Pages

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Card of the Week: 1979 Topps #680

This is a great card in a campy sort of way. It just screams 70’s vintage, and I love it.

First, the old Topps logo is a dead giveaway. There’s something about having something out of date like that that makes things more special. It’s kind of like a wheat penny. If you get a penny with the wheat back, it’s somehow much neater than getting the Lincoln Memorial back from the next year. The uniform Fisk is wearing is also great. The red batting helmet. The pullover jersey. Wonderful. But, my favorite part might just be the background. Could the Yankees be less interested in what is going on at the plate? I’ll cut them a little slack. The fact that they’re wearing pinstripes in a green stadium screams spring training photo. As does the fact that they’re sitting on folding chairs. But, shouldn’t they be just a bit more involved, if for nothing else than to watch out for line drives? Weren’t they supposed to actually hate the Red Sox in those years?

Seeing Fisk being hailed as an all-star in 1979 makes it all the more painful to remember his last year in Boston was 1980. There wouldn’t be much more time to enjoy a fantastic catcher. Luckily, his career didn’t last very long once the Sox let him go. Oh, wait.

I like the design a lot for this card. The requited information is tucked onto the bottom of the card. That leaves a lot of clear space to focus on what, for the time especially, is a rather nice action shot. The banner motif to list the team name isn’t particularly clever. But, there’s really only so much you can do within the space constraints of a baseball card. If I’m going to complain when things get complicated, I have to enjoy when they keep it simple.

And this is well done.

3 comments:

  1. Definitely OLD SCHOOL!!! Love it. Love the shoes and I can't wait for April 1st to get here so I can be at the game!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those shoes really are fantastic.

    April 1st is on it's way. Wish I could be there too!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete