Mets at the Topps o’ the heap: An opinionated assessment

Every now and then there’s Facebook post featuring a baseball card, whether it highlights a player or event.

I was in my basement and came across this, which led me down a rabbit hole.

Surf came out with booklets like this for several teams; this one in particular — which covers the Mets from 1962 through 1987 — was listed at more than $450 on sportsmemorablia.com. The text was written by Larry Schwartz. One of the features is a “Collector’s Corner” which offers interesting factoids about each year such as which player debuted in that set or printing errors, which often add to the value of the card (“Lew Krause (462) is a photo of Pete Lovrich”). The booklet winds up with a fairly standard spreadsheet presentation of stats for all the Mets during that time period.

This entry includes only those years. I may or may not post another posting another for Topps (only the base series, not any of the thousands of additional sets that have become the norm over the last couple of decades) at some point, depending on my mood and energy level.

So let’s start at the very beginning, with the 1962, when the Mets made their debut. (Full disclosure: I didn’t really start collecting “seriously” at that tender age; I waited until 1967).

The way it worked back then, Topps would release seven series of about 132 cards each beginning in March or April. Once the calendar page turned, you couldn’t easily get the previous series. Towards the end of the month, this young collector would visit the candy store every day to see if the new ones were out. Remember, this was in an era when you collected for fun, not as an investment. There weren’t all these outfits that sold cards to any great degree.

By the way, I’m basing my comments/ratings solely on the Mets cards; your mileage may vary.

1962

The early 1962 Mets cards featured mostly capless ballplayers, as did the Houston .45s (as the Astros were called then). It was only towards that year’s later series that you could find Mets in uniform.

Front: I liked the handsome wood grain panels that seemed to be popular in the rec rooms of early 1960s basements.

Back: One line for the previous season and another for career stats saved on space, allowing for more “biographical” information.

Rating: B

1963

Front: In the days before card companies started using “action shots,” I guess this passed. Frankly it seems a bit redundant, since both photos were posed.

Back: carried more statistical info than the precious year.

Rating: C-

1964

Front: Stark and simple, but somehow elegant in its sparsity. I liked the colors used for the team and player names.

Back: Quick quizzes which required a “nickel or dime” (very specific coinage) to reveal the answer.

Rating: B

1965

Front: Border within a border. Nice touch with the pennant.

Back: Back to yearly stats, which meant one factoid per player.

Rating: B-

1966

Front: Again, I approve of the color used for the team borders, as well as the placement of “Mets” as a diagonal. Note the patch on the left shoulder. The Mets had moved into their new digs at She Stadium for the 1964, coinciding with the New York World’s Fair.

Back: For a player with limited experience like McGraw, there was room for “complete” stats as well as several lines of text (plus the ubiquitous cartoon factoid).

Rating: B

1967

Front: Switching name and position to the top after several years of the reverse. Not startling, but change enough.

Back: Vertical layout meant less room for stats.

Rating: C

1968

Front: The first series of the 1968 set had “loose crosshatches” or whatever that design is called. They were tighter later on.

Back: Again with a vertical layout.

Rating: C

1969

Front: I may be reading into things, but it seems the cards from the late 60s started to reflect the “mod” designs of the times. Again, I’m certainly no expert on that discipline. Just sayin’. Also two years in a row with with a circle in the design, this time swapping team with the player’s name.

Back: Return to the horizontal orientation.

Rating: B-

1970

Front: Somewhat reminiscent of the 1964 set as far as placement of team name, player name, and position (of course the player’s name will always precede his position).

Back: Striking combination of colors. I pity the card copywriters who must have had to work hard to find something positive to say in the caricature (at least in Gaspar’s case). As this was the set following the Amazin’ Mets unlikely World’s Series win, it was a bit more special for me.

Rating: A-

1971

Front: Striking black borders made the colors stand out. This one also featured the players’ autographs. This was the first year Topps used “action” shots but…

Back: if a standard posed pic was used, I don’t see the need for the headshot, which took up a lot of room, leading to the single-line previous year/career stats. Interesting notation of “first year in pro ball/first game in majors.” It shows how long it took to make it to The Show.

Rating: B-

1972

Front: Not an art major, but I’m guessing there’s a technical term for this design which I’ll call “psychedelic,” for lack of a better word. Some players had a second “In Action” card which followed numerically on the checklists.

Back: to basics on the back of the card with minor and major league stats plus a little cartoon quiz that annoyingly required turning the thing upside down.

