I hope he at least keeps an apartment there. The place wouldn't be the same without him.
Toppstown

Labels: Toppstown

KING OF CARTOONS WINNER: MIKE VAIL (51 votes)



2nd Place: Mike Krukow (48 votes)

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

Round 2 WINNERS!

Group A WINNER (11 votes)


Group B WINNER (13 votes)


Showdown coming!

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

Group J WINNER! (8 votes)



Rest of Group J

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

Group H WINNER! (6 votes)



Rest of Group H

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

Group G WINNER! (10 votes)



Rest of Group G

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

Group F WINNER! (5 votes)



Rest of Group F

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

We've got two winners (4 votes each)!



The Rest of Group E

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

Group D WINNER! (15 votes)



Rest of Group D

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

The saga continues... Who will be King?

Group C WINNER! (8 votes)


Rest of Group C

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

In the interest of moving things along, the rest of the Groups in Round 1 will feature more choices per group. Voting on Group B to conclude later tonight.


Group B WINNER! (12 votes)


Rest of Group B

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

Over the next few days I want to focus on 1981 Topps. More specifically, the cartoons on the backs of the cards. I've decided that the proper way to celebrate all the great stuff back there is to do a tournament. Let's crown the King of Cartoons for 1981 Topps.

I've narrowed down the field to 71 subjects and will pit them against each other in a less-than-scientific manner: You get to vote on the best. And here's the kicker: I won't reveal the player's name until we have a winner. The cards are not in any specific order; they've been assigned numbers for your convenience.

(Editor's Note: This should be fun.)




Group A WINNER! (22 votes)


Rest of Group A

Labels: 1981, 1981 Topps, King of Cartoons, tournament

We all know it's coming, and I'm probably not too far off base to assume there's a room of monkeys with typewriters at One Whitehall coming up with ideas. I'm speaking, of course, about the next Topps gimmick card. Let's see, in the last three years they've sprung Guiliani and the Sox, the Bizarro Jeter, Poley Walnuts and the deftly geo-targeted whoopsie of Alex Gordon in Kansas-area Wal-Marts.

So what's next? I have an idea. Get someone like Manny Ramirez (a popular player who also seems a bit eccentric) to take out his braids and cut his hair like this:





My Photoshop skills used to be a lot better, but I think it would look something like this:




And you know, Manny doesn't even really have to do it. Presumably, Topps' graphic artists could just fake it. God knows they've had the practice. And if it's as big a hit as I think it will be, I think we'll be looking at a full blown insert set for Topps 2010.

Labels: 2009, gimmick, Manny Ramirez, Topps

Henry Cotto, have you been crying because the 1990 - 1994 Countdown has finally drawn to a close? Well, I say save your tears and consider this: how will people remember you? For your on-field glories, or because your 1994 Topps card makes it look like you're ready for your closeup? My money's on the latter. For all the many thousands of words we write exulting the sports card as an artistic, historical and cultural triumph, its one true legacy is that it's funny. Very funny, to be exact. Whether it's a sight gag or the subject has an outlandish, Dickensian name, there's fun to be had in the representation of sports so often devoid of that very quality.

Here are a few examples.


The best part of it is that you can say his name a couple ways, but my favorite is the stoic, historical observation: "Man. 'E Leaks."



The joke here is on Rudy. Who wants their contribution to one of the best Topps sets of the Seventies to be shown popping up? This is also funny because if this photo had been used three years earlier in the 1972 set, it would've been under the heading Rudy Meoli In Action.




Nothing about this Ray Fosse card is obviously funny (besides his facial hair). I find it funny because I've realized he looks like Honus Honus, lead singer and pianist for the crazy band Man Man. You can see the resemblance for yourself by clicking here.

Labels: 1975, Comedy, Fosse, Man Man, Meoli, Topps

1990 Score and 1991 Topps Stadium Club: it’s come down to these two sets and really neither of them is better than the other. In a perfect world I’d rank them 1 and 1a. But this isn’t a perfect world. People want order, they want debate. They want controversy. And I was ready to give you all of the above and name Score victorious, but then I really started to examine the situation.

I’ve decided that’s there no way Score wins this one. It’s a phenomenal set, no question about it. But is it the best representative for the early Nineties? More so than Stadium Club? No, it’s not. Here’s why.

