for ways to keep myself entertained. Fortunately dayf came through with a post yesterday on American Heritage. Not that I find American Heritage interesting, but his mention of the back of a card that he found unreadable gave me a thought. He said that one of the cards (the Will Rogers) might be "the hardest to read back I've ever seen."
I've actually reflected a time or two on what the worst card backs were, in terms of readability. So I quickly scanned through my collection and came up with a few. And I think I've got dayf's card beat. I put this list together super quickly, so I know I missed several lousy backs, but that just means I can assemble "Lousy Backs, the Sequel: Back With a Vengeance." I bet you can't wait for that.
On with the list:
7. 1964 Topps. If I had put more thought into this, I would have scanned the back of one of these cards. The orange backs are kind of bizarre. And the orange numbers on the white background are kind of disorienting. It puts me in the mind of creamsicles. Which I love by the way.
6. 1970 Topps. "Readability" doesn't just mean whether you can read the type. It also means whether the design helps you read the back or makes you want to go "Gaaaaa!" I imagine when collectors first saw the bright yellow and blue backs they had to hold the cards at arm's length. It's jarring at first look.
5. 1996 Fleer Ultra. I don't know about you, but I find a card back with three different faces of a player, all in close proximity, slightly alarming. It certainly doesn't make me want to read the stats.
4. 1975 Topps. This is my favorite set of all-time, so I'm not happy it is on this countdown, but I must admit the backs aren't that great. Black type on a dark red background? Green type on a pinkish background? No wonder all the little kids in '70s sitcoms had glasses. They couldn't read the backs of their baseball cards!
3. 1998 Fleer Legends of Today. I'm sure someone who was collecting in 1998 can figure this card back out. But I can't, and that makes it unreadable to me.This back of Raul Mondesi's card has me confused. There appears to be rankings for power, speed and fielding. The more baseballs that are lit up the better. I get that. And there's a list of top performers in each category (Killebrew, power; Brock, speed; Brooks Robinson, fielding). I get that, too. But why is there a photo of Bob Gibson next to Killebrew's name, Rollie Fingers next to Brock's name and Jim Kaat next to Robinson's name?
This is the Eric Karros back in which the photos match with the names. I'm sure there's a logical reason. But that whole confusion aside, these cards are typical of a lot of 1990s card backs. Stadium Club started something with their pitch charts, etc., and then everything went haywire from there. I really don't want to see line graphs on the back of my baseball card.
2. 1976 Topps. This is kind of the gold standard for unreadable card backs. Stacks of black type on a dark green background. Topps loved dark green for its backs in the '70s. They used it in 1971, 1974, 1976, 1977 and 1979. In fact, 1974 could have made this list. But 1976 was the year in which Topps strained the most eyes.
1. 2004 Topps Fan Favorites. Here is a card that will make you run out for Lasik surgery tomorrow. Wow. You can barely tell who the subject of the card is (it's Sparky Anderson).Since it's from the Fan Favorites series, it's a repeat of a past card design. This is from the 1985 Topps design, which did, in fact, feature a green background and red type. But they placed the type on a white background in the '85 set. Why they put red on green like this is a mystery. As hard as it is to read here, it's not that much easier to read holding it in your hand.
I think I've caused enough eye strain for one post. It's bad enough that we spend so much time staring at a computer.
Happy 2009 card hunting! Pull a Dodger for me!
Comments
The total-unreadability of the Anderson card, for me, pushes it over the top.