Skip to main content

Yeah, I get writer's block, too

I may give the impression that I have endless ideas for this blog. But I don't. I've gone into  "what am I going to write, what am I going to write?" panic mode many times.

Writer's block can be quite stressful in my job. But on the blog, it's not an issue. I don't get paid here. I have no boss here. So I do what I want here.

For instance:

You've seen those polls vegetating on the sidebar for months, right? The ones in which I encouraged people to vote for Topps' biggest one-year improvement and biggest one-year bust? I said I'd do up a fancy post once all the votes were tallied, and I arrived at a suitably snazzy idea.

Well, I'm sick of trying to come up with an idea that isn't there. And I'm sick of staring at the polls. They've been sitting there for almost five months. So I'm just going to list the results, scrap the polls, and I will have one less thing hanging over my head.

Sound good?

No?

Too bad. You want me to subject you to another trade post?

Here we go.

BIGGEST IMPROVEMENT

6th place: 2002 to 2003


1 vote: This should have received more than one vote. At right, you have the best shade of the best color in the world. At left, you have a color most appropriately described as "vomit gold." There is a reason why I've traded away almost all of my 2002 Topps cards.

5th place: 1958 to 1959


8 votes: I think this may have received a few more votes if the 1959 Charlie Neal featured a color other than yellow. At any rate, the '59 Topps set is an absolute classic, and would have been an improvement over virtually all of the Topps sets from the '50s.

4th place: 1970 to 1971


10 votes: This is the one that would have received my vote. The 1971 set is as funky, jazzy, cool as the 1959 set. The 1970 set features full-color photos, obviously. But it feels like they're in black-and-white.

3rd place: 1990 to 1991


13 votes: The 1991 set is a "photo-over-design" set, which had to be Upper Deck's influence. But Topps was chastised for its '91 set, probably because it featured the familiar gray cardboard as opposed to Upper Deck's slick playing card feel. I'd rather have the cardboard. But you can't fight progress.

2nd place: 1982 to 1983


15 votes: I don't have any serious issues with 1982 Topps. In fact, I like it more and more over the years. But it can't match up with the '83 Topps set. Opening those first few packs in 1983 was an eye-opening moment. What do we have here?

1st place: 1952 to 1953


29 votes: As I was saying, you just don't speak ill of the '53 set. Lots of people love it. I don't find much different between 1952 and 1953, although I agree that '52 is overrated. But it's obvious that this is considered the biggest comeback in Topps card history, so I will accept it. Grudgingly.

Congratulations, 1953 Topps. Don't let it go to your painted head.

BIGGEST BUST

6th place: 1965 to 1966


6 votes: 2015 Heritage is going to set records for unpurchased product. Just sayin'

5th place: 1995 to 1996


7 votes: I'm biased toward the '95 set -- I think it's Topps' best work in the '90s (base set category). The 1996 set is distracting and nonsensical. It even riffs on an Upper Deck set ('94) that doesn't deserve any praise.

4th place: 2007 to 2008


10 votes: This kind of surprised me. I don't know anybody that really likes the 2007 set. I guess that's how bad the 2008 set was. As flawed a design as Topps ever produced.

3rd place: 1957 to 1958


11 votes: The 1958 set is the only one that appears on both lists. Those were some roller-coaster years in the late '50s.

2nd place: 1956 to 1957


12 votes: As you can see by the last two entries, Topps was on a downward slide between 1956-58. Thank goodness 1959 came along, or this whole card collecting hobby might be just a silly memory.

1st place: 1967 to 1968


27 votes: This was no contest, just like the Biggest Improvement category. It's pretty much a consensus that the burlap set was not a good idea.

Congrats, 1968 Topps. May Topps never dedicate one of its base sets as a tribute to you.

So, there you are. My blog is completely devoid of polls for the first time in awhile.

I'll have to do something about that soon.

Meanwhile, I'm supposed to do one of these Best Improvement/Best Bust things for Upper Deck, Fleer, Donruss, etc.

I might get around to that sometime. I'll just have to wait for inspiration not to strike.

Comments

  1. I demand a recount. 1995 Topps is the best eveerrrrrrrrr! If it were followed by 1953 Topps it'd still get votes!

    (Okay, not really. But 1996 is ho-rendous. And 95 is pretty neat.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. For some reason I really like the 1995 set too. I gotta pick up a cheap box to bust just for fun sometime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny, I think '57 is the best set they've ever made. Great photos, simple fronts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm clearly in the extreme minority in both liking 1968 and being iffy on 1971. (1971 is just a warmed over 1970 hockey - I'll do a post....)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I still say 1989 to 1990 was the biggest bust of all time, but then again, I'm biased. I started collecting in 1989 and Topps was my favorite set that year. Additionally, 1990 Topps is, by far, the worst base set Topps has ever produced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree fully here. The 1990 Topps cards stunk right out of the box. Over 25 years later, all the 1990 baseball issues still leave me scratching my head... What the hell were these cardmakers thinking?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Addressing the elephant in the room

A few people have noticed: I changed the way the blog looked with zero fanfare earlier this week.

I've changed my blog appearance, I think, six times now, although one was just a header swap. Just about all of those came with a bit of a warning or explanation.

I didn't think that was necessary this time, mostly because I've been doing this for over a decade, am pretty established, and don't think I need to justify my decisions here.

But also I thought that people were familiar with the general changes in web sites over the last two, three, four years and wouldn't be that affected by it. For the most part that seems to be true -- or, no one cares and they're all looking at pretty instagram pictures.

I've received a couple of questions though and just because I hate the feeling that some readers are lost, I'll explain what I can.

The changes, like many web site changes, are related to mobile phone use.

I've been irked by the way my blog looks on my p…

Mind explosion: a different way to sort

This may have been one of the most tedious blog posts to put together in the history of this blog, but I think it's for a good cause.

The reason I'm not entirely sure is because I didn't have time to carry it out for a few more attempts, got to shovel that 7 inches of heavy wet snow plopped on my estate on Nov. 12th.

Anyway, a couple of days ago, Colbey from Cardboard Collections was sorting his Topps Holiday set by card number and asked a very common question that I've seen come up many times during my blogging career:


 This is always a satisfying question because this is how I organize my sets when I'm organizing by card number. At the top of the post I showed cards from the 2019 Topps flagship set being sorted in that manner -- stacks separated by hundreds first, then you create separate stacks by 10s within each hundreds stack, then finally order each of the 10s by card number.

I've done this since I was a kid and first knew the card numbers on the back me…

Looking at cards with Johnny B.

Over the weekend, I got a chance to express my inner Mike Oz and share some baseball cards with a former major league player.

I'm working on a story for my paper that involves ex-player Johnny Wockenfuss, who is almost a cult figure with fans of a certain age (I am one) and especially fans of the Detroit Tigers during the '70s and '80s.

I won't go into much detail -- at least not now -- because I'm still in the middle of working on it, have more gathering to go, and I get very protective of my stories while I'm in the middle of the process. Got to retain that exclusive, you know.

But I will say that I was able to sit in the home of Wockenfuss, give him the cards that I have of him in my collection, and ask his opinion on them.

Yeah, cool. Way cool.

I have 17 cards of Wockenfuss ("you have a lot of them," my wife said, and I thought "if that's a lot, what is my Hideo Nomo collection?"). Wockenfuss remembered the cards -- "every bit …