Topps Project 2020 is the worst product since 1991 Fleer
 

Change my mind.

This product is grotesque.

I am a fan of Project 2020. Primarily because I like the idea of being able to see 20 artists take on the same source material and produce their unique spin on that card.

That though is not what you asked. You wanted your mind changed on why it is not the worst product since 91 Fleer. To that I would say regardless of if you like the Project 2020 cards they do and will bring more interest to the original cards they are duplicating and the sets they come from. That has the opportunity to strengthen collectors knowledge of the hobby and add interest to the vintage market.

I have bought a few of the Project 2020 cards and have looked into the pricing for the graded vintage cards they are based on as I would like to display the original next to the Project 2020 version.

Topps Project 2020 is the worst product since 1991 Fleer
 

[QUOTE=Bob Loblaw;15712579]Change my mind.

These cards are grotesque.[/QUOTE]


I was going to start a thread asking what’s the ugliest set of all-time. I was going to nominate ‘91 Fleer, but that might already be accepted as fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Ichiro one was great. The rest look like a 3rd grader drew them. :doh:

For $20, they should be framed

cant bring myself to spend $20 on the frame-less copies

some of them have been appealing, some not

The Ripken with no face is just weird....

Now you have the Bill Ripken F%$! Face and the Cal Ripken No Face.

[QUOTE=Eldun;15712673]I am a fan of Project 2020. Primarily because I like the idea of being able to see 20 artists take on the same source material and produce their unique spin on that card.

That though is not what you asked. You wanted your mind changed on why it is not the worst product since 91 Fleer. To that I would say regardless of if you like the Project 2020 cards they do and will bring more interest to the original cards they are duplicating and the sets they come from. That has the opportunity to strengthen collectors knowledge of the hobby and add interest to the vintage market.

I have bought a few of the Project 2020 cards and have looked into the pricing for the graded vintage cards they are based on as I would like to display the original next to the Project 2020 version.[/QUOTE]

2nd post! Welcome to Blowout. Which card did you design in the set?

I think they’re interesting as a curiosity to see how different artists go about something. No interest in owning any of them though.

Edit: Of course 2 months later I've got like 80 of them either in hand or on order.

[QUOTE=SupermanBrandon;15712859]2nd post! Welcome to Blowout. Which card did you design in the set?[/QUOTE]

I wish I had enough talent to draw anything more than stick figures. I've been lurking on the site for a while but in general don't like to post on any forums.

I did get into the hobby about 18 months ago, catching the bug after finding out about online breaks. Really enjoyed doing those for a period and even was enjoying the hobby enough to go to the National in Chicago last year.

After a while though I found that my enjoyment of the hobby can't come from just collecting anything. I am not a flipper and while I buy on ebay I've never done a sale on it because I worry about all the horror stories I've read. So to limit my increasing collection of all sports and teams I've been trying to determine what I want my PC to be.

Perhaps because of that I am open to more unique types of product such as this. Plus it does let me add knowledge of the history of the hobby that I don't have coming back in as an adult 25 years after collecting as a kid.

Other than Project 2020 I also have narrowed my baseball collecting down to Bowman as I have found it fun as a way to be engaged in learning about the prospects.

The Trout and Ripken are amazing.

I bought the Trout and Jackie Robinson. Would have bought the Ripken but I have no connection to him, and already planning on buying all the Trout and Jackie’s.

I can see why people don’t like these, but all good art is divisive.

It's OK to not like art.

Modern art and sports are not two things that necessarily go together -- one is very literal, one is very interperative. Sports have 1 ruleset. Art has few rules.

Some people like to see everything in front of them exactly in only the way they want it seen, and that's what sports is. There's only one reality.

The reality of art is unique on an individual level. So when someone says "I like that" to a HR, everyone who agrees, agrees in the same way. When someone says "I like that" to a piece of artwork, everyone who agrees is saying so for, largely, completely different reasons.

So why I think some baseball card people so strongly detest these, is because it's not something that fits a literal mode of thinking, which is what baseball is.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

This set is definitely one of those "buy it if you like it, don't if you don't."

It's not like this replaced Bowman or Topps Flagship.

This is just a new thing by Topps.

Whether it succeeds or fails, at least they're trying new stuff and thinking outside the box.

The Griffey, Jackie, and Clemente look cool to me. The Trout is just...weird.

Art is art.

[QUOTE=eye4talent;15712731]I was going to start a thread asking what’s the ugliest set of all-time. I was going to nominate ‘91 Fleer, but that might already be accepted as fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Gary V's wine bottle design. Maybe not all-time, but gets my Razzie vote for ugliest card of 2019.

