Skip to main content

Masters of the single-card subset

I have the results for the "biggest improvement" and "biggest bust" in Score's baseball card history. But I didn't want to simply list the poll statistics and then leave for the day.

So I tried to come up with something that relates to Score, something I haven't addressed before ... and, boy, was that difficult because I think it's all been addressed. Once you get past a few key Score attributes, there's not much left. It was a simplistic card company.

But I did find something, which was somewhat interesting to me. I don't know about you. We'll see.

But first the poll results.

Here are the stats for the biggest bust:

1994-95: 13 votes
1988-89: 8 votes
1996-97: 4 votes
1990-91: 3 votes
1991-92: 3 votes

Congrats, 1995 Score, you offend the senses the most.

Here are the stats for the biggest improvement:

1992-93: 9 votes
1995-96: 9 votes
1989-90: 7 votes
1990-91: 5 votes
1994-95: 2 votes

A lot closer than the "biggest bust" voting. In fact, there is a tie.

In events of ties, I am the deciding vote. Those are the benefits of running your own blog.

I think you knew what I was going to choose. There's no doubt anything that follows '92 Score is a vast improvement.

I will add these results to the sidebar with all of the other card brands. I'm not sure if I'll do the same thing for brands like Pacific and Pinnacle.

As for the other thing I wanted to mention about Score, it has to do with their quirkiness.

Score, in my view, is the set that came closer than any other to the spirit of this card:

You all know it. It's from the 1976 Topps set. It's one of the greatest cards of all-time. It will be in my countdown of the greatest 1970s cards of all-time, if I ever get to that.

But what makes it great, other than its subject matter and the fantastic playoff brackets on the back, is that it was so unexpected. The card arrived unannounced in the middle of the set (#564) and didn't relate to anything else in that set. It was unattached. It wasn't a player card or team card, it didn't correspond with any other subset -- record breakers, league leaders, postseason cards. It was its own entity. It was a single-card subset.

That's what made it cool. Besides the giant bubble, of course.

I know there are other examples of single-card subsets in Fleer and Upper Deck and others. But the place where I noticed it the most often was in Score sets.

The single-card remembrance of the 1989 World Series earthquake subset.

The single-card salute to those involved in Operation Desert Storm subset.

The single-card tribute to Bo Jackson's ability to break bats over his knee subset.

I'm not sure how Score decided when and why to throw in a single card that captured an event, but I'm glad they did.

Score also did a pretty good job with their more traditional subsets. Some of my most favorite subsets of all-time appeared in Score and I've already addressed the No-Hit Club subset from 1991 Score and the Reggie Jackson subset from 1988 Score.

But it's an excuse to show one of the few easily accessible cards showing Jackson in an Orioles uniform.

There are many other great subset cards from Score, from Master Blasters to No. 1 Draft Picks to Dream Teams:

And I guess if there's a reason to miss Score, besides the affordable packs, it's the subsets.

Whether it's your traditional 5-to-7-to-12-card subset or your single-card subset.

Thank goodness they didn't super-short-print them.


  1. In wish I had that Bevacqua card.

  2. Of course there is the Bo card where he is shirtless wearing football pads and holding a bat

  3. The Bevacqua will always be one of my personal favorites... single card subset or not. Riding out the same quake that shook Candlestick, the Lights Out card is also pretty special.

  4. From year to year, base Score sets were consistently uninteresting. As you mention, the subsets of the early 1990s were quite amazing. I think Score perfected the art of a subset - unique photography, unique subjects, and unique designs from the base cards. Today's Topps sets don't have much along the lines of subsets. Checklists and All-Star cards use the same design except for some small notations. And what were once subsets are now insert cards...


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 …