1990 Score feels like it should have been released a year or two before it was. What I mean is, with its fun subsets (Dream Team, Highlights and those Draft Picks), the event cards scattered across the bloated checklist and the cheap packs, it felt more like a typical set from the late Eighties than a set from the early Nineties. Granted, it was released in 1990, but it followed those sets that came before, not setting precedents for those that followed it.

1991 Stadium Club, on the other hand, set the tone for the rest of the hobby for the rest of the decade. The plain and simple truth is that the early Nineties were about one thing and only one: the evolution of premium cards. And there is no better example than 1991 Stadium Club.

Let’s take a look at these sets, starting with 1990 Score. You don’t need me to tell you that the Bo Jackson football/baseball card was the biggest event card in a time when the hobby was completely awash with them. You also don’t need me to tell you that you probably had three or four of the Sandberg error, if you could remember what the error on the card was. Or how about Dream Team? Or Rookie Dream Team in the factory set? Or the fact that the Draft Picks subset was flat-out awesome, with rookies of Knoblauch, Ben McDonald, Mo Vaughn, Earl Cunningham (who?), Roger Salkeld and Frank Thomas. Or the fact that Thomas and Vaughn became stars after the others showed what they could do, which ensured the set with at least two rookie waves.

While this was technically Score’s third edition, it was really the set that put the company on the map. It had everything: enough superstars to clump at the beginning and spread throughout the remainder of the checklist, enough rookies to choke a horse, winning, inventive subsets and at least two Bo Jackson-related event cards (FB/BB and All Star Game). The cards featured a winning design, the packs were relatively cheap and Eric Lindros was in the Rookie/Traded set. ”He’s an unknown quantity right now because he’s so inexperienced,” said one scout. “But he has all the tools to make it big.”

What more could you want?

Like a handful of other sets from 1991, Stadium Club featured a Jeff Bagwell rookie (though no Chipper Jones or Mike Mussina). Unlike the others, though, the fate of the set did not rest on who was or was not included. That’s because unlike the other sets, the quality of Stadium Club was unbelievable. Full-bleed Kodak photography (Topps was smart to officially enlist Kodak; it gave the set a certain gravitas. Plus, if baseball card collectors are anything they’re brand-conscious to a tee), gold foil at a time when that simply wasn’t done, and Topps rookie cards on the backs.

The other thing that Stadium Club had going for it was that they were perceived to be scarce (though the validity of that perception was never determined). Packs were expensive. The cards were desirable. Nolan Ryan was shown in a tuxedo. I mean, c’mon. If the elder statesman was this excited about the set, comparison with Stadium Club’s contemporaries was completely unfair.

I’m not going to compare the two head to head. They excel in different ways. I will, however reiterate my main point: that while 1990 Score is a tremendous set, it belonged to the previous, pre-Upper Deck era of baseball cards (and were it released in the Eighties, it would rank in the top ten sets of the decade). Stadium Club, with its borderless photography, gold foil, perceived scarcity, Bagwell rookie and UV gloss, was a premium experience, one that exemplified the baseball card hobby in the early Nineties.

1. 1991 Topps Stadium Club
2. 1990 Score

End of story.


And of the 1990 – 1994 Countdown. It almost took a year, but now it’s done. If you’re looking for older Countdown reviews, in the next two weeks I plan on going back and tagging the rest of the relevant posts.

If you can't get enough early Nineties, head over to The Baseball Card Blog's sister site A Pack A Day, where the Cardboard Junkie will be live-blogging packs of both sets ranked here.

Labels: 1990, 1991, Countdown, Nineties, Score, Stadium Club

Well, we've made it to the last two sets of the Early Nineties Countdown. To celebrate, I've listed the top nine iconic baseball cards from the time period.


1. 1990 Score Bo Jackson FB/BB


2. 1994 Upper Deck SP Alex Rodriguez


3. 1990 Topps Frank Thomas Draft Pick Error (No Name on Front)


4. 1991 Score Jose "The Steroid Stallion" Canseco Dream Team


5. 1991 Topps Stadium Club Nolan Ryan
(and his inexplicable tuxedo)


6. 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas


7. 1993 Upper Deck SP Derek Jeter


8. 1991 Upper Deck Michael Jordan (insert)


9. 1991 Studio Steve Lake



10th Card Honorable Mentions: 1990 Upper Deck Reggie Jackson Baseball Heroes (autographed), 1990 Donruss Brian Downing Diamond King (reverse negative), 1990 Donruss Juan Gonzalez (reverse negative), 1990 Score Rookie/Traded Eric Lindros, 1992 Bowman Mike Piazza, 1993 Topps Finest Nolan Ryan (refractor)

Labels: Countdown, iconic cards, Nineties

Every sport has at least one: a set with such a high quotient of rookie superstars that it’s not even fair comparing it to others. Basketball has three entries, simply because cards weren’t made all that often: 1957-58 Topps, 1961-62 Fleer and 1986-87 Fleer. Only in the last one were there a large number of actual rookie superstars, not just players enjoying their first card. In football, there are 1984 Topps, 1986 Topps and 1989 Score. Hockey’s got 1951-52 Parkhurst and 1980-81 OPC & Topps.

Baseball’s littered with sets like this: 1949 Leaf and 1952, 1954, 1965, 1975, 1985 and 1987 Topps come immediately to mind. And of course there are others, like 1992 Bowman. As an exercise of mental dexterity, I’m going to list the names of ten players who appeared in ’92 Bowman and I want you to tell me which ones had their rookie appear in another set. Ready?

Derek Lowe
Pedro Martinez
Jeffrey Hammonds
Mike Hampton
Manny Ramirez (two cards in the set!)
Carlos Delgado
Mariano Rivera
Mike Piazza
Trevor Hoffman
Garret Anderson

Only Martinez, Piazza, Hammonds and Ramirez had rookies in other sets. Now I want you to tell me if that mattered.

Of course it didn’t. 1992 Bowman was, is and always will be the muthafuckin’ set for early-Nineties rookies, and I’ll be damned if it mattered that Pedro Martinez’s only true rookie wasn’t part of it (it came in 1991 Upper Deck Final Edition). If you were a young player—and your name wasn’t Shawn Green—your rookie, for all intents and purposes, was in this set.

This was easily the biggest thing in the hobby in 1992. No other set even came close: ’92 was an off-year for the blossoming ‘premium’ craze as Leaf, Ultra, Stadium Club and Studio put out so-so sets. Only Pinnacle (Score’s foray into higher quality) made its debut. In other words, it was a perfect time for a below-the-radar set like this to take hold.

And thanks in part to a handful of short-printed cards, Bowman’s leap into foil (no more simple, thread-bare gold foil relegated to a corner icon, as in 1991) and at least three distinct rookie waves, it’s never had to loosen its grip.

As I mentioned in a previous post, 1992 was the most popular of the early Nineties Bowman sets. But was it the most deserving of the attention? I happen to like 1991 more, but that set doesn’t bring as much to the table as ’92.

1992 is in the top five of the early decade not just because it’s a rookie juggernaut. It’s in there because of the foil, the short prints and the general overhaul Topps did on Bowman between 1991 and 1992.

It’s fair to say that 1991 Bowman wasn’t much to look at. Actually, if we’re more truthful, the last time Bowman had released a good-looking set was 1955. Taking that into account, Topps printed 1992’s set on coated white stock with a bright action shot and thick white borders on the front and a color headshot on the back. All together it wasn’t a bad design; you could almost even call it attractive. In fact, you probably wouldn’t know the average card was a Bowman were it not for the completely indecipherable block of statistics on the back, the brand’s trademark inclusion.

The funny thing about this set is that it is one of the few modern-era sets that’s as relevant today as the day it was released. Simply put, every player of the last generation—regardless of his star quality—had a card in this set. Okay, at least a number of them did. And it’s not even that 1992 had such a great rookie class. It’s that this set managed to include a lot of guys years before they showed up in other brands. Take Derek Lowe, for instance. After his Bowman card in 1992, he doesn’t show up in another brand (besides Bowman) until Donruss 1998. Granted, he didn’t make the majors until 1997, but that was Bowman’s thing: get a guy early, way before the competition.

Labels: 1992, Bowman, Countdown, Nineties

My readers know me better than I know myself:

• Stale Gum is already placing odds on which set will take home Best of 1990 - 1994.

