Just How Bad was 1969 Topps Baseball, Series 1?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2022
- Stats:
1969 Topps Baseball, Series 1 are cards #1-109. 89 of those are base player cards.
Of those 89:
25.8% are capless (23)
21.4% are airbrushed (19)
47% of Series 1 is capless or airbrushed
60% of the photos are alternate poses from previous Topps photo shoots from 1967 and earlier.
There are 16 cards of the 89 that I can't identify the original source.
References & Resources:
• 1960's Player Boycott ...
(great video on the Topps Player Boycott by The Vintage Composer)
bigleaguecards.com/uncategori...
(Topps' history with Marvin Miller)
sabrbaseballcards.blog/2017/0...
(Topps’ arrangement with players and history of the labor conflict)
www.tcdb.com/List.cfm/lid/397...
(pictures of boycott cards)
sportscollectorsdigest.com/ca...
(Keith Olbermann article about how Topps did not take any pictures in 1968)
www.thenationalpastimemuseum....
sabrbaseballcards.blog/2016/1...
(Astros dispute with Topps and proof it was not about Monsanto) - Спорт
As an avid baseball card collector for over 45 years, I have to say I have learned more about specific sets from your videos than any other single source. In my opinion you have produced the best informative hobby videos on “the UA-cams.”
Thank you so much, there's a lot of good UA-camrs out there. I just try to make stuff I would want to watch. I also feel it's important to tell these stories and get them out there.
When purchasing these cards new as a very young lad, they meant the world to me. Just loved the cards. Didn't care about any defective nuances that may have appeared on any of the cards in the whole set. Just went to the $.05 to $1.00 store, bought the packs, took them home, opened them, chewed the bubble gum, & looked at my Baseball Heroes while sorting, playing with, & organizing the cards. Still have many of those 1969 Topps cards to this day & still feel the same way about them!
As an 11-year old collecting for the first time, this set will always be my favorite. Most notable to me, still releasing Mickey Mantle's last card, with his retirement announcement on the back/with his lifetime stats, and two different Donn Clendenon cards, one as an Expos, and one as Houston, and he ended up the MVP of the '69 World Series, for the METS. Truly classic. Loved this clip and learning the history of this set. Thanks.
1969 Topps certainly feels slapped together. Even the design was recycled from the previous year. The limitedly released 3-D set made in 1968 for Topps by Xograph, which would go on to produce the Kellogg’s cards throughout the 70’s and early 80’s, had a nearly identical look. While the multitude of hatless, airbrushed, and recycled images is unfortunate, I feel like there is something very special about ‘69 Topps, and I regard it amongst one of the more attractive sets of the vintage era. In contrast to its neighbors, burlap sack ‘68 and drab ‘70, ‘69 has a very clean and refreshing look. The salmon-pink backs certainly add a nice touch. It’s in many ways a bastardized, makeshift b-roll of a set, but the reasons for it being so, make the set all the more interesting. Great video, as always!
Great analysis Marcus! I've always enjoyed the set...the first time I saw it as a kid I had no idea of the backstory. I think the design is top notch, along with the use of full length photographs. The back is one of Topps best designs for readability.
Today I regard 69 Topps as a wasted opportunity. I think it could have been one of their best sets ever if they had used current photography.
@@vintagecardcurator yes some of those Kellogg cards great pretty high in a fairly expensive
I see it as classy '70. I love that set. The only set I own.
When I started collecting again around 2010, I bought all the Oakland A's team sets 1968 - 2010. I liked the '69 design but wondered why some of the hats and helmets didn't have logos. Now I know. Thanks again Keith for another excellent and very informative video.
Yes, I could see that being confusing about the A's cards. I was an A's fan too. I understand it for the '68 set, but it's kind of weird for half of '69 when the team had moved more than a year before.
Wow! I collected baseball cards while I was growing up in the 60s. I had never heard about this. Fascinating! Thank you!