Rating: B+

A quick time-out: The Surf Booklets presented the cards in alphabetical order with “extras,” like “Future Stars,” team photos, All-Star selections, post-season cards in 1970 and 1974, or story cards that featured a few lines about the players depicted on the back.

1973

Front: Nothing special. The players had the positions in the corner, which meant no “INF” or dual position representation.

Back: Same re: nothing special.

Rating: C

1974

Front: A mix of posed and action shots were fine, but the mix of horizontal and vertical orientation made sorting sort of uneven for an obsessive-compulsive like me. Not sure as to the reason of splitting the team’s city and name, but a not unpleasant geometric look.

Back: Again, fairly standard: a couple of factoids mixed in with stats that are somewhat abbreviated because of the biographical info/cartoon.

Rating: B

1975

Front: Nope. Note the air-brushed Mets logo on Torre’s cap. This technique began to be used more and more but early attempts looked amateurish. Not a fan of the two-tone color scheme

Back: While the fronts were different color combos for each team, the backs were a “Christmasy” red and green. Also the fonts used seemed like an early-computer printer output.

Rating: D-

1976

Front: Similar to the ’73 set with a depiction of the player’s position on the front. Nice, simple design; I like it when all the information is together, rather than separated top and bottom.

Back: I also prefer the horizontal orientation, as it gives more room for stats. Also note that this year’s version provides how the player was signed and acquired, things that were not listed prior to free agency.

Rating: A

1977

Front: Nothing special. Reuses the “pennant” motif from 1965.

Back: I found it a bit odd that the cartoon factoid is not related to the player on the card. This one re Downing will have collectors searching for the context (who are Roger Maris and Hank Aaron, to borrow from Jeopardy).

Rating: C

1978

From: Blechh. To my eye, quite uninspired.

Back: Similarly nondescript. Much easier to produce a game, where many options will be similar, than create a factoid for each player.

But this makes we wonder: what was going on behind the curtain at Topps every year? What kind of process did designers go through? How many different suggestions were there before they decided on the one for that particular release?

Rating: D-

1979

Front: Reminds me somewhat of the 1974 and 1975 layouts.

Back: I like the quizzes but was too lazy to turn the card upside down to see the answer.

Rating: C-

1980

Front: Again, reminiscent of another set which puts one element one in one corner and another one diagonally. I’ve also just thought of what item takes prominence: team of player’s name? What is the first thing the eye picks up?

Back: Several factoids, presented in both cartoon and text formats. Of course, the more years a player has under his belt, the less room for other things.

Rating: C-

1981

Front: Remember what I said about the 1978 set being uninspired? This one gives it  good run for the money. And do they really need to use valuable real estate on the front to remind us who printed the cards, as they also did in 1979? That logo is already on the back… Perhaps it was necessary because 1981 was the year Fleer and Donruss joined the market, making the market more competitive (Score followed a few years later).

Back: Nothing really new. How many ways can you say “ham and eggs?”

Rating: D

1982

Front: Again, reminiscent of a previous issue, in this case 1974 (again, again, this is all subjective).

Front: I can’t imagine it would have taken a whole lot of work of find a background color and ink combination that would be easier to read than blue (or is it black) on dark green.

Rating: C-

1983

Front: Is this when action shots became the norm for every player? Nice touch to add the head shot as well. Compare with the 1963 set.

Back: Readable with the player’s 1982 highlights (assuming there were any).

Rating: B+

1984

Front: Again with action/head shots?

Back: Similar to previous year.

Rating: B-

1985

Front: Slightly akin to the 1966 set with the team name at an angle above the name and position, although this one is all at the bottom. Nice use of team logo, too.

Back: Very readable.

Rating: B

1986

Front: Bold statement with teams names and colors. Back to a mix of head/posed shots and action.

Back: SOSO

Rating: B-

1987

Front: Back to the wood grain, previously used all the way back in 1962. This was the release following the Mets’ World Series victory over the Boston Red Sox.

Back: Interesting choice of color mix, at once readable and a bit hard on the eyes.

Rating: B-

You can get much more information on each year’s set on BaseballCardpedia.com.

For further information on the card industry, I recommend:

• The Bubble Gum Card War: The Great Bowman & Topps Sets from 1948 to 1955
• Mint Condition: How Baseball Cards Became an American Obsession
• The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book

And, of course,

• Topps Baseball Cards: The Complete Picture Collection (A 35-Year History, 1951-1985), revised in 1988 and again in 1990.

Last year marked the end of an era when Fanatics bought out Topps, although this year’s set, at least, still carries the time-honored logo.

Tagged as: Topps