• Reader Doug wants to know what the hell happened to the rest of The 792. Doug, that's a good question... I have a way of starting something and then not finishing. Well, that was the old Ben Henry. The new Ben Henry would like to welcome the last 92 weary cardboard travelers to The 792.

701. Eddie Murray AL AS, 1985
702. Home Run Leaders, 1983
703. George Brett AL AS, 1985
704. Ozzie Smith NL AS, 1986
705. Dale Murphy NL AS, 1986
706. NL Active Victory Leaders, 1984
707. NL Active Strikeout Leaders, 1984
708. Leading Firemen, 1983
709. Dwight Gooden NL AS, 1986
710. AL Active Batting Leaders, 1984
711. Jeff Reardon NL AS, 1986
712. Don Mattingly AL AS, 1986
713. Damaso Garcia AL AS, 1986
714. George Brett AL AS, 1986
715. Cal Ripken AL AS, 1986
716. Willie Stargell IA, 1982
717. Jay Baller, 1988
718. Steve Carlton, 1987
719. Carlton Fisk AL AS, 1986
720. Carl Yastzremski, 1980
721. Ron Guidry AL AS, 1986
722. Dan Quisenberry AL AS, 1986
723. Randy Moffitt, 1983
724. Danny Tartabull, 1988
725. Terry Steinbach, 1989
726. Rick Monday, 1981
727. Joe Orsulak, 1989
728. Tug McGraw, 1984
729. Blue Jays Leaders, 1988
730. Ozzie Smith, 1986
731. Padres Future Stars, 1982
732. Floyd Youmans, 1986
733. Tony Scott, 1985
734. Jody Reed, 1989
735. Rickey Henderson, 1987
736. Tommy John Super Veteran, 1983
737. Pete Vuckovich, 1986
738. Jorge Orta, 1987
739. Joey McLaughlin, 1982
740. Tom Seaver, 1984
741. Rusty Staub Super Veteran, 1983
742. Frank Viola, 1986
743. Mike Torrez, 1983
744. Mike Witt, 1982
745. Fred McGriff, 1989
746. German Gonzalez, 1989
747. Johnny Ray, 1987
748. Lee Mazzilli, 1985
749. Ed Jurak, 1986
750. Bo Jackson, 1988
It was not very often that a first or second-year player got such a prestigious checklist number. It happens twice, though, in 1988: Barry Bonds (#450) and Bo Jackson (#750).

751. Kelvin Chapman, 1985
752. Phil Garner, 1984
753. Joe Morgan, 1982
See my note below about #757, Nolan Ryan.

754. Joe Morgan IA, 1982
755. Harold Baines, 1986
756. Reds Leaders, 1982
757. Nolan Ryan, 1987
As far as hero numbers go, #757 isn't even on the list. What was Topps thinking in 1987?

758. Gene Walter, 1989
759. A's Leaders, 1988
760. Andre Dawson, 1986
761. Dante Bichette, 1989
762. Bobby Thigpen, 1989
763. Craig Swan, 1984
764. Robin Ventura #1 DP, 1989
765. Kirk Gibson, 1987
766. Twins Future Stars, 1982
767. Jose Lind, 1988
768. Dickie Noles, 1988
769. Harold Reynolds, 1986
770. Carlton Fisk, 1985
771. Rich Gossage IA, 1982
772. Jim Slaton, 1984
773. Robin Yount, 1987
774. Frank Robinson, 1989
775. Dave Parker, 1984
776. Tom Brunansky, 1987
777. Wayne Krenchiki, 1986
There were certain guys I wanted to get into this set. Krenchiki was very high on that list.

778. Keith Comstock, 1988
Remember when Topps was in the error card business by mistake? If I remember correctly, there were three or four different versions of this card.

779. Tom Glavine, 1988
780. Steve Carlton, 1984
781. Pete Rose IA, 1982
782. Jeff Ballard, 1988
783. Bobby Murcer Super Veteran, 1983
784. Steve Avery #1 DP, 1989
That's two Braves rookies in less than ten cards.

785. Tony Armas, 1985
786. Red Sox Leaders, 1984
787. Dave West, 1989
788. Dane Iorg, 1983
789. Indians Leaders, 1988
790. Phil Niekro, 1986
791. Lance Parrish, 1987
792. Charles Hudson, 1986

As always, check out Cardboard Junkie for the 792 Gallery. It's well worth a visit.

