From: mark@tc.fluke.COM (Mark D. Nagel)
Subject: Re: Which BKBALL CARDS do you like?
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:26:07 GMT

In <1gt5shINNmgb@malibog.hal.COM> rc@hal.COM (Rolland Crunk) writes:

>In article <105220092@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> csm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Chris Miller) writes:
>>Now that all of the new basketball cards are out, I'm curious as to which
>>cards people like the best, based purely on the look and feel of the card.
>>Here are all of the major cards out this year (that I can think of) in the 
>>order that I would put them:
>>
>>1. Upper Deck
>>2. Stadium Club
>>3. Fleer Ultra
>>4. Skybox
>>5. Hoops
>>6. Topps
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>Chris
>>

>1. Upper Deck

>	I generally like the cards mainly because of their choice of
>	shots. Better than last years low series but not as good as
>	last years high series. However, I am *really* frustrated
>	with their decollation. I recently purchased a box and was
>	almost 50 cards short of completing a set. Every pack I opened 
>	has at least two cards duplicated in the pack; one pack alone 
>	had 6 duplicates. This has left a sour taste in my mouth with
>	UD and I doubt if I'll make further purchases. 

I have also decided to forgo buying any UD this year. I feel like I got
taken on both the Football and Basketball inaugural sets. They just plain
over-produced. Now, this year I hear that they have cut back on production.
Don't think I want to find out.

>2. Stadium Club

>	I like these alot. Their choice of pictures is pretty good, and
>	IMO, they are the best of any previous TSC sets. The only thing
>	that bothers me is lies concerning the players rookie card on
>	the back. Since Topps hasn't been producing basketball cards
>	since the early 80s, they list most of the players rookie card
>	as their 93-93 offering. It seems to me they could have done
>	something different on the back of their cards considering the
>	inaccuracy of this information (I think everyone realizes that
>	Michael Jordan's RC is not 92-93 Topps). If nothing else they 
>	should have captioned it "First Topps Card" instead 
>	of "Rookie Card".

From what little I have seen of these cards, I don't think that they are as
sharp as the Fleer Ultras. I like the stats though.

>3. Fleer Ultra

>	Though IMO their