WOW! I did not have a clue about all of that using old pictures over so much. Sure I did notice some players had the same picture like Aaron and Banks but I did not know about the issues the players were having with Topps. Marvin Miller was their friend for sure and he got them extra money but his best work was yet to come. Thanks for posting this video. I just recently finished my 1969 set and now I will look at those cards again in a different way.
Thank you,that was a very informative description about why Topps had such bad sets in the late 1960s. I was aware of the MLBPA’s dispute with Topps from reading Marvin Miller’s autobiography.
The Topps football sets of the mid to late 1960s had similar problems. They used the same photo of Chargers Steve DeLong in their AFL sets from 1964-67 and their 1969 set. The Joe Kapp photo,from his 1969 card,was probably taken when he was with the Calgary Stampeders in the late 1950s.
Wow, that's really awful with the football cards.
I grew up buying baseball cards from 1966-1971 . Thank you for this educational segment, it answered many questions why Topps released no team cards in 1969.
It was 1968-72 were my active buying years. I was age 8-12 when my dad would bring me home some packs each week and I started my love affair in 68. I just recently finished my 1968 and 1969 sets after all of these years. Ebay made that easy as there are not many card shops anymore.
I had the complete 1968 set except Nolan Ryan, 80 percent near mint condition 20 percent excellent - mint condition.
I sold them in 2021 for personal reasons, emergency financial circumstances
I love this set and was finally able to complete it last year. Very interesting set it is. Many valuable card in the set and some that are hard to come by and others that are expensive, despite not being hall of famers, such as Tug McGraw and Bobby Bonds. Interesting how Mantle had a card, despite not even playing in 1969. The most valuable cards in the set are probably the Mantle, Nolan Ryan and the Reggie Jackson rookie. The Tom Seaver is also the same as his 1968 image.
Yes , i finished out this set around 2018 ? I also have the complete Deckle set , with the 2 vars cards in my set , too . I like the set looks wise & the backs are easy on the eyes & had MORE stats on them , over the 1967's & 1968's ? Yes i do HATE the head shots with NO caps/ helmets on them , BUT , it's NOT like it is the only set to that point that had them in it ? Now, 1970 is a NICE set card pose wise ? I like the gray borders , too . So, they did a NICE come back card wise ! Again the backs are easy on the eyes .
yes, I learned first hand that some cards are more expensive than HOF'ers. I would add Bobby Murcer to that. Bobby Cox is certainly a very expensive card too. There is a definite premium to the Mets and Tiger cards too. Still, a very worthwhile set to put together.
I met Tug McGraw at a free signing event in the early 90’s sponsored by Macy’s in NYC. What a great guy he was. Spoke to me about the Met team of that year. Also signed his ‘69 card for me. Great memory !
Congrats on completing that set! I love late-1960s, early 1970s sets.
I've managed to complete every set from the 60's in high grade and have saved the 1969 for last as it was always my least favorite set.
Currently working on the set over 10 last months or so and as a result of this video I now know the history of the set and what Topps went through to create it. The information in this video has, for me, increased the appeal of the set.
Wish I could add this video to the binder....! Great work as always.
Thanks for all your hard work. Your videos are enjoyable and greatly appreciated.
Thanks Greg! I built a complete 1969 set a couple of years ago. I enjoy the cards a lot and can look past the worst examples. When you have a set, complete in a binder, you really get a feel for the set and the story behind it. I couldn't do these videos without my set binders!
Thanks for the comment!
This explains a lot about this set
I have a partial that I thrifted
I’d like to put it together one day
Great video
Would you believe that José Santiago (3:50) is still working today as a radio broadcaster during the winter ball season in Puerto Rico 🇵🇷 ??? He's still a great play by play narrator and his longevity is something that deserves to be commended.
I always learn so much from your videos, Keith. Thank you as always for making them so dang entertaining as well. I am not a huge fan of this set although I have always preferred it over the 68. It has an elegant simplicity to it, much like the 67 set although I prefer the 67. The Johnny Bench, which you show late in your video, might be the prettiest card in the set. The Reggie RC is nice and the Mantle is a nice final card of his playing days, especially the white letter version.
