Skip to main content

Is this the dullest set I've ever completed?

 
I said after completing the 1986 Fleer baseball set that I'd try to write another post dedicated to the set, as I usually do after finishing one off.

I didn't know whether I'd actually do it because I had an idea of what I'd find:

Is this the dullest set I've ever completed?
 
OK, the answer to that is "no." I've probably finished off duller sets. 2011 Lineage springs to mind, although I had a lot of fun with that at the time. 2021 Topps is no great shakes, but at least I didn't have to try to finish it, someone just bought me it. Yeah, there have got to be some other completions duller than '86 Fleer, but the fact that I even thought that question tells you it's near the bottom for me.
 
There is a reason the set has left my brain for literally years. For a set from the 1970s or 1980s to do that -- I mean so much that I didn't recall what the set looked like -- is practically an impossible feat given what my memory regards as important (i.e.: baseball card sets of my youth). The set must be defective.
 
I collected it so it could stay in my memory bank and so I could maybe find something interesting about it. I set out to pull some interesting cards. There really aren't a lot of them. Mostly what you find with 1986 Fleer is this:
 

There is a lot of point-and-shoot with the absolute same cropping in this set. Sometimes there's a bat on the shoulder or glove upraised, but it's the same stare, same positioning and same stomach crop.

The variation on these shots are stuff like the Trujillo card, guys throwing or batting with weird crops. There are weird crops all over this set -- which is an '80s Fleer thing -- but when there's nothing much else to look at it in the rest of the set, I just see a decent shot ruined.

There are action shots -- some odd ones -- but a lot of the action photos are dark in this set. I've mentioned before that Fleer seemed to fall off a cliff after 1983 and 1984. The 1985-90 sets feel like Fleer started going through the motions.


I can see why collectors from this time liked the Super Star Specials. They jazz up an otherwise run-of-the-mill set.

This isn't only a Fleer problem from this time. 1985/1986 Topps seems to be a regression, especially when you look at 1983 Topps. I'm sure the same can be said for Donruss. No wonder Upper Deck created so many fanboys. The mid-to-late '80s weren't the most exciting (but I will always love 1988 Topps).

For "interesting" cards from 1986 Fleer I grabbed some of the usual suspects.


Obviously, there's Hatcher's giant glove.



Billy Sample saluting the collector.




Lonnie Smith spotting a UFO while taking his lead.



Kirk Gibson under the critical eye of his grandmother.



Greg Minton really upset that his hand is being touched.









Some of others of note but keep in mind that the Steve Sax shot is probably the biggest benefit of camera light of any card shown here. That picture is dark.



There are quite a few drab photos in the set, which is probably photo processing of the time but also cameras adjusting to the increasing number of night games. Also we're at the height of the cookie-cutter stadiums in the mid-1980s and the surroundings are pretty boring. I didn't think so at the time, but when I look back on highlights from the '80s, it looks pretty stark.

So when there's something sunny and shiny in the '86 Fleer set like this Juan Samuel card, it stands out.



I will point out every time I see a Marlboro ad in a card photo prior to 1989 that it was really no big deal, 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson.


There are some all right cards in this set, such as this Dave Kingman. But for a set this size, I'm willing to bet that I could find more interesting cards in almost any other 600-plus card set that I've completed.

That does not bode well for me pulling out the 1986 Fleer binder and looking at it from time to time. But like I've said before, this set contains lots of players from my youth, so in that way it will always be interesting to me.

Now ... the 1987 Fleer set is up next at some point. I don't have my hopes up.

Comments

Nick Vossbrink said…
Oof. Yeah this is pretty dire (that Red Sox page is almost as bad as that 5-year (or whatever) run of shrubberies in Heritage). 1990 Fleer is very similarly blah though I think it has a better variety of action images and more varied crops of the portraits. The only good thing about this kind of boringness is that they often end up being nice for autographs.

I do have to take exception to 1986 Topps being a regression though. You've already noted that the catcher cards are almost uniformly excellent and there's a lot of nice candid portraits throughout the set which I really love. You are right however that the 1983 Topps printing is a high water mark that they only ever matched in the Traded sets and 1992.
night owl said…
The '86 Topps photo quality, not the content, is what I mean by taking a step down. Too many grainy, hazy or dark shots. That said, I will always like '86 Topps.
1984 Tigers said…
I love the cards like Glenn Davis that show a scoreboard and pitching lineups. Pretty easy these days with baseball reference to figure out what day this was taken in Jack Murphy Stadium in SD. It's definitely the series Houston at SD in August 1985. I'll have to pull my card out and use a magnifying glass to see the pitching matchups. I was finishing up the last of my engineering internships that summer in Houston so maybe even watched the game that day in Houston.
1984 Tigers said…
I did like the nice all star insert set. In cello packs you could figure out when you had an all star card, at least one of the red ones, buried in the middle. Overall a good selection of stars in that set. Amazing the Rose and Dr. K card at the time seemed like two sure fire HOFs. Different reasons but sad both never got in.

In the last 80s, that set was desirable for the Santiago rookie as well as Kal Daniels and Paul O'Neil reds on the same rookie card.

Surprised you didn't show the Funderburk and Robideaux rookie. At one point in early 1986, that card would cost you a dollar or two at a show.
Sean said…
I give the set credit for teaching children of my generation just how short Steve Garvey is in comparison to Dale Murphy and Dave Parker.

Otherwise though yeah, its a bland set all right.
It's a set that is done. Done as in completed.
Matt said…
At least the border is a nice shade of blue...
Anonymous said…
Looks like "Skates" needs to tinkle.
Jon said…
I was gonna say something like "It's not that bad", but then I saw that Red Sox page. That's brutal!
Back in the 1980s I loved Fleer and tried to complete it nearly every year... But looking back at it through 21st century eyes I can still understand my love for Fleer as a whole but question my fondness for certain Fleer sets.
Nick said…
I really like the '86 Fleer design but I agree with you about the photos - too much sameness, and a lot of them are grainy and/or dark. Not the most quality-controlled set ever, to say the least. (Although I've always thought that Kirk Gibson is one of the greatest cards no one ever seems to talk about.)
beefman said…
It's dull, alright.

But those big team logos and colour-coded panels just jump out at me. I must be easy to please, like a kid!
Doc Samson said…
You took the words right out of my mouth, Mr. Owl. The photos in 1986 are brutal. I still like the design, but flipping through a binder full of these cards must be like watching a four hour middle school play. Interestingly, the popular 1986 Fleer basketball set is loaded with action shots. Perhaps those were from a high end stock photo library?
1984 Tigers said…
As far as a few cards are concerned, the Sax card with Keith Moreland sliding into 2nd is from July 11, 1985 game at Wrigley. That is a DP ball to SS. Fernando got the CG win that day. The Davis card is at Jack Murphy in SD from August 11, 1985. On the scoreboard, LA was playing home that day with 41 pitching (Jerry Reuss). Jerry pitched a CG shutout that day. Night owl, those photos were from days with Dodger wins. Too bad the season ended with Tom.Niedenfuer. I live Baseball reference almost as much as I love these blogs!

Paul