The underlying reason

 

From the beginning, I was not impressed.

 

Trying to collect three sets was a lot. This was the new world in 1981, after collecting nothing but Topps for the previous six years (with some side runs into Kellogg's and Hostess). While eager to try out all the newness, I felt overwhelmed -- a newspaper carrier salary couldn't possibly cover three sets -- and was looking for ways to cut back. Finding fault with one of the new sets would help me control my habit.

 

Donruss made it easy that year.

 

The difference between its set and the Topps and Fleer sets that year was obvious right away. While Topps was printed on the cardboard that I knew from the beginning, and Fleer's was also sturdy if a bit rigid, Donruss was flimsy. You could bend the card easily. I had never experienced cards on such thin stock. Even the Hostess panels felt more solid.

 

I ranked Donruss third among the new trio right away and while purchasing all three throughout that summer of '81 -- because that's what you did -- Donruss came in third in terms of total cards in my collection that year.

 

 

Donruss appeared to learn its lesson the following year as the 1982 set was printed on sturdier stock. I probably noticed, but mostly I paid attention to design and I though the ball-and-bat imagery was  primitive and too on-the-nose. Donruss was probably focused more on children with this design and here I was a junior in high school. Yeah, not for me. I bought this set the third-most once again.

 

 

But good for Donruss sticking with the solid stock. It made a difference in me considering it "A Baseball Card Set" even if I didn't consciously think about it. I bought maybe three packs of Donruss in 1983 and slightly more in 1984. But that didn't have to do with the product really, I was at that age (entering college) when cards didn't mean a lot.

 

Still, the 1984 set showed what happens when good card stock is combined with a nice-looking design. I loved the 1984 Donruss look and it has remained my favorite for years and years.

 

 

I liked 1985 Donruss, too -- so much that I didn't notice the change. Sure, that had a lot to do with  collecting almost nothing that year. Maybe I bought a couple packs of '85 Donruss because I liked the design -- it was more than I bought of Fleer that year -- but I paid no attention to the thinner card stock. You couldn't bend it easily like 1981 Donruss, but it had changed from 1982-84.

 

 

Donruss stayed with that card stock in the ensuing years. No, I didn't notice. I wasn't buying cards at the time -- too busy with college and all it entailed. I don't think I even knew what the designs looked like and didn't become aware of them until many years later.

 

 

Here is when something from Donruss crossed my vision again -- the ubiquitous 1988 design. I don't know how or when I came across it. I didn't buy any Donruss that year I don't think (I have memory of only buying Topps that year, and it was one pack and my reaction was "so this is what baseball cards look like now").

 

I do know that I almost laughed when I saw it. This was barely a baseball card! The stock seemed even more slight than 1985 (it's difficult for me to tell for sure now). Still not as flexible as 1981, but somewhere in my subconscious I had formed an idea of what a baseball card should be beyond show a picture of a major league player and being 2 1/2-by 3 1/2, and that was that it had to be substantial! If you were going to bend it, it would have to be calculated and take some effort -- not be an accident! Or bend by itself over time!

 

 

For every Donruss set that came after 1988, I dismissed it right away. The designs weren't appealing (except for 1989 a little, but the photos were dark). I did not buy Donruss packs at all, not even in 1989, when I bought more Topps than I had ever purchased before. Donruss was a substandard baseball card to me. Maybe not Triple A baseball cards, but definitely 4A.

 

Also, I did not like the look of 1990 and 1991 Donruss. Still, even though somewhere I knew that a key reason for my lack of appreciation was the card stock, I probably never actually expressed it.

 

 

Finally, in 1992, Donruss changed its card stock again. The '92 set marked an overall re-dedication to a quality baseball card for Donruss. There was more focus on the photo, a more sophisticated design and full color backs with player images and a sign that graphics know-how was involved, instead of the same drumbeat backs that Donruss had featured year after year after year.

 

But, wouldn't you know it, I didn't like the look of 1992 Donruss at all. It's one of my least favorite looking card sets ever made. Yes, I've written a post about it. Me and Donruss just never could get in sync. Through the 1990s, Donruss maintained that big-boy cards stock, but I wasn't crazy about the designs (I stopped paying attention after 1993).

 

Even today, the only '90s flagship Donruss design I like much is from 1995. And there are a couple of others I dislike (see 1996). 

 

 

 

This is why 1984 Donruss to me is still the only Donruss set that matters. And the underlying reason is card stock. See also: Heritage and Topps flagship. It matters. It's always mattered.