Thanks so much for that praise!
I was thinking about the Mantle card...trying to figure out when it was taken. I always thought it was taken at Yankee Stadium, but now I'm not so sure. We know he reported to spring training in 1969 and retired, so maybe the picture was taken then. I'm not really sure, but I like the card a lot.
That's what I like a clean border nice card as far as the 67 that's one of the more popular sets in the s but I like 65 and 64
Clemente is a nice card
@@vintagecardcurator it was pure luck that we got a last 1969 card for Mick. Had he retired after the 68 season then no card would have been made. I wish Topps had worked out a final card for retired players (especially the greats) and just mention on the front or back of card that player has retired. Then we would have had complete career stats totals on that last card. Example with Willie Mays last card a 1973 has 654 HRs listed. Anyway thanks for these great videos.
Having been a collector since 1963 I have seen a plethora of Topps sets. Having said that I still found this video very interesting. There were many little factoids that I never knew about such as the Al Downing uniform with the Worlds Fair patch on it. As to the 69 set itself I always thought it rather bland especially coming off the 68 set which I personally thought was one of Topps best. Keep up the good work!
Al Jackson, you mean.
Loved the photo of the back of Tom Seaver with Marvin Miller.⚾️⚾️
It was the first set I collected as a child, so it has sentiment all value for me.
Been working on building this set for over a year now. Love the history of this set, the look and the many hall of famers in there. Putting this together in as high a grade as i can. Been fun so far
It’s a fun set, I built it up from scratch and enjoyed it a lot.
Thanks very much for being a very informative and outstanding contributor to the hobby. This video is no exception.
Thank you sir!
Enjoyed the video so much, I came back for another view.., I noticed no mention of the quirkiest reused picture of all for '69.., that being of Larry Haney, where Topps reused his '68 picture, but reversed it, making him a left-handed catcher....
I got some of your examples beat, but this video also helped me find something I've been looking for. First, outdoing the Steve Hamilton card, Tommie Aaron's card re-uses the photo from his 1963 card. 1963! The Al Jackson card is interesting, because the picture, taken with the World's Fair patch, is from a previous stint with the Mets. He had been traded after the picture was taken, and it was used after he was reacquired. Topps could have beaten this record when the Mets reacquired Bob Miller in 1973, 11 years after he had been traded to the Dodgers. Miller was an original Met in 1962, and I'm sure Topps had a picture of him in a Mets uniform in their archives, but chose to use a truly hideous airbrushed picture instead for their 1974 set. An 11 year old picture in a first year Mets uniform taken in the Polo Grounds would have been an all-time classic. (He's in a Mets uniform on his 63 card, but had already been traded and was hatless, but showing a very cool crew cut.)
But the prize here is something I've been looking for. Check out the Sammy Ellis and Chris Cannizaro cards. I was looking for the last cards Topps issued with pictures taken in the Polo Grounds, and these must be it. Cannizaro is still in his Mets uniform. That is a fantastic card, LOL. You can see the housing projects in the space between the lower & upper decks. On the Ellis card, you can see the billboard for Howard Clothes, an old New York men's store. Since the Polo Grounds ceased to exist after 1963, you know how old these pictures are. The could conceivably date to 1962. Also, thanks for answering the mystery of the "Houston". I've been wondering about this since I was seven years old. My kid mind always figured that Topps was worried the Astros were going to change their name back to the Colt .45, so they left the team name out.
(Extra note: Looking up Sammy Ellis, that picture had to be taken in 1962 because he spent the entire 1963 season in the minor leagues. Likely the Cannizzaro picture was also taken in 62, as he spent most of 1963 in the minors, playing only 16 games with the Mets. The Howard Clothes sign is another clue, as that store had a promotion in 1962 where the Mets player who hit the sign most often with a batted ball won a free suit at the end of the year. So the Ellis picture, and most likely the Cannizaro picture, date to 1962.)
1968 and 69 were my first two years collecting cards. I never noticed anything unusual about them since they were the first cards I ever saw. 68 remains one of my favorite sets, for sentimental reasons. 69 I think of as just OK. BTW, I think Frank Thomas won the suit.
