I like it. Neat clean design
I'm lukewarm towards it. I think it's fine. It's ok. The tough thing is that I think that this year's design is spectacular, and I just don't really like the swooshy thing they're going with--I'm still swooshed out from 2010. I'd prefer some hard edges, personally.Still, it looks like a winner with lots of room for good photography.
Not a fan. Where are the creative designs? The last four years have been black bordered Bowmans and white-bordered Topps. We need a colored border or at least an oddball design. Heck two of the best designs IMO of the 2000s were colored or oddball (03,08). And yes I hated 2008 when it came out, but it really grew on me. I don't see this one growing on me.
Sharp, neat and simple. I like it.Team Logo - CHECKPlayer's Full Name - CHECKColor Photo - CHECKPosition - XWould like to have the position on there, though. I'm a purist. I'll forgive them if they plant some GIGANTOR all-star rookie cups in the set! I'm looking at you, David Robertson.I agree with GrandCards on the wish for hard edges and I hope the printing press' jug of diamond sparkly elixir is bone-dry. We'll see!
Ah.....Hiflew hits it on the head. I've only "been back" since the spring so I went back to review th elast few years. He's right, it looks like we have a little design auto-pilot thing going on, here.Hmmmmmm......
it's fine.Until they ruin it with three different parallel sets, 17 different insert sets, an auto version, a jersey version, the rare unannounced blank back every other case version, the left eye winking at you version, and of course the replacing of current stars with overused former stars version.then it will suck.
Aw, I like the overused former stars versions... :(I do like the 2012 design but yes, hard edges would be good.
I think it's just sorta...ok. A little on the underwhelming side. I thought the past couple of years were fairly good but this design doesn't quite rate with those for me.
It's not awful, but it's not as good as '09...one of the best looking designs ever IMO.
Decent design, certainly not ugly but not very memorable either.
I actually really like it. I'm a fan of minimalist design concepts, and this pretty much fits that description.
I commented elsewhere that I'm not a fan of this. In fairness, I suppose I should wait to see some more examples - although the gold theme I'm reading about does nothing for me. I'm already thinking I might just chase my teams collection inserts from this set, then just focus on Heritage and any other surprise that might blow me away. Then, around this time next year, pick up the factory set.
Initial reaction was thumbs down on the Braun card, but I liked all the parallels of the base design on the beckett link. The gold an sparkle version look significantly sharper to me. The golden moments ones were mixed but generally down - maybe to bland for me. I did like the Lincecum card though.
It isn't that bad. I like the room for the photography but it looks a little boring. Not that I want craziness with the card but a cool border, like the wood grain on the Adrian Gonzalez card would have made the set pop a little more. With the white borders it just looks ok. We've had soooo many years straight of white borders, how about spicing it up just a tad, maybe the wood grain for the bat like feel or a little red stitching somewhere on the borders to give it a baseball feel. All in all I think Topps does a decent enough job, especially since they don't have any competition.
I feel like Topps keeps putting the same set out year after year.In terms of the base, it's a 1989 border scheme with some junk at the bottom. You think of the iconic Topps issues of the past 40+ years - 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1984/5, and they took risks. They were different and fun. The past decade-plus, the designs have been conservative and uninspiring.I'd like to see a base product that better incorporates the past in its inserts - re-inserted, autographed Topps cards from yesterday, inserted one per box. I'd much rather pull an autographed Nolan Ryan 1991 Topps than some new autographed card that looks like something I made on Photoshop.You don't have to have all greats in there, either. Carlos Baerga? John Vander Wal? Why not?Topps tries too hard to recreate yesterday's magic, instead of establishing new magic. You think of all the technology advancements that have come about since the Topps issues of the 1950s and 60s, and we're still focused on how great those old cards were.Today's base Topps cards are too glossy. Lackluster card stock. Lazy photography. I think every picture of a Cubs pitcher in 2011 Topps was taken on the same day from the same angle. Same with the All-Star cards in 2010 Topps Update. Move around the stadium!Topps is the only company creating licensed MLB cards right now. They've had that setup before. From 1956 to 1980, a few early 1960s Fleer sets notwithstanding, Topps was the only player in town.Then 1981 came, opening the door for Fleer and Donruss. And by the end of the decade, Topps was knocked from its throne by a company creating more valuable, more exciting, more appealing baseball cards.The hobby needs another Upper Deck to come along (minus all the recent issues), if only to remind us that we deserve better from our base sets than what we're seeing here.
It's Ok, (insert link to RHPS, OK? OK?, I think we can do better than that). All the parallels and 1/1's are going to ruin this product and eventually Topps. Wasn't one of the reasons Donruss lost it's license was over all the idiotic parallels they printed. Also, 24 pack hobby boxes?! There better be 15 cards in those packs, or a reduced price vis a vis a 36 count box.
Sorry, I like the design.Not so sure about the code card program again.Are they going to run that into the ground ? It was nice on the anniversary this year.
I really like 'em. The eTopps/SC design works for me. AS for the Gold parallels, I hope they look as good IP as the Diamonds did. And I like the Codes idea and hope they keep it for awhile. The marketing Department there loves it, and it adds some value for Collectors...