I had viewed enough 2024 Archives pack openings to know I needed to open some myself.
Not that I liked the cards -- Archives and I have never seen eye-to-eye -- but I wanted to see the content for myself so I could comment on it on my own blog instead leaving irked comments all over everyone else's pack breaks.
Also, there was one aspect of 2024 Archives that folks kept bringing up, but actually there is nothing wrong with that aspect ... well, in the general Archives realm anyway. But I'll get to that. First let's open those three packs. (By the way, these came from Walmart on Thursday -- a place that has barely offered cards for the last couple of years, but in a constant give-and-take with the Target across the street, Target is now devoid of cards. It's odd how neither can be decently stocked at the same time).
PACK 1
I have been opening Archives since its current version began in 2012, I know what to expect -- three past designs, totally unrelated. This year's choice are three of the most boring designs Topps has made, although I have warmed to all three in recent years. This pack contained a needed Dodger in Teoscar Hernandez, so, yay, decision-making!
These 16-card hanger packs contain one yellow foil parallel. This particular one is already in someone's stack.
My first '61 example was Pete Alonso of a Team To Be Named Later. I don't know what the Mets are doing with Alonso but he should be a Met. Anything else seems dumb, like the stupid city connects that MLB/Topps/Fanatics keeps forcing into products. I like my cards to reflect reality, this is not reality, players do not wear these things every game and I hope they never do.
First 1970 example. A lot of squawk about these cards. But I'd like the mention that the green team names appeared in 1970 Topps just three times, yet I pulled four cards with green team names out of these three packs, and still, THAT'S OK WITH ME (See below).
1994 example. I'm going to say a very dad thing: I don't know who Colt Keith is (sorry, I don't watch the Tigers much), but I bet I'd appreciate him more if his name was Keith Colt.
PACK 2
Wooo, another Dodger need in Yoshinobu Yamamoto! Not a lot else to say except I like the '61s in this pack. They seem like real '61s for the most part (except there is absolutely no one in the background).
The At the Break inserts are a tribute to the insert set in 1995 Topps Traded, which is something I wouldn't know if Mike Piazza didn't appear in the set.
Here are samples of the backs. The 1961 backs contain cartoons, but they are dumbed-down. They work as a storyline strip but it's super simple. The one I showed doesn't even have words and I'm not sure what it means. Also, as far as the packs I bought, there are just three different ones repeated over and over.
The 1970 ones seem fine. 1994 is crazy-difficult to read thanks to the room dedicated to legalese.
PACK 3
No Dodger in this pack but a nice yellow Ernie Banks! I forgot to show the Own The Game insert in the first pack so here it is now:
I have a soft spot for these cards as they were inserts in 2006 Topps, which was my reintroduction to the modern hobby. They may not be as shiny as those '06 versions but it's a pretty good representation.
Now this:
See something wrong?
Yep, the image is reversed. The NY on the hat is backward and the NY logo on the jersey is on the right side instead of the usual left. I thought this was a variation but according to TCDB it's the regular card, the variation is the card number on the back is on the bottom (yeah, an even dumber variation).
So those were the packs and I have to say, the cards aren't too bad. I keep forgetting that Archives a few years ago made the card stock more substantial for the older designs, so it makes you feel like you at least paid for something. I'm still not crazy about the mixing of designs in a single set nor this year's design choices, but I think I jumped the gun in criticizing this set. It's all right.
But I'm not the only one ripping the set. One particular aspect has been hammered on since Archives came out.
There was a lot of discussion about Archives ditching the script for the player names in the 1970 design (there was less talk about the super-small position line). Collectors couldn't believe it. What a mistake! Jokes about the intern screwing up, etc.
I'm not afraid to criticize Topps' cards and know I can be overcritical at times, but this 1970 example is just more of the same for Archives. It's not a mistake. The fact that there are variations in this set in which the team name is in script shows that it was intentional. Even though I've wondered why Archives can't get the designs exactly right in the past, I've come to realize that Topps is doing this on purpose, for whatever reason, and I think the reason is: it sells.
There are differences in designs in comparison to the originals every year in Archives. Maybe they're not as obvious as the 1970 example but it's part of the same pattern. Let's look:
2012
In the Archives example, Topps squashed the team names instead of stretching them out to fill space as it did in 1971. This is a common difference in Archives sets when compared with the originals that is repeated almost yearly.
More proof that Archives is intentionally different is in the 2020 Heritage design that used the '71 template. It comes closer (though still not exactly) to the original than Archives does.
2013
In 2013 the 1985 Archives design used a larger point size for the team name, see how it looks taller and fills more space in the blue box compared with the 1985 original. (P.S. Every Archives set is different just because of the addition of copyright symbols).
2014
In 2014, the team logo is bigger and the player name is more condensed, as Archives likes to do.
2015
In the 1976 example, the team name font is thinner for Archives and the position listing is black instead of yellow.
2017
I skipped 2016 because we can't be here all day but there are differences to note in '16, too. I'll give you two for 2017 to make it up. In the 1960 design, the team name and position are in white instead of the black used in 1960 and there are obvious font differences.
In the 1982 design, Archives changed the position listing from the actual position (3rd base) to the player's job title (third baseman). Thinner team name font, too.
2018
More position alterations in the 1981 Archives design in 2018. Looks a lot more awkward.
2019
More player-name squashing in the '58 example in 2019.
I loved that Archives included the '75 design in 2019 and collected just that part of the set, but the fonts are off for both the team name and player name.
2020
One of the more obvious differences (aside from 2024's 1970, that is) is the names in the 1974 design. Those Archives names look feeble and sad ... and make me go running for my '74 binder for comfort.
Another notable difference in 2020 with the 2002 design. Banners that were blue in 2002 are now red and banners that were red are now blue.
2023
Skipping ahead to 2023 as the 2021 and 2022 differences aren't too noticeable or more of the same. Here in 2023, we have more job titles rather than the actual position description for 1965.
Here is one from 2014 that I forgot to show. More position differences.
So even though it's a pretty big difference to avoid something that the 1970 design is known for, I think it's standard operating for Archives.
On the day I bought the Archives packs, I received an envelope with some Archives Dodgers. I believe they're from Rod judging by the Swinging Friar sticker on the back.
I can't get over how weird that Duke Snider looks but yay!!!
Rod also sent my an Andy Pages auto!
I still need a few more Dodgers for the base set but there's no rush. Archives certainly wasn't rushing.
That's probably my biggest complaint about Archives -- that we're so desperate for product that we're buying outdated cards. My second biggest one is that Clayton Kershaw is featured on the 1961 season instead of 1994, which is one of the designs that he has yet to appear on -- he's already been on the '61 design in Heritage!
But as far as that other Archives thing, Archives is always going to play with tradition.
Comments