That's amazing information! I didn't realize that was the Polo Grounds in the background of the Cannizzaro and Ellis cards. Topps really went back...worse than I thought. I didn't know that about Tommie Aaron either. I only traced the Series 1 cards back...much more manageable.
Thanks for the post!
The Chris Short Phillies card is the best example of a Polo Grounds card.
@@johnbuckley8724 Yeah, that is a good one. You usually don't get to see the centerfield clock and club houses on cards taken in the Polo Grounds. Chris Short is a good one for stadium pictures because his 1971 card has a great shot of old Connie Mack Stadium (and an Alpo dog food billboard).
Certainly ranks among my least favorite vintage sets. The cap-less and airbrush shots get to the point where you're almost numb to it, so it's kind of more sad than annoying. I wasn't fully aware of the background with MLBPA, so thanks for the history lesson! All that said -- a great looking card, to me, in 1969 Topps is Cleon Jones 512. Got it signed by him TTM a few months ago, looks even more amazin' now!
That's a great card to have signed John!
Thanks, very informative. Never heard of this before 😸👍‼️
My favorite is #32 Sam Ellis… you can see the Howard Clothes outfield advertisement behind him which means the photo was taken in the Polo Grounds. They tore that ballpark down in 1964.
Great research and awesome video once again.
I always wondered what was going on with this set and all of those missing logos and capless poses. I never knew why some cards had the logo and some didn’t. Thank you for what you do for our hobby.
Thanks Ronnie...I appreciate the comment!
Amazing video! Love all the knowledge!! Great great great great stuff!
Thanks Michael! I had fun with this project.
Well as a 10 year-old kid who collected in '69, none of this stuff was a concern to me or any of my friends, although I never was an air-brushed hats fan. But overall, I think the '69 set is a great set. There are some cards in it that are fantastic, like Mike Cuellar, Luis Tiant, Jerry Koosman, Frank Robinson, Manny Sanguillen, Cleon Jones, Richie Allen, Tim McCarver, Reggie Smith, Paul Blair, and Tony Oliva. Johnny Bench, of course. These are amazing cards. Bert Campaneris and Dick Green. Nolan Ryan. Great photos and a great design. And the blowing up and reframing of some of the previous photos, like with Carew, Banks, and Yaz, I think was also very effective. The World Series cards I think are Topps' best. The All-Star cards are distinctive, and the card backs are also great and very easy to read. I love some of the manager shots too. Cards like Al Lopez, Durocher, Weaver, Rigney, Bauer, and Joe Schultz, are all great cards. Even unassuming cards like that of Gene Michael are really well done, and looking back, really tell a story.
Thanks for sharing that personal connection! I discovered the cards around 1979 and was pretty taken by them. Of course back then I had no idea the pictures were reused, I liked the design and full length pictures.
Nicely stated. I'll add one more great card. "Giants Heroes" #572 with Willie McCovey & Juan Marichal. McCovey was the NL MVP and Juan Marichal was the winningest pitcher of the 1960's by 1969. Great set.
Another amazing video. I love learning new things about the cards I collect. 🤙🏻
I'm glad to hear that!
Thanks for the video! I'd often wondered why there were so many reused photos, & had just figured they were being cheap. Thanks for the deep dive!
Thanks for the comment! Topps was being cheap too, but they did that on all their sets. ha ha
I am most favorable towards the 1970 set. I was heavy into collecting Baseball, Football, Some Basketball and Hockey cards at the ripe old age of 8. Great memories for me.
Your video makes me want to air brush a 2022 Wander Franco ! Thank you for the hard work and knowledge !!
Awesome video- First time I had heard this.
Great stuff.... all of this learned detail answers so many questions, and makes the set even more interesting Also, Marvin Miller strikes again with making an negative impact on the fans.
Stellar content as usual! Your research is topnotch!
I appreciate that...thanks Tom!
Great breakdown. Very informative. I did not realize all the challenges Topps had going into 1969.