Labels: Eighties, Nineties, The 792

Why are baseball cards made? I know I keep asking that question, but it’s important. I’ve been batting around different ideas, but the most realistic answer I’ve come up with is “Because it’s big business.” Name me another product that is tied to childhood, nostalgia and bonding with family and friends more than Topps Baseball Cards. I can think of only four: Coca-Cola, firecrackers, TV and Playboy Magazine. All are timeless products that have helped shape the American identity. “The first time I…” with each is a venerable rite of passage.

One side of business is branding, so obvious and important in the baseball card business (especially during a period such as the early Nineties, when there were scores of different products competing for dealers’ shelf space and collectors’ attention).

Another side is competing in the marketplace. For all intents and purposes, there was one manufacturer from 1956 to 1980. In 1981 that figure tripled to three and by 1989, with the introduction of giant killer Upper Deck, there were six. And though for those thirty-some-odd years it may have seemed like there was Topps and then there was everyone else in terms of market share, Topps’ response to competition (or lack thereof) helped the company slip in the standings. It got so bad for the company that it took them two years to respond to the biggest threat the company had yet to face: Upper Deck. In Topps’ defense, it was the worth the wait, as the inaugural 1991 Stadium Club release was a fantastic set, and Topps wasn’t alone in its delayed reaction. It also took Fleer two years to lob its response (1991 Ultra).

But by waiting two years to respond to the higher-quality standards of Upper Deck, Topps and Fleer were no longer responding to just one company, they were jumping on the bandwagon of a hobby trend: premium cards.

Born out of 1989’s Upper Deck (and possibly even 1988’s Score set), premium cards were printed on higher-quality stock, with better photography, brighter colors and more bells and whistles, most noticeably the heavy use of metallic ink. To ensure their desirability, manufacturers released them in a more limited quantity (or that was the idea). As such, they could charge dealers more per case, dealers would pass on the price increase to the collector and the value of individual cards would skyrocket. Add in the big ball of hype surrounding the hobby at the time and it was a recipe for success.

The company that didn’t wait to see if premium would survive more than a year was Donruss. By repositioning their Leaf brand as a premium set, they ensured not only that theirs was the first Big Three (Topps, Fleer, Donruss) response to Upper Deck, but that the set would garner more attention within the hobby.

All this preparation could’ve backfired had the set been terrible. Luckily for Donruss (and collectors) it wasn’t. Far from it. If we pull back for a moment and look at the long-term values of the set and individual cards, the Sosa rookie is still within the $15 to $20 range, which is remarkable considering all the bad press he’s accumulated over the past five years. Unopened boxes still go for $30 - $60 each and it’s safe to say that the cards remain in demand.

Long-term card value is not the reason why I’ve ranked this set so high. Premium or no, this was a great set. The design wasn’t bad: there was a subtle futurism thing going on that included more than a healthy dollop of metallic ink. The photography was excellent. The cards were printed on clean, smooth white stock. And the checklist was stellar.

With big-name rookies (Thomas, Sosa, Olerud, Justice, Walker) and strong second-year guys (Griffey, Belle and Randy Johnson), Leaf was suddenly the coolest kid on the block. The Thomas rookie was at one point as big as Griffey’s iconic Upper Deck rookie from the year before and when Sammy Sosa became a household name in 1998, there was no bigger card of him than his Leaf rookie.

It wasn’t just the rookies and young guys that made this set desirable. Like with any popular card set, what’s old was suddenly new. Cards of veteran stars and other established players were desirable.

But perhaps the most telling statistic for the popularity of a given set is the price for individual commons. For context, you can probably get a common from 1990 Topps for two or three cents. For Leaf, expect to pay a dime per common. That’s five times the average rate for a Topps common from the same year. That difference is, in a word, sick. I think you have to go back to 1984 Donruss before you see a common price that’s even remotely in the same league. Seems like the initial decision to limit the quantity paid off.

Was it a good decision for Donruss to jump the gun on their response to Upper Deck? I think so. It was a strong set that whet collectors’ appetites not just for more Leaf, but more premium cards in general. And though our opinions differ of if it was good for long-term card quality, we all can agree it was good for business.

