Friday, February 3, 2017

Two packs of crap

Being the good collector, I picked up a couple packs of the 2017 Topps flagship from my local Walmart. A couple years back I commented that the 2015 design was horrible, but once I had the cards in hand, my opinion completely changed. The same couldn't be said for 2016, as they sucked both as a pre release image, and when I held one in my hand.

But that's still batting .500, Topps. I thought 2017 looked like hell when you teased the shot, and even though I said I would buy none, I'll be a good little customer and get a couple packs, so I can give and accurate and thorough review of them in the physical form.

Let me hear your cardboard talk.
I think the post subject says it all. These just suck soooooooooo much. I can only give one positive statement about them: less foil. It's sad when lack of foil is the only good thing. That should be down the list of the changes in the hobby. This change though, with the digital world driving the retail/hobby world, is something I hope is very short lived. Let's just show some images.


My first card is a Yankee. So underwhelming. Maybe it's the sheer amount of gray on the card that makes me hate it so much. Or maybe the design is crap. How about a little of both?


Usually, with bad card styles, a horizontal card can be the saving grace. NOPE! More on this later.


Inserts. Just like Stadium Club borrowed from Fleer, it appear the 5 Tool also pays homage to another Fleer set. Anyone else see 1995 Fleer? Less neon, but more "holy crap". And the Awards subset? Looks like just one tool on that - the Photoshop line drawing tool.


It's an ad. Telling me to buy more Topps. Not this year's design, guys....


Look at Gattis' number, and then take off a character. That is the total number of cards out of two packs I added to my collection. Just this single double play card. I know of another card that shows a player in a throwback uniform. My hope is the number of collection cards in the set is minimal. The less I remember these, the better.


Ok - a few things on the checklist cards. First, enough with the nickname cards, Topps. They are just not funny. Also, you had a MAJOR opportunity here, if you were going to be cute, to be cuter. It's not the Big Apple's Super Heroes, it the Metropolitan's Super Heroes. You get the whole Marvel play on Metropolis, along with a tie into the team depicted on the card.

Second is the amount of space lost to the badging. For a full bleed design, you lose a lot. How much?


Yeah - I took scissors to the card. I own it. I can do when I want. But take a good look at the space designated to the badging. To me, everything under is not part of the card. It's all faded and messed up, like the 2016 fog. So it is design, not image.

So there's my blast on 2017. Night Owl names each year; I hope he allows me an early entry:

The Original Topps Annual Leans So Highly on Internet Trends.

I think the acronym speaks for itself.

9 comments:

  1. Topps produced a garbage flagship product with an ugly, boring design and terrible inserts? Surely this has never happened before and isn't a repeat of the last decade! I just can't believe people still buy this crap.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You just kill me! Cut up the card! I had the same thoughts regarding the horizontal shots. How can Flagship get worse every year? Thanks for the laugh! Made me hurt a little less over the two jumbo boxes I busted. And yes, they were a bust!

    ReplyDelete
  3. ha! haven't seen the '17s in person yet, but those card labels seem excessively large over the fronts...especially on the landscape cards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see so many different opinions on this years design. I for one wasn't crazy about it until I saw it physically and didn't feel it was so bad. I do say that a change needed to happen from the borders year in and year out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My first impression was right in line with yours. I'll buy a pack or order a couple of Orioles off COMC had form my opinion when I get them in hand. But from what I've seen I expect they will cause me to look back on the 2016 set as 'the good old days'. And that's saying something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ".....off COMC had form my opinion...." *and*

      sheesh

      Delete
  6. 'm sure Topps appreciates all the people still willing to fork over their money for what most people believe will be crap. (And then why are buyers surprised when it indeed turns out to be crap?)

    Seems that there is no need for Topps to improve, since they will continue to have a steady stream of income from the non-discerning public.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You've got excellent scissor skills! I'm not a fan of the design. I hope it'll grow on me. 1989 Topps did... so there's a chance that this one will too (twenty-five years from now).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm always a little different on how I rate each years as I give the checklist more emphasis than design. I would probably be more critical if I was buying jumbo boxes. This year the biggest disappointment was the inserts for me. The then and now cards are terrible.

    ReplyDelete