Skip to main content

Awesome night card, pt. 273: Reruns of reruns


I decided to read up on the next Topps set to hit card aisles this season. It's the annual Archives issue and it's scheduled to be released a week from today.

I've mentioned everything that distresses me about Archives so many times that I feel like I'm parodying myself. Even though it seems like this product is targeted toward me, I don't think I'm meant for this product. It's just too irksome. I should walk away and let it go.

But just one more thing.

I naturally wanted to see which past designs were going to be featured in the base set this year (I probably knew this information once before but my brain is full and facts and memories leak out all the time).

Like the previous two years, Topps is featuring only three past designs after featuring four the first three years of the Archives reboot. Here are the three designs for 2017:

1960, 1982, 1992.

Two of those designs are all right. One is definitely not. And the one that is not is freaking 1982 again.

Topps just featured the 1982 Archives design in 2013! I think Topps' memory is worse than mine! Seriously, guys, my junior year in high school is not worth rehashing more than once.

And this isn't the first time that Archives has done this. In 2014, it used the 1980 design after using it already in 2012. What the hell?

Here is the breakdown of the years featured in each set of Archives:

2012: 1954, 1971, 1980, 1984

2013: 1972, 1982, 1985, 1990

2014: 1973, 1980, 1986, 1989

2015: 1957, 1976, 1983

2016: 1953, 1979, 1991

2017: 1960, 1982, 1992

We're just six years into this product and two of the designs have been used twice already despite 60-plus years of designs.

As a set collector, one of the things that I most enjoy about collecting sets each year is that they are distinct from one another. There is no way in the world you could confuse 2015 Topps flagship with 2016 Topps flagship. This was almost always an advantage for Topps back when it was competing with other card companies, particularly Upper Deck.

I realize it's difficult to make Archives distinct with the mish-mash of well-known designs, but, geez, repeating the same design two to four years later certainly isn't helping.

I was thrilled to see the 1979 design show up in Archives last year. But meanwhile such well-known designs as 1956, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1975, 1978 and 1981 are ignored again so we can see the hockey sticks one more time.

I don't get it.

The 2013 Archives Josh Reddick night card will be headed to the night card binder, just so I can ensure that I don't confuse it with any 2017 Archives '82s that might work their way into my collection.



Same goes for these two 2013 Archives '82s as well.

It's very easy to confuse the old night owl these days. I need to take every precaution possible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Card Binder candidates: Josh Reddick, 2013 Topps Archives, #56; Brandon Phillies, 2013 Topps Archives, #53; Edwin Encarnacion, 2013 Topps Archives, #96
Do they make the binder?: They're all in.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I can see some sets like 1978, which would be harder to replicate for newer teams, being skipped... But I'm honestly surprised that they've never done 1981. It's not that I love the set, but it's a fairly simple design and is relatively popular. It certainly falls into the category of "Why Not?"
Nick said…
I really don't get Topps's obsession with the '82 design. It's never been one of my favorites and I'm not looking forward to seeing it again in Archives this year (although I do love the choice to honor '92 Topps). I'm still waiting to see '81 pop up in Archives one of these days.
Commishbob said…
I liked the '82 set...in '82. But I'm with you on this...we've seen enough of it in these throwback sets. It's odd that this year is the first appearance of a 1960s design. Are they avoiding it because they are running through those years with Heritage?
Matt said…
Dear Topps: Give us the '81 design!
ned said…
I am so sick of ersatz cards ..it was cool when baseball cards magazine did it in the 80's Topps is as lame as hollywood.. endless regurgitation..what a shame that its come to this
EddieK said…
Does Topps ever explain the rationale behind which designs they select?
Stack22 said…
What did 1988 do to make Topps so angry?
acrackedbat said…
Dropping the fourth design is also an irritation. Perhaps Topps thought they'd go through all available years too quickly. Obviously this is NOT a problem. 2017 marks the third year I have not purchased Archives but do appreciate receiving these in trades.

Popular posts from this blog

Stuck in traffic with Series 2

In the whirlwind that has been my life this month, I found myself going absolutely nowhere for a portion of Thursday afternoon. I was in the middle of yet another road trip, the third one this week. This one was for work, and because it was job-related, it became quickly apparent that it would be a waste of time. The only thing that could save it was a side visit to the nearby Walmart to see if I could spot some Topps Series 2. I found it right away, which was shocking as I was pretty much in the middle of the country, where SUVs share the road with tractors and buggies. Who knew that the Amish wanted Series 2, too? The problem was getting back into civilization to open the contents of the 72-card hanger box I bought. The neighboring village is undergoing a summer construction project smack in the middle of downtown. It's not much of a downtown, but the main road happens to be the main artery in the entire county. Everyone -- and by everyone I mean every tractor trailer ha

Heading upstate

  Back in 1999, Sports Illustrated published an edition at the end of the year rating the top 50 athletes of the century for every state.   As a lifelong Upstate New Yorker, I braced for a list of New York State athletes that consisted almost entirely of downstate natives, that is, folks from the greater NYC area and Long Island.   We Upstaters are used to New York City trampling all over the rest of the state. They have the most people, the loudest voices. It happens all the time. It's a phenomenon unique to this state. Heck, there are still people out there who, when you tell them you're from New York, automatically think you're from NYC. They don't think of cows and chickens when they think of New York. But trust me, there are a lot of cows and chickens in New York State. Especially cows.   So, anyway, when I counted up the baseball players that SI listed as the greatest from New York State, six of the nine were from New York City or Long Island. I was surprised all

G.O.A.T, the '80s: 30-21

  I often call this current period of the television sports calendar the black hole of sports programming. The time between the end of the Super Bowl and the beginning of televised Spring Training baseball games is an empty void when I'm looking for something to watch on traditional television. I don't watch the NBA and the NHL on TV holds my interest for maybe a period. College basketball I can't watch until the tournament. This didn't used to be as much of a problem back when I could turn instead to my favorite sitcoms in February. Do you remember when February was "sweeps month"? (Maybe it still is, I don't know). Networks would make sure that every top show aired original episodes that month, no reruns. So you'd always have something to view during the week even when the sports scene was boring. (I know, people have multiple streaming viewing options now. But I find myself going weeks sometimes before I see something I want to view on Netflix or Am