[URL="https://www.ebay.com/itm/2019-Topps-X-Gary-V-Vee-Direct-360-Wine-Pairings-Christian-Yelich-Brewers-W10-/133158038415"]https://www.ebay.com/itm/2019-Topps-X-Gary-V-Vee-Direct-360-Wine-Pairings-Christian-Yelich-Brewers-W10-/133158038415[/URL]

[QUOTE=Bob Loblaw;15712579]Change my mind.

These cards are grotesque.[/QUOTE]

If they wanted artists who could do flawless likenesses, Topps already has numerous artists working for them they could have gone to.

These are not those kinds of cards. For that reason, they look exactly how they should, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Way back in 1985, The Chicago Renaissance Society released a set of 18 White Sox cards. Each card featured a player drawn by a different artist, so it is similar in many ways to the Topps Project 2020 cards. Most Tom Seaver, Carlton Fisk and Harold Baines collectors have no idea these even exist! And yes, many of these are tough to look at, LOL!!

[URL="http://oddballcardcollector.blogspot.com/2015/04/1985-chicago-renaissance-society-white.html"]1985 Chicago Renaissance Society White Sox Set[/URL]

[QUOTE=commando;15712993]Way back in 1985, The Chicago Renaissance Society released a set of 18 White Sox cards. Each card featured a player drawn by a different artist, so it is similar in many ways to the Topps Project 2020 cards. Most Tom Seaver, Carlton Fisk and Harold Baines collectors have no idea these even exist! And yes, many of these are tough to look at, LOL!!



[URL="http://oddballcardcollector.blogspot.com/2015/04/1985-chicago-renaissance-society-white.html"]1985 Chicago Renaissance Society White Sox Set[/URL][/QUOTE]Oh wow, I love some of those. Salazar, Cruz, and Hairston are my favorites. Thanks for sharing!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=Bob Loblaw;15712579]Change my mind.

These cards are grotesque.[/QUOTE]

I cannot change your mind as you are right! UGLY.

These are ugly AF

Beauty definitely is in the eye of the beholder.

As a Pirates fan, I was looking forward to seeing what the Clemente card looked like. Just looked at the Clemente card, and I literally laughed out loud. These are so, so bad.

You really only need to look at the names of the "artists" to know that these are going to be horrendous.

I like it, Kind of sad I missed out on the Trout- Originally I hated it but now I want one. These are definitely more of an art print than they are a Baseball Card IMO

[QUOTE=commando;15712993]Way back in 1985, The Chicago Renaissance Society released a set of 18 White Sox cards. Each card featured a player drawn by a different artist, so it is similar in many ways to the Topps Project 2020 cards. Most Tom Seaver, Carlton Fisk and Harold Baines collectors have no idea these even exist! And yes, many of these are tough to look at, LOL!!

[URL="http://oddballcardcollector.blogspot.com/2015/04/1985-chicago-renaissance-society-white.html"]1985 Chicago Renaissance Society White Sox Set[/URL][/QUOTE]


Apparently Bannister’s picture is a screen grab from To Catch a Predator. I would not be happy if my portrait turned out like that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it's about time a product that is uglier than '91 Fleer emerged. They had a good run. 29 years of being the ugliest baseball card in production. Time to hand that crown over Fleer. Meanwhile 1990 Donruss is looking on and clapping.

These cards were made for adults who have the mindset of a 9 year old. i kid i kid. :D...hey whatever floats your boat. personally, I'll rather let my boat sink.

i like 1991 Fleer

I can't change your mind they are terrible

[QUOTE=gmarutiak;15713300]As a Pirates fan, I was looking forward to seeing what the Clemente card looked like. Just looked at the Clemente card, and I literally laughed out loud. These are so, so bad.

You really only need to look at the names of the "artists" to know that these are going to be horrendous.[/QUOTE]


There are twenty different Clementes. Maybe one of the others will be to your taste.

[QUOTE=eye4talent;15713325]Apparently Bannister’s picture is a screen grab from To Catch a Predator. I would not be happy if my portrait turned out like that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

You are so right! And the artist who drew Julio Cruz was a little ambitious with his heavy-swingin' interpretation... Cruz hit 23 home runs in ten seasons. :D

[QUOTE=Bob Loblaw;15712579]Change my mind.

These cards are grotesque.[/QUOTE]


Why would anyone want to change your mind?
There are 400 cards in the set (20 cards x 20 artists). Hopefully you’ll hate them all equally - so you won’t need to waste any time ranking them.

Love & hate. There is no in between here it seems...

