Background photo on 2001 Fleer tradition

[Steven Kornblau]

It looks like they applied a filter to the photos in the background to make
them appear "impressionistic" To me it looks like I'm looking through that
glass they use to obsure the view in/out of a bathroom. I think I liked last
years 1958 Topps like cards better.

[Cwqjr]

I kinda like this year's better than last year's. I liked last year's set,
but the pictures seem a little, I don't know, harsh or something.
More generally, which of this year's "vintage" brands do you prefer: Fleer
tradition, UD Vintage, or Topps Heritage? I'd rate them maybe in that order:
Fleer (1), UD (2 but close), and Topps (3).

Woody Q

[Dan Aliperto-MN]

Based on looks alone I'd go:

UD Vintage
Fleer Tradition
Topps Heritage

Based on how fun it was putting the set together:

Topps Heritage
UD Vintage
Fleer Tradition

-Dan
http://sportscardfun.com/trader/ideal0024.asp

"If a man hasn't discovered something he would die for, he isn't fit to live."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Baseball doesn't owe me a thing, I owe my whole life to baseball"
- Kirby Puckett

[Joseph S. Perino]

Dan Aliperto-MN wrote:
>
> Based on looks alone I'd go:
>
> UD Vintage
> Fleer Tradition
> Topps Heritage
>

I agree.

There are a couple of problems I have with
UD Vintage even though I think the card fronts
look better than the other releases. The
phrases with the cartoon on the back suck. Zero
effort went into it. Also, players included
in the set for some teams do not match the floating
heads on the checklist card. Like many products
today, Vintage was a rush job by Upper Deck to
release before Fleer Tradition.

> Based on how fun it was putting the set together:
>
> Topps Heritage
> UD Vintage
> Fleer Tradition

Heritage is not a $1000+ set, which is what
it would cost to put together buying boxes at their
current prices. Everybody seems in such
a hurry to finish and move on to the next
release. What's the rush?

Set collectors: How do you go about building current
sets. Do you
A) Buy boxes until the set is finished?
B) Buy a box or two and then buy the cards
you need from dealers. ebay, etc.?
C) Buy a box or two and then trade for
the cards you need?
D) Just buy the sets you want?
E) Use some combination of the above?
F) Not bother because there is not a modern
set worth completing?

joep

[Dan Aliperto-MN]

>The
>phrases with the cartoon on the back suck. Zero
>effort went into it.

Them are stupid.....what's up with them?

>Heritage is not a $1000+ set, which is what
>it would cost to put together buying boxes at their
>current prices. Everybody seems in such
>a hurry to finish and move on to the next
>release. What's the rush?
>
>Set collectors: How do you go about building current
>sets. Do you
>A) Buy boxes until the set is finished?
>B) Buy a box or two and then buy the cards
>you need from dealers. ebay, etc.?
>C) Buy a box or two and then trade for
>the cards you need?
>D) Just buy the sets you want?
>E) Use some combination of the above?
>F) Not bother because there is not a modern
>set worth completing?
>
>joep

E......I usually buy a box or two, trade for what I can, then if I have to I
will buy what's left. Usually the only stuff I buy is short prints or inserts.
For base sets if I post my need lists on the SCF site it usually gets done in
a few days.

[jeffstuff]

They were probably written by the same guy that came up with the names on the backs
of XFL uniforms "Me Hate Him", etc.

As to Item F, as a collector, there are many sets worth completing by whatever
means (breaking and building, etc) - because you like them. Investing may not be a
good idea, but there are those of us who enjoy looking at the cards, reading the
stats (and writing to the companies to point out inacuracies), trading (and making
new friends).

There are lots of different types of people participating and lurking in this group
- don't generalize!

Jeff in Seattle

[Joseph S. Perino]

Sorry, should have phrased it differently.
I do think there are modern releases that
are fun to collect; however I was asking in
F) if there are people who think otherwise.

joep

[Bruce Moreland]

Real '56 Topps cards have the portrait in front, and a background behind
that, which is an action shot. It looks to me like they used colorized
black and white photos for both, but the net result is very pleasing in my
opinion.

With modern sets, the companies don't want to spend any time creating the
sets, my bet is that they simply devise a process for creating a card front,
pump a bunch of pictures through the process, stuff the same old stats onto
the back, and call it good. With most modern stuff the front is simply an
ultra-sharp stock photo combined with a bunch of desktop publishing bullshit
and the card company logo in all its glory.

The reason the '00 Fleer '54 Topps ripoff worked is that they could combine
a color photo and a black and white photo over a solid background and call
it good. This was faithful enough to '54 Topps, and the design looked good
and was probably easy to do.

The reason the '01 Fleer '56 Topps ripoff doesn't work is that they want to
have an action shot background. If they just use an ordinary photo they
probably get something too bright or too busy. They want to soften the
background photo. If they were colorizing a black and white photo they
could have colorized it with muted colors, but since they are starting out
with a bright color photo, they tried to use a computer to rip all the color
and detail out of it, and as a result the cards look like crap when compared
with real '56 Topps.

bruce

Steven Kornblau <skor...@mdacc.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:9726j8$gil$1...@oac2.hsc.uth.tmc.edu...