As this is “Part 2” of a series of posts, I don’t want to get too involved in the whys and the wherefores of this series. If you want that, you can check out Part 1 here.
What I will recap is what criteria I’m using when I rank these. I looked at the design being “Heritaged”, how successful Topps was in replicating the design and feel of the set, and finally whether the Heritage cards changed my feelings towards the original card.
For those who didn’t click the link, here’s a list of #15 through #13:
#15 – 2001 Heritage (1952 design)
#14 – 2011 Heritage (1962 design)
#13 – 2009 Heritage (1960 design)
All right, let’s get back to it!
#12 – 2010 Heritage (1961 design)
Going into 2010, I really wanted to like this Heritage set. When I was a pre-teen, 1961 Topps had the honor of being the oldest set where I had more than one card (I had maybe three), so from a relative early age, the 1961’s were the epitome of “Cool old cards”.
When 2010 Heritage came out, even though they did a pretty good job of reproducing the set, the end result was… unsatisfying. And I’m having a hard time coming up with reasons why.
I don’t know if this has anything to do with it, but I’ll stand on top of this particular soapbox anyway: One of these days, a card manufacturer is going to figure out how to simulate vintage printing technology and we will all gush about how awesome that company’s throwback sets look (even if we’re not 100% sure why we’re gushing).
This is not pie-in-the-sky thinking… At least one uniform manufacturer has some sort of technique to simulate the weave of flannel uniforms using modern fabrics. I’ve seen this in person, and I have to say it looks pretty convincing (at least from 20 or so feet away). 99% of people probably see it as “old school” without words like “flannel” entering their consciousness.
In a similar way, there’s gotta be a way of simulating vintage printing technology with these Heritage cards, thus making them look more like pack-fresh cards from the 1960’s rather than the products of 21st century technology. Maybe subtle flaws or unevenness can be worked into the colors… Some bleeding between colors and around black lines. This is something I’ve been futzing with while playing with my custom cards, and I’ve found that little touches like that can make a big difference in how the customs look. Now we just need to get someone in charge to feel the same way.
Getting back to the cards, the All-Star inserts turned out just fine.
…And the award winner subset also turned out pretty well.
How Heritage affected my opinion of the originals: To be honest, it made me go back to my 1961’s and wonder why I like them as much as I do. But I do like them, despite the mild disappointment that is their Heritage offspring.
2010 Heritage cards in my collection: 179 cards out of 501 in the set (35.7%)
#11 – 2004 Heritage (1955 design)
When I came up with my ranking, I flip-flopped several times between this set and the next set. I started out with this set at #10, but as I started writing this post, I decided it had to be #11… maybe even 12. When I finish this series, I probably could start another one called “How I’d rank them now that I’ve finished ranking them”.
Part of my problem with 2004 Heritage is my general bias against horizontally-oriented sets. When you hold cards in your hand, you hold them vertically. If the set is horizontal, you have to either hold your hand at an unnatural angle, tilt your head, or both.
Like 2010 Heritage, I had to struggle to figure out why the cards seemed “wrong”. Unlike 2010 Heritage, I think I know why…
IMHO, Topps graphics people get a little too hung up on 21st century “design language” or style or convention or whatever you want to call it. Whether for aesthetic reasons, or legal reasons or just not wanting to irritate licensors, they tend to leave a lot of space around photos when the crop them. They also seem particularly averse to one photo interfering with another, or a player’s bat getting chopped off, or part of the player’s “action” shot being covered by the team logo.
In doing so, they forget one of the reasons why kids bought baseball cards back in the day – to see what players look like. Boxscores and radio broadcasts didn’t give you any idea. Newspapers and most magazines often had grainy black & white photos. TV was probably the best source, but they were not the HD TV’s of today.
Accordingly, Topps back in the day would let the player dominate the front of the card:
You get a good look at his face, and even the “action shot” would give you a decent idea of what he looked like. The card design was visual spice to make it more appealing.
For 2004 Heritage, Topps was overcautious with their cropping, and inadvertently let the card design nudge it’s way into your awareness. It’s like those MP3’s which have been “Remastered for iPod” and the engineers largely ignore the original mix and just crank the vocals, guitars, keyboard, bass and drums all to the same levels… Sure, you can hear more keyboards or bass (and I’ve been told that it’s all about da bass), but then you hear less of the lead vocals and guitar…. and then you want to run out to a used record store, find the original vinyl and rip that instead. (Not that I have any experiences like this WHATSOEVER).
As a quick visual aid to show you the cropping differences, I did a little experiment…
I took the Bertoia image, reduced it by 95% to get it roughly standard size, and then took slices and laid it down on the 2006 Lo Duca, aligning each by the green stripe on the bottom. It’s not the most scientific test, but the results were pretty telling. Check it out:
The background goes higher on the Bertoia (in other words, the white border is narrower on the original), but look at how much larger the 1955 images are when compared to the 2006 equivalent. It just gets more extreme with other Heritage cards, Lo Duca’s face is relatively large compared to some of the others.
So, like we had with the 1960 design in my previous post, the graphics people didn’t crop tight enough, the design takes over, and the result ends up being less than satisfying.
The backs are nice, anyway. Several colors, white cardboard and a cartoon go a long way.
How Heritage affected my opinion of the originals: No opinions of 1955 Topps were harmed during the creation of this Heritage set.
2004 Heritage in my collection: 49 / 475 (10.3%)
#10 – 2006 Heritage (1957 design)
I’m sort of “analyzed-out” after the past two sets, so I’m not going to pick this design apart and examine it under a microscope.
Besides, 2006 Heritage is ranked pretty much the way I’d rank the original. 1957 is a set I really want to like, but it’s just too inconsistent. When you can read the player’s name, team and position, it works very nicely. Very often, the text on the card gets jumbled into the background, and it becomes something of a mess.
For the record, here’s an original 1957.
How Heritage affected my opinion of the originals: 2006 Heritage made me wish, even more, that I liked 1957 Topps more than I do.
2006 Heritage cards in my collection: 110/495 (22.2%)
I promise this entire series isn’t going to be a grumpy old man kvetching about picky details… There are Heritage sets I like, and we will get there.