Thanks Daniel! I knew some of this, but didn't appreciate the magnitude of all the concurrent issues.
As always, thanks for the education.
Thanks John!
I really like the 1969 set.., credit to Topps for even managing to put the set out that year.., it's a quirky set, with a number of errors/variations, which from a collecting standpoint makes many of these cards very desirable...
Thanks for the showcase
'69 was the first year I really collected-and then I had to deal with the fact that only the first two series were issued where I lived in Canada. It was the only way I could get to"know" the players that I would see on the game of the week-very aggrevating (by the way, I was 10 at the time)
That's terrible!
This is one of my favorite sets. I love the design, but the Mashup makes it even cooler. We're currently working on a signed set... not sure we'll ever finish LOL! Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
This is incredible!!! I love the 69 set but never knew this!!!!!!!!
Thanks! I appreciate you watching a lot of my videos.
Always enjoy your commentary Keith and always learning something from your videos! The 1969 Topps set definitely is not a favorite amongst collectors. It did bring us the Reggie RC and that beautiful Johnny Bench card though!
Yes, those are too great cards. The Ryan is a nice looking card too, as well as the Brock. The good outweigh the bad to me, even when I had to buy some of those horrible looking commons.
No more popular than 66 and 68
Great video! I figured something was up with the Topps Company because the set always looked thrown together. A lot of the cards were also out of focus or the colors didn't line up. As a kid collecting, it was unusual to see so many players without a cap.
It's pretty wild now how we look through Topps sets as adults and see all the flaws. I feel the same way about the tv shows from that era. They seem too formulaic and hokey. With '69 Topps I think about what could have been...most people like the design. Imagine if Topps had current pictures with that cool design? It could have been one of the best sets they ever produced.
I always liked how there were about a handful of pictures of players at the Polo Grounds in New York which had been torn down many years before. Cannizaro is one of those cards that he pictures here.
Thanks, I didn't realize that about Cannizaro.
Most cards back then were taking it spring training if you look at the palm trees in the background you'll realize Florida
Fascinating. So many “big head, no hat” cards. At least they were a little creative with some of the cropping they did on repeat photos
Thanks Kevin! it's still one of my favorite sets.
Great Great narrative. With all its issues I like the 69T set with bold lettering the circle and pink back. That's why I just completed my 69T set! Keep up the great work!
Thanks Mike! I'm a fan of the set too.
I was 9 years old and i thought something was really off on these cards. But i still bought them because it was baseball.
very informative yet i still love this set--it was colorful and truly represented that time. it was the era of colorful posters (peter max), melodic music (the beatles, etc.), fun television (the brady bunch, etc.)..in short, it was a "colorful" time and this topps set reflected that. i didn't know the well-researched information in this video until i just watched, but, it doesn't make me think of this set as "bad", as the title of the video described it. i think it was a beautiful set and give topps great credit for all they had to deal with especially, pre-photoshop.
Thanks for the comment Seth. I am using bad in terms of thinking about how good '69 Topps could have been if they didn't have to reuse all those older photos or do the airbrushing or capless alternatives. It must have been disappointing as a kid opening those cards and seeing the images. The design of the set is really excellent...imagine if it had current and top notch photos to go along with it?
@@vintagecardcurator yeah they used a lot of the 68 photos was also quite a few original photos
Very interesting. I'm just going to make a start on my Vintage journey. Thanks.
It's a good set to start with. There are several expensive cards, but it remains popular so there will always be interest in it.
Great research!
Thanks!
Great work!
Thanks John! I just discovered you from Mike Sommers podcast. I just subbed and am looking forward to listening to your content!
@@vintagecardcurator I appreciate that. Just an old guy going on about old cards. Thanks.
Awesome video…as to your question…I’m impressed that they got a set out there…and if they didn’t, who knows what would have happened going forward….this was the first year I collected…and the madness amongst boys was crazy….it was a hobby that seemingly every boy participated in to some degree….lots of fun…
Yes, I agree, that's a terrible thought to consider...no baseball cards! Cards were like that in the mid-'70's too. Every boy had them.