Again I'll say, you gotta like modern art to appreciate these. They're not ugly if you like modern art. Sure, some of them will not be to your taste. But you're not going to come out & flatly say "they're ugly".

For instance, the Ripken isn't for me. I think that style will work better for cards that have more action, or are more colors. The original Ripken card is so iconic because it's such a stoic pose in a placid background. You lose that with the simplistic style.

But here ^^^ is not what we're getting at with this discussion. Ya'll don't care about art. Ya'll don't care about interpretation. Baseball (& baseball cards) are linear, art is not. That's why these interpretations seem like such a juxtaposition into the baseball card world.

Calling them ugly is not a constructive criticism. But there's not room for constructive criticism in baseball, apparently.

I got the ichro and jr card might get the other ones I think their cool and something different.

Sent from my LG-M255 using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=BigRedMachine80;15713428]I guess it's about time a product that is uglier than '91 Fleer emerged. They had a good run. 29 years of being the ugliest baseball card in production. Time to hand that crown over Fleer. Meanwhile 1990 Donruss is looking on and clapping.[/QUOTE]

'95 Fleer says hold my beer.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/m775rqe.jpg[/img]

I remember opening packs of that abomination and thinking each card was even uglier than the one before it.
'91 Fleer was indeed gross, but it was only one design for the whole set. '95 Fleer had a different awful design for [I]each [/I]division.

[QUOTE=Bob Loblaw;15712579]Change my mind.

These cards are grotesque.[/QUOTE] SO glad I didn't get sucked in.....

[QUOTE=Bob Loblaw;15712579]Change my mind.



These cards are grotesque.[/QUOTE]
Funny you use the word grotesque, because, well, this is considered a masterpiece.
[IMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200401/9ab3aeb98738cdc91d04895cd4c5164c.jpg[/IMG]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=jdandns;15713720]'95 Fleer says hold my beer.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/m775rqe.jpg[/img]

I remember opening packs of that abomination and thinking each card was even uglier than the one before it.
'91 Fleer was indeed gross, but it was only one design for the whole set. '95 Fleer had a different awful design for [I]each [/I]division.[/QUOTE]

Oh man, I missed these turds. I got out of the game in '92 and didn't come back until the early 00's ignoring the 90's...which I continue to do now.

[QUOTE=gmarutiak;15713300]You really only need to look at the names of the "artists" to know that these are going to be horrendous.[/QUOTE]

The hell? You can tell how good an artist is by their name? I’m sorry but that might be the stupidest thing I’ve read in awhile. You should look up Mister Cartoons tattoos he has done. Some are absolutely amazing. But it seems to me you have a very narrow mind to begin with so expanding it with actual artwork probably won’t happen.

I'm a HUGE Ted Williams fan but I'm passing on his first one in this set.

I like the concept and will likely pick up a few. I'm waiting for the first Mattingly to come out.

I like the variety so far and the odd designs.

Then again, I'm the person that likes to spend more time in the "modern art" sections of art museums where there can be some, uh, rather challenging art.

They've really grown on me, and I'm probably going to piece the set together over time. Some I don't care for, but that's fine. As for changing the OP's mind, that's not the point of art. That's the point of art criticism, which is one of the most worthless pastimes ever created.

Anyone have an Ichiro or Koufax they'd like to let go for something close to release price?

Some of these have no appeal to me, at all.

The Trout, the Ripken, they look horrible to me.

Some of them do look pretty decent, but still $20 for a non-numbered card is meh.

[QUOTE=marterburn;15713796]Funny you use the word grotesque, because, well, this is considered a masterpiece.
[IMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200401/9ab3aeb98738cdc91d04895cd4c5164c.jpg[/IMG]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Beautiful painting.

I picked up the Trout because I thought it looked fantastic. The Ripken looked nice too, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to buy. The currently available ones are decent but not my style.

I don't understand how y'all can accept other stretches of the medium but not this one. Baseball cards started as inserts in tobacco products and have included all sorts of wacky stuff. Scratch-off cards, rip cards, oversized box toppers, a Yastrzemski puzzle, clear cards, die cuts, auto books with fifty signatures. How is this different than those? Why are you willing to accept a Global Game Medallion and not an art card when they're both baseball?

[QUOTE=ATLOTP;15715233]Beautiful painting.

I picked up the Trout because I thought it looked fantastic. The Ripken looked nice too, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to buy. The currently available ones are decent but not my style.

I don't understand how y'all can accept other stretches of the medium but not this one. Baseball cards started as inserts in tobacco products and have included all sorts of wacky stuff. Scratch-off cards, rip cards, oversized box toppers, a Yastrzemski puzzle, clear cards, die cuts, auto books with fifty signatures. How is this different than those? Why are you willing to accept a Global Game Medallion and not an art card when they're both baseball?[/QUOTE]

Because sports cards are of actual people. Art can be of things that are not real, such as the painting above.