Labels: 1990, Countdown, Donruss, Leaf, Nineties

Before we get started, just a quick note regarding the nature of these rankings: Comments have been left railing against my choices for top-ten-caliber sets. As a response, I’d like to simply reiterate that I’m not ranking these sets based on my own personal like or dislike. I’m ranking them in terms of their importance to the hobby at the time and taking into account if the hobby (or part of the hobby) adopted an innovation introduced in a given set. One comment expressed a strong dislike for the ‘Bowmanization’ of the rookie card. 1991 Bowman may be reviled by some, but it’s one of the most important sets from the early Nineties simply because it changed the nature of the rookie game. Now let’s get back to the Countdown.




Most of the sets in this Countdown are separated by only the slightest differences. Some had an important rookie, others featured excellent design or an above-average checklist. Very few of these 70-odd sets actually had much hobby (or historical) impact. In their collective defense, at the time of their release sets were made to be competitive with each other, not to have a place in history. That’s what makes it all the more impressive that certain sets were able to attain an instant-classic status.

One such set is 1993 Topps Finest. There’s simply no way to over-estimate its importance within the hobby at the time or the precedent it established for all the sets that have since followed. That’s a bombastic statement to make, especially for the set that is only ranked fifth, so here’s some bombast to back it up.

Let’s start with the short, stars-only, elitist checklist. Now, Finest wasn’t the first set to feature a short base card checklist (OPC Premier was probably the first modern set to do so), just the first to make that fact meaningful. Let me explain.

In 1992, Topps released what would be its last 792-card flagship set, ballooning that figure to 825 cards for 1993. By setting the cap on Finest at 199 cards, Topps cut 626 potential subjects—essentially guys #8 through #25 on each team’s roster. With an entire checklist comprised of only stars, Topps was able to set Finest apart as the company’s home for the game’s elite (or ‘finest’… See what they’re doing there with their name? Ehh?).

The choice of name would end up with multiple meanings: not only did the set feature the finest players in the game, but the cards were among the finest collectors had ever seen. People were blown away. Etched metal, crushed beer can art, whatever you want to call it—Finest innovated card design across the hobby for years to come (whether you personally approved of that or not (I was among those who did not)).

And it did so without straying from the rules of what a baseball card should look like. The player’s name was in a small box next to the Topps logo, and with a large action photo that clearly showed the name of the player’s team and his main function on the field (pitchers were shown pitching), all the design had to accomplish was keeping the player rooted in reality, which it did with the deft sandwiching of metal between player and photo background. As for the backs, they were an afterthought.

As if the base design wasn’t enough, Topps included a hard-to-find parallel set: Refractors. Seeded one in every nine packs, there was a very good chance the average collector (ie the kid who scrimped and saved for weeks on end just to buy a single pack) would never find one. And because the Refractors were a parallel of the base set, there were 199 different ones to collect. Talk about tall orders to fill if you decided to go for the master set.

But who really could afford to do so? Only six cards came per pack, with only 18 packs per box. Let’s say you bought a box: that gave you 106 regular cards and two Refractors (barring doubles). You would still need 93 cards to complete the base set and a whopping 197 Refractors. In the end you were probably looking at buying three to four boxes just to make one base set. Unless you had a barrel of disposable income, the Refractor set was out of your reach. And who ever heard of needing disposable income for new cards? Nowadays that seems like par for the course, but at the time it was an outrageous proposition.

The single most significant innovation that Finest contributed to the hobby was the new audience it was able to draw to collecting. Let’s face it: Finest wasn’t for little kids (unless they were ‘discerning’ little kids), it was for investors, er, I mean collectors ready to spend real money on baseball cards of contemporary stars. And while other brands had set their sights on attracting collectors of this nature, those similar sets from the period (1990 Leaf, 1989 Upper Deck, 1991 Stadium Club and to a certain extent 1992 Bowman) have lost their value. That this edition of Finest hasn’t is simply remarkable.

How does it continue to be relevant? With a checklist comprised of superstars and no real rookies to speak of. With fewer cards per pack and fewer packs per box. And with an innovative design and parallel insert technology gimmick that has set the pace for the fifteen years and counting. Like I said: remarkable.

Labels: 1993, Countdown, Finest, Nineties, Refractors, Topps