Fantastic video as always Keith! Thank you! Personally, I’ll extend a little grace towards Topps since they were under such legal pressures from the PA. All things considered got to give them some cred for putting something out there.
Yes, Topps does deserve some credit. They clearly had experience reusing and alternating shots, so they must have figured they could pull this off.
I’ve always been a fan of the 69 set for its simplicity.
I got exposed to the set pretty early on and I was immediately taken with it. It's remained a favorite since.
Thanks to Keith for another very interesting and enjoyable video. Been collecting forever and always learn a bunch of new stuff here. I have a bias for 1969 Topps and will always greatly like this year. It was the first year I began buying cards. Packs were 5 cents for 5 cards and I'd buy packs at this little store by my grade school. One of my first packs had a Willie Mays card who was my favorite player, and I was hooked forever
Thank you! That must have been a fun time to be collecting!
I like you started collecting in 68 but I love the 69 set too just a nice clean border
@@mikekeeler6362 I didn't start collecting in 1968. I had posted that I bought my first packs in 1969 and was hooked when I got a Willie Mays in one of my first packs
@@888strummer yeah I know just one year difference I just love the old cards
@@mikekeeler6362 Yep!
Great video.
Thanks!
One of my favorite designs.
Yes, I love it too Paul!
Good interesting information,thanks!, I remember the anticipation for your favorite player the next season so disappointing as a kid to get cards with dupe photos. (Ernie Banks)
I can't image that! I would be pretty disappointed if Topps was doing that in the late '70's.
I've always wondered about those repeat images. Great info. The 1969 set can be kind of plain but I love the extra special issues Topps came out with. The tattoos, super set, deckle edge set and the 4 in 1s are all favorites of mine.
Thanks for the comment DB...love your channel and all your showcase cards. More people should check out your channel.
I was just watching your video on the back story for all the photos in the 1973 Topps issue. Just amazing research. As a recent retiree from the military and the Intelligence Community let me tell you well done!@@vintagecardcurator
@@dbtiller2296 Thanks so much DB. Your's was the first UA-cam channel I started watching when I got back into cards. I appreciate the feedback so much!
Variations were fun
I remember actually buying them in 1969. That's right: I'm old.
1969's some of the hardest cards to get centered when you got good spinner cars like good maze Aaron Clemente Ryan and they grade A 7/8 or a nine they're really expensive
I wondered why so many cards in this set are in the Polo Grounds which was completely demolished I April of 1964. So the pictures were at least 6 years old when they came out in 1969.
Yes, I didn't realize they were taken at the Polo Grounds as that was a previous generation from when I collected. I learned that in the comments.
I've always enjoyed the set since it was the 1st for my Royals
I've always had an affinity for it too...from the time I first got my hands on some from a kid in my grandparent's neighborhood.
I do like the 1969 set, being a Mets fan that was a big year for the team. I am about 75% complete with the set. I like it too because it isnt an expensive set to put together. Hi #'s arnt expensive like they were in 1966 and 1967. The only expensive rookie is the Reggie, its Mantles last playing day card and the Bench card is a great one
Yes sir wasn't it fun lots of variations but couldn't wait for that first series an to the store. Great video
I can imagine being excited and then possibly disappointed once the packs were opened!
@@vintagecardcurator all we back then that the pictures looked just like the 68 set though they were saving money HAHA
Keith ! You forgot the bat boy Angels card ? Not even a pro player , can have his day on Topps cards ....LOL
Ha, I didn't forget...that story has been told so many times and I tried to keep the video down to primarily Series 1.
Great stuff. I had no idea that there were 4 expansion teams during the one year.
The reuse of photos is pretty bad.
Thanks!
One last note about Sammy Ellis, LOL. I'm looking at pictures of his other cards, and his 1964 and 65 cards were also shot in the Polo Grounds. His 1966 card definitely looks like Shea Stadium (the confluence of the light tower with the batting eye screen) but can't say for 100% sure. But in 1969 he's back in the Polo Grounds, and it's possible his 1968 card was also taken in the Polo Grounds, but it's too dark and can't say for sure. It's possible that in his 7 card career, four of his cards were shot all at the same time.
