tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post8590918354788719551..comments2024-03-28T13:44:09.103-04:00Comments on Night Owl Cards: Best set of the year: 1986night owlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673973790245316059noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post-81330155983052306362014-04-11T06:25:57.825-04:002014-04-11T06:25:57.825-04:00I have always felt the 1986 Topps were more of an ...I have always felt the 1986 Topps were more of an homage to 1964. In fact, a lot of the 80's cards are simply variations on the 60's:<br /><br />1983 = 1963<br />1985 = 1965<br />1986 = 1964<br />1987 = 1962<br />1988 = 1966<br /><br />It was heritage two decades before we though of such things. Everything old is new again.jacobmrleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13991748868368917576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post-41622677817670001832014-04-10T12:29:46.530-04:002014-04-10T12:29:46.530-04:00I was "gaga" over the $15 per box pricep...I was "gaga" over the $15 per box pricepoint. That's why my '86 Topps set is complete and the other two aren't even close. Swing And A Pop-uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15366868132258608938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post-44629885358449391032014-04-10T08:46:10.802-04:002014-04-10T08:46:10.802-04:00As I backfilled my player collections, etc. with t...As I backfilled my player collections, etc. with these years that I skipped ('85 to '03) I thought the weirdest part of the '86 designs was that Donruss and Fleer both chose practically the same shade of blue. They almost blend together back to back in my tradeable box....GCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14713246271197550543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post-4394857005789026612014-04-10T07:17:00.953-04:002014-04-10T07:17:00.953-04:00As a kid, I would have chosen Donruss over Topps a...As a kid, I would have chosen Donruss over Topps and Fleer. But in the past few years, Topps has soared to the top. I too never realized the different poses on the baseball. I guess we learn something new everyday. And as far as similar designs, I've always considered the 86 set a 64 knockoff.Fujihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00749100861086458307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post-55313998210703281142014-04-10T01:11:46.818-04:002014-04-10T01:11:46.818-04:00I can seriously call it a striking new design beca...I can seriously call it a striking new design because when I opened packs for the first time in 1986, I said "Whoa, THAT'S different." It looked unusual to me instinctively.night owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11673973790245316059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post-26381551205533926212014-04-09T21:30:59.046-04:002014-04-09T21:30:59.046-04:00I agree that it was a down year (unless you like r...I agree that it was a down year (unless you like rookies...none too small a point since it was the '86 sets that really pushed that movement into overdrive--Bonds, Canseco, Bo, Inky, Wally Joiner, Will Clark, Ruben Sierra. Sure, they mostly turned up in the Traded sets, but that was the year). But I can't agree with the order. There's nothing new or innovating about the Topps design. You say '71, steelehere says '75, I'd say '64. And therein lies the problem; its basically the same design Topps has trotted out at least a half dozen times. And every time they use it, they do less with it (IMO). The one thing you can not seriously call it is "a striking new design". The best selling point for Topps, versus the competition, was the cardstock. And, hey, Topps ultimately got thinner and the others never got thicker, so thin won that war. Donruss had an actual innovative design. I can't think of another nationally released major brand release prior to this with a diagonal cut. You can love it or hate it but, unless you were collecting Squirt cards, it was something that hadn't been done before that. That Donruss design just works for me. The pictures just pop (Topps photos in '86 just laid there). The card back was simple, but utilitarian. They all sucked in '86, but I have to give Donruss top honors for that year. Fleer and Topps tie for last.Stubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07010142558613227433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post-82344847782044089022014-04-09T21:30:19.785-04:002014-04-09T21:30:19.785-04:00I guess I can't argue with giving Topps a slig...I guess I can't argue with giving Topps a slight edge over Fleer although it's certainly, as you pointed out so well, a not-so-great year for designs overall. I think the fact that the Orioles cards, with the orange "Orioles" on a black top border, mimic the teams unis so well tips me into the Topps camp.Commishbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18069472376708715755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700049103080920994.post-60170933546940181592014-04-09T20:16:07.620-04:002014-04-09T20:16:07.620-04:00I agree with your rankings as well as the fact tha...I agree with your rankings as well as the fact that all three sets were let downs. (Good thing you didn't throw the inaugural Sportflics set into this discussion).<br /><br />I've always believed that Topps modeled their 1986 design after 1975 Topps (versus 1971) as the 1975 base and mini sets were arguably at their peak of popularity in the mid-1980's.steeleherehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413236126581293109noreply@blogger.com