(Happy Cinco de Mayo! Those of you who are celebrating, have a cerveza for me. You also might want to have a hoagie and some oysters, because it's also National Hoagie Day and Oyster Day! Paaaaarrrrty! It's also time for Cardboard Appreciation. This is the 29th in a series):
I'll be the first to admit that we are spoiled as card collectors today. Not only do we have a wide variety of choices from a couple of different card companies but we have all kinds of innovations -- chrome, refractors, relics, throwback cards, die-cuts, etc., etc. -- that never existed when I was a kid.
Perhaps where we're spoiled most of all is in the area of photography. We expect, almost demand, good photography in our sets, from base card all the way up. If you mail it in photo-wise, as Topps seemed to do in 2008, you're going to get ripped. And I'll be one of the first in line.
But good photos weren't always the norm. And action photos were bizarre, if not lousy up until the early 1980s. I know I'm not saying anything anybody doesn't know already. But this is what I'm getting at: we LOVED those lousy action shots back then.
I had a particular interest in the 1975 Rollie Fingers card here. I thought it was so cool. I didn't know what the heck was going on in the photo, but Fingers looked awesome doing it. Look at him! He looks like a long-haired Lone Ranger! You can't see half his face! You can't see much of anything. But you know he's going after bad guys (unless they're Dodgers. Then he's the bad guy).
I'm assuming Fingers is going through his wind-up, but who knows for sure. What I do know is you could never get away with this photo on a current card. We gripe now when a player's face is in the shadows. But back then, players in the shadows were cool (there are several examples of these cards in the '75 set, and all of them I liked a lot when I was a kid).
Here's another example:
Good golly did we like this card. Face obscured by the shadows, yes. But still, completely fantastic. So here's to shadow cards. Maybe I can't appreciate you now, on a current card. But I certainly appreciated you then.
I'll be the first to admit that we are spoiled as card collectors today. Not only do we have a wide variety of choices from a couple of different card companies but we have all kinds of innovations -- chrome, refractors, relics, throwback cards, die-cuts, etc., etc. -- that never existed when I was a kid.Perhaps where we're spoiled most of all is in the area of photography. We expect, almost demand, good photography in our sets, from base card all the way up. If you mail it in photo-wise, as Topps seemed to do in 2008, you're going to get ripped. And I'll be one of the first in line.
But good photos weren't always the norm. And action photos were bizarre, if not lousy up until the early 1980s. I know I'm not saying anything anybody doesn't know already. But this is what I'm getting at: we LOVED those lousy action shots back then.
I had a particular interest in the 1975 Rollie Fingers card here. I thought it was so cool. I didn't know what the heck was going on in the photo, but Fingers looked awesome doing it. Look at him! He looks like a long-haired Lone Ranger! You can't see half his face! You can't see much of anything. But you know he's going after bad guys (unless they're Dodgers. Then he's the bad guy).
I'm assuming Fingers is going through his wind-up, but who knows for sure. What I do know is you could never get away with this photo on a current card. We gripe now when a player's face is in the shadows. But back then, players in the shadows were cool (there are several examples of these cards in the '75 set, and all of them I liked a lot when I was a kid).
Here's another example:
Good golly did we like this card. Face obscured by the shadows, yes. But still, completely fantastic. So here's to shadow cards. Maybe I can't appreciate you now, on a current card. But I certainly appreciated you then.
Comments
What's the deal,man? Your blog has always been good, but lately you have been ON FIRE.