I had pegged the Sammy Ellis' card as an alternate shot from his 1965 card, but I'm not sure. I think you are probably right that most of his Topps cards all originated from one photo shoot. Topps certainly didn't do him any favors.
@@vintagecardcurator
Yeah, looking at Ellis's record, the Mets played in the Polo Grounds two years, 1962 & 63, but Ellis was in the minors in 63. What's interesting is that Ellis only pitched 8 games in 1962, but two were against the Mets, in the Polo Grounds. From his game logs, it looks like he was with the Reds early in the year, went down to the minors, and was called back up after September 1st. The two he pitched against against the Mets, one was in April and one in September. The one in April was his first major league win.So the pictures could have been taken at either end of the season. It would be interesting to know when Topps took most of their pictures, early or late, or just took them throughout the year. You figure they would take them later in the year to get the players in their new uniforms for the next year's cards. But it's not easy to figure out how Topps worked things.
(edit: an interesting case is looking at the 1971 Dean Chance and Hoyt WIlhelm cards. Both were very late season pickups in 1970, WIlhelm by the Cubs on September 21st, Chance by the Mets on September 18. But both are pictured in their new uniforms. Also, both pictures were taken in Shea Stadium. The Cubs played the Mets the last weekend of the season, so that's probably when these pictures were taken. Chance pitched in all of 3 games with the Mets, and Wilhelm 3 with the Cubs, yet they got on cards in their Mets & Cubs uniforms.)
Ellis would later return to New York as a pitching coach for the Yankees for a few years, which is what I remember him for. His pitching career was when I was too young to follow baseball. He had one great year, 1965, winning 22 games, but the rest of his career was just hanging around the majors. Maybe injuries involved.
Awesome
Earned my sub
Thanks so much!
I love the 1969 set.
Wow great video! Yeah I give them credit for trying at least. ⚾️⚾️⚾️
Yes, Topps not producing a set in the spring would have been like cancelling Christmas.
Marvin Miller strikes again!
Yes, well deserved to have him in the Hall of Fame.
I personally love the look of the 1969 set. Not so much all of the photos but the design. I do love the photos of Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan, my two favorite cards from the set.
The 69 set looks like shit
@@mikeaustin1323 That's cool. Thanks for your opinion. I like the card design personally. 👌
I was ten years old and I hated the design and the pink color in the back of this horrible set of cards and too many big head cards.
Gr8 video and content.. Thanks for going in depth about the team logo's and variations.. I personally like the 69topps design pretty bland but still pretty desirable.. Well done again.. Stay safe all..👍💕🔥⚾😷
Thanks Jackie! That's my opinion about '69 Topps too!
Even with all this I still am going to build this set.
I built this set and it's one of my favorites.
Looks like they did what they had to do. Great video.
Yes, Topps did what they had to!
I would like to have had Marvin Miller as my union rep !
Marvin Miller was really ahead of his time. One of the side-stories to this is that Topps helped fund the player strike of 1972. The royalty money that Topps paid to the union was used by the players to support them during the strike.
@@vintagecardcurator Smart man!
I love drinking from the baseball card fountain of Keith!
Thanks!
Well, it’s understandable they had to reuse photos of Mays and Aaron. I mean, it’s not like they were star players who had been around about 15 years who would’ve had a stockpile of images.
ha ha, no kidding. Topps did actually buy photos of players for the set, so I guess they were too cheap to do unless they absolutely had to.
I think its a great snapshot into the past and the card tell a story and that is very important.
Yes, I like to see the stories. When you look at the set, all together in a binder, it really helps.
Great research! This is why I won't build a 1969 or a 1968 set. Too many repeat shots.
Maybe you could combine both sets, eliminate the duplicate photos and make one good set. lol
Despite all of the problems that you noted I still like the set for 2 main reasons -- I like the full card length photos and the backs are probably the best Topps ever did in the 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 size (i.e. 54 - 56 were the best ever).
