Whoa. Look at all the orange. Within the tiny space above we have the orange of the 1965 Topps design on top of the orange of the 1990 design on top of the orange of my post background. Real retina-burning stuff, eh?For those of you that didn't just go blind, it's time for Define the Design. I'm curious as to what we should name one of the all-time ugliest designs in the history of baseball card production. 1990 Topps was a real doozy and one of the very handful of card sets that I can honestly say that I bought a couple of packs, looked at the design, and said, "I won't be collecting that."
But I've always been perplexed by the pattern used with the design. I want to call it "the pixel set," because of all the tiny dots on the cards. I had originally thought that the design was half dots and half hatch marks. But the closer I look, the more I see it's all dots. There's just a gradual difference in the size of the dots and consequently the space between the dots. (Let me tell you, looking that close at this design and then looking back up at the computer screen really plays with your vision for a few seconds).
So, I'm looking for a good name for this set. I realize it's butt ugly and possibly could throw someone into convulsions if they looked at it too long. But it deserves a name. Should it be called "the pixel set" or is there something better? No prize to the person who picks the winning name this time. Running one contest is enough (see sidebar if you haven't entered).
And for people who don't want to stare at all that orange, here's a refreshing blue 1990 Topps card of Eddie Murray. It might be easier on the eyes. Sort of.
Comments
If I am sorting a stack of cards I almost always accidently sort thesed into the oddball brand pile.
The sidebars remind me of the old video game Qix for some reason. I think there going to move around like the bad energy did in the Qix game.
Granted Tron was a few years earlier, but all had that kinda pseudo-futuristic, "hey look, we're entering the digital age," feel to them.
They're also very dated, as a lot of things from the very late 80s and very early 90s tend to be.
This was a horrible design sandwiched between two very good designs. I think it was an experiment that was maybe a few years too early and could have worked out well with some refinement.
The backs of the cards are very nice however. Much better than '88 or '89, at least in terms of readability.
ok well... one word to define the design? Oops.
i think the lichtenstein set is pretty appropriate, actually. good call.