I can barely make out what is printed above A-Rod's name, have to squint to make out the position, and can only clearly see the name if I treat the card like a 1986 Sportflic and move the card around until the light reflects the right way on the name so I can read it.
Its now been 17 years since Topps printed a base card without the player's name in foil (way back in 1994):
although even then Topps was getting us ready for what was to come with the Topps Gold parallel:
Foil on a card was really cool back in the 1990's as it was new and looked flashy. Now its just tired, and frankly, its getting very old.
Does Topps research show that collectors still demand foil on their cards? Will sales drop if they go back to printing the name so its easily readable no matter what angle you hold the card? I'm not sure why Topps continues to use foil for player's names.
I know I sound like a Grumpy Old Man complaining about how I don't like the foil since I can't read the names:
"Back in my day we didn't have shiny foil on our cards. We collected cards made out of papyrus...the cards were fragile and would fall apart, but you could read the name until the card turned to dust. That's the way it was, and we liked it!"
So please Topps...enough with the foil. Its not 1997 anymore. You won. All the other competitors are gone. You don't need to out foil the other card companies any more. Just go back to making a card that can be enjoyed without trying to make the player's name shine, rendering it nearly unreadable.
In case you forgot, cards like this seem to look just fine without foil:
%20%2337%20Painter.jpg)
4 comments:
Agreed No Foil
Topps does research?
I'm with you...I hate the foil. In 2009, I preferred UD "First Edition" to their flagship because of the absence of foil.
YESSss! At least the name is isolated in a block by itself. Forget the team name around the circle this year. That part should never have been done in foil. It looks like they used too much paint and it came out all inflated looking.
Post a Comment