Yes, I agree Brad. The full size images really stand out, particularly on certain cards. And the backs are possibly the easiest to read of that era.
its amazing how NON of that would fly today
No, that wouldn't fly today...much different world!
I like the 1969 set totally different
Regardless of the politics I always loved the simple and infantry ice design. Therefore you Pretty Bad is relative.
1969 is a clean set, LOVE the pinkish backs. I don't believe this is the worst set Topps made, 2020 is atrocious. For vintage to me there really is no bad design. But wow Topps, never knew they recycled so many pics!! And the union getting 8%/$4M max is crazy. I myself an about 110 away from finishing 1969. I love the set, but wow did I learn alot today.
Thanks, it's a pretty interesting set and one that holds a lot of value to me personally. But as an adult I have grown very disappointed with the way Topps shortchanged kids with the photos. It could have been one of the all time best designed sets if they had used good, modern photos.
Most pictures of the players were taking during spring training
I like the design of the set if you can ignore the generally crappy picture quality. The large pictures unobscured by a lot of design detail is a nod to the popularity of that in '67. But of course the pictures on the whole in '67 were miles ahead of the capless, airbrushed, and generally crappy things they had to settle for in '69. Also a big picture that leaves room for background detail is kind of pointless when what they put on the card is a tight portrait that is too close. I do like it when cards were done well, though. A few examples from '69 would be the 2nd year Nolan Ryan, the 2nd year Johnny Bench (though that too is a dated spring training photo...) and even the Mickey Mantle career capper card.
Great points John. I need to look at that '67 set a bit closer. I never had any cards from that set growing up. Seems like '69 was an amalgamation of '67 and '68, taking the best and worst features of both.
@@vintagecardcurator I resisted '67 for a long time, because all things considered it's probably the most difficult set of the decade. But to me it's eventually a must have because the pictures are the best of the decade, and really show what baseball looked like in the 1960's. Not all of them, of course, but on the whole. I finally bit the bullet and started working on it a little more than a year ago. I tried to get a lot of the HOF'ers and pricey cards first and was able to do that - so now I have good motivation to finish. I'm still like only at 20% of the set though, LOL. Agreed that '69 was an amalgam. Topps was probably pissed at the photography situation with the MLBPA and was like um - let's take this circle from '68, switch in player names - get rid of the burlap - pics if possible from '67, although let's do this weird curved thin black line border thing... One thing I do absolutely love about 1969 Topps is the backs - they range from salmon colored to hot pink and I love the old school Topps logo.
The backs from 63 to 70 are all really good, with 67 to 69 especially good, and IMO 69 the best. I'm not sure why they went back to the drab almost impossible to read gray backs in 71 and stuck with that for all of those years afterwards -- cost I suppose.
I know...when I saw the OPC's from that era I realized there was an alternative...Topps could have done better with the visibility of the backs.
When do you think the '69 Topps Nolan Ryan picture was taken?
I'm really not sure. It looks like it was definitely taken at Shea Stadium. It could have been taken early in the 1969 season, otherwise it would have had to have been in 1967.
Another great and informative video. 1969 Topps is bad.
Thanks, although I do like the set!
It didn't bother me I was 12 years old I just love getting the cards didn't matter to me if they had the name of the team on the cards
So that explains it! I thought it was just Topps sucking that year. At least you could read the fonts. Have 90 cards from the set.
00:55 - Is that Joe Niekro and Nolan Ryan??
Yes
Good catch.
Cool, I didn't realize that was Joe Niekro.
I have all the Topps sets from 1954 through 1971 except the ugly tannish border 1968 set and the cobbled together 1969 set. They are omitted on purpose.
Great video! I actually think these nuances make the set more interesting and it’s also a nice looking set that captures the style of the time. Although, the recycling of images is a bit of a let down for collectors.
I love the 1969 Ryan and bench solo rookies more than their true rookie cards.
Yes, they are certainly better looking cards than the rookie cards.