Blah blah blah indeed

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I like a few, don't like the rest. Buy what you like.

The print runs on these things clearly show that there is a market for them.

[QUOTE=Comix Guy;15715526]Because sports cards are of actual people. Art can be of things that are not real, such as the painting above.[/QUOTE]C'mon man. Picasso's 'Portrait of Gertrude Stein', 'Guernica'. Duchamp's 'Nude Descending a Staircase'. All have real people. Here's a different Goya. Real event depiction:



[IMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200401/64e36a89fab6f68f5f3938307e0c28b2.jpg[/IMG]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=marterburn;15715556]C'mon man. Picasso's 'Portrait of Gertrude Stein', 'Guernica'. Duchamp's 'Nude Descending a Staircase'. All have real people. Here's a different Goya. Real event depiction:

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Yes, news flash many people even get their own portraits painted.

[QUOTE=Comix Guy;15715602]Yes, news flash many people even get their own portraits painted.[/QUOTE]You're flashing nothing to me. I literally just mentioned Gertrude Stein.

Ok, so then it's specifically cards, not real people in general then like you previously said. You're not OK with having your cards as art, is what you mean.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I haven't even seen the cards, and I'll argue that there's no way they are worse than 91 Fleer. Don't think you could top that set for worst ever even if you were trying.

[QUOTE=ThoseBackPages;15713442]i like 1991 Fleer[/QUOTE]

I like 1991 Fleer as well. And 1990 Donruss.

These remind me of 1996 Fleer Metal. Some crazy designs on those, I liked them. These though... some look cool, others, not so much.

I've always found 1992 Donruss worse than 1991 Fleer.

I got the Trout thought it was a unique take. The clemente just is laid out funny but I like the logos

[QUOTE=SmokeyJ;15717094]I've always found 1992 Donruss worse than 1991 Fleer.[/QUOTE]

I like the blue color used on '92 Donruss
'89 Donruss is the ugliest from that line during that era, in my view.

Artist Cuyler Smith does a cool line of illustrated trading cards depicting pop culture characters from movies (and TV shows) that are somehow sports-related and uses sport card designs from cards that were released when the movie featuring the subject was released. He did a card of Smee from the Peter Pan movie "Hook" utilizing the' 91 Fleer design. While Cuyler is usually very faithful to the designs, he nevertheless changed the border color for this one to red.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/cSxpUp3.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Eldun;15712909]I wish I had enough talent to draw anything more than stick figures. I've been lurking on the site for a while but in general don't like to post on any forums.

I did get into the hobby about 18 months ago, catching the bug after finding out about online breaks. Really enjoyed doing those for a period and even was enjoying the hobby enough to go to the National in Chicago last year.

After a while though I found that my enjoyment of the hobby can't come from just collecting anything. I am not a flipper and while I buy on ebay I've never done a sale on it because I worry about all the horror stories I've read. So to limit my increasing collection of all sports and teams I've been trying to determine what I want my PC to be.

Perhaps because of that I am open to more unique types of product such as this. Plus it does let me add knowledge of the history of the hobby that I don't have coming back in as an adult 25 years after collecting as a kid.

Other than Project 2020 I also have narrowed my baseball collecting down to Bowman as I have found it fun as a way to be engaged in learning about the prospects.[/QUOTE]

Props to you for collecting what you like! I also enjoy the prospecting side of things, although I generally get more wrapped up in Bowman non-auto chrome and parallels.

Don't let other people's snark get in the way of your collecting.

I am a huge fan of that Ichiro.. One of his nicest looking cards.

I wish there were more constructive discussions on these.

I looked up some of Fucci's work bc I thought the Ripken was so bleh. It's actually pretty darn interesting. NSFW, but interesting.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

1991 Fleer is the greatest product of all time.

Someone has officially ruined my favorite card of all-time...
[img]https://www.topps.com/media/catalog/product/cache/80bb9be85790a795fe9574cc8b5ada59/0/0/0011-front.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Skipscards;15717870]Someone has officially ruined my favorite card of all-time...

[img]https://www.topps.com/media/catalog/product/cache/80bb9be85790a795fe9574cc8b5ada59/0/0/0011-front.png[/img][/QUOTE]Just wait. There's 19 more coming.

(As much as I like these for the most part, it's not that I don't understand the hate).

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

F’in awful. Insult to the original sets.

[QUOTE=commando;15713486]You are so right! And the artist who drew Julio Cruz was a little ambitious with his heavy-swingin' interpretation... Cruz hit 23 home runs in ten seasons. :D[/QUOTE]
The Julio Cruz looks like a Dick Tracy character walked into Tron.

As there are a couple ways to collect this set I was curious how people thought of it.

If there was a card in this set that you really liked because of the combo of the artist and player, so you got it. Then you decided to complete a set would you be more likely to say

1. It's about the players - Get the other 19 cards of the same player (because you like the player) even though you may not like some of the cards stylistically

2. It's about the artists - Get the other 19 cards by the same artist (because you like the art) even though some of the players normally don't interest you

I like Art Cards - Gallery, National Chicle.

But I never like 100% of them.

I thought turning Factory Sets into “packs” to rip for just ten or so cards before the rest are thrown in the trash is one of the dumbest products of the last 30 years.

[QUOTE=marterburn;15713796]Funny you use the word grotesque, because, well, this is considered a masterpiece.
[IMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200401/9ab3aeb98738cdc91d04895cd4c5164c.jpg[/IMG]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

It's an allegory of Topps's relationship to its customer base. :coffee:

Comparing topps too fleer

Gross

[QUOTE=Eldun;15718330]As there are a couple ways to collect this set I was curious how people thought of it.

If there was a card in this set that you really liked because of the combo of the artist and player, so you got it. Then you decided to complete a set would you be more likely to say

1. It's about the players - Get the other 19 cards of the same player (because you like the player) even though you may not like some of the cards stylistically

2. It's about the artists - Get the other 19 cards by the same artist (because you like the art) even though some of the players normally don't interest you[/QUOTE]

I'm familiar with a couple artists featured in this series, and I especially like Matt Taylor's style. I have a couple of his Star Wars art prints. Knowing I would at least want one of his cards, and being unsure how I would react to the other artists' work, I felt going with both options would be the most fun. It allows me to collect a range of artwork, regardless of how I personally feel about it upon initial exposure, and see a single artist's interpretation of 20 iconic cards.

The only card I've purchased so far is the Griffey by King Saladeen, and I plan to collect all of the Griffey cards. If more than one artist jumps out, I may consider collecting multiple artist's series.

I can't wait to see the comments about today's Mattingly card!!! It's so very bad.

[QUOTE=gmarutiak;15719330]I can't wait to see the comments about today's Mattingly card!!! It's so very bad.[/QUOTE]

Lol I came here just for that. I don’t like lots of these cards but I understand them and appreciate them for what they are. This one though I actually laughed out loud.

[QUOTE=Tasupi;15719342]Lol I came here just for that. I don’t like lots of these cards but I understand them and appreciate them for what they are. This one though I actually laughed out loud.[/QUOTE]

Haha, that's what brought me here too. Had to see what people were saying about it. I love Mattingly, but come on...that looks like what would happen if I asked my 5 year old to draw a picture of the '84 Mattingly card.

[QUOTE=gmarutiak;15719330]I can't wait to see the comments about today's Mattingly card!!! It's so very bad.[/QUOTE]

I laughed at it too. Shore's work is supposed to be funny.

I liked the Henderson less than the Mattingly though. It's barely recognizable as Josh Vides' style. I wish he'd done more, but I'm not the artist.

That Mattingly card is simply amazing.

While it's in Vides's outline style and consistent with his other crossover products, his version of the Henderson is just lazy.

I think the product is a success in the sense that it is causing quite a buzz in the hobby, both positive and negative opinions colliding, and the fact that they are actually selling well.
None of the cards have sold less than 1,000 copies so far, and the silver frame Artist Proof cards ($99, limited to 20 copies) sell out instantaneously, though that is partly because of bots trying to resell immediately on eBay for 3-5 times markup.

I get that some traditional collectors won't like the concept, but it's unique and I applaud Topps and the artists for the attempt.
I obviously don't like ALL of the artworks (yet some I love), but it certainly is an interesting project/series.

If Fucci made this for the Ripkin,
[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/plDpvK7Sj][IMG]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q90/921/DpvK7S.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Would've bought ten

i like the rickey

I'm not interested in artistic interpretations of existing cards. That said, I realize some people are and that's fine.

But I just saw the Rickey Henderson card. I don't even see how that qualifies as art. I mean it looks to me like the guy just took the original card, and then outlined it sloppily in black sharpie. And Topps paid that guy to do it. I feel like anyone with hands and a sharpie could take a reprint Henderson and create that in a minute and if you put it side by side with the one the "artist" did, it would be a crapshoot picking which was which. Congrats to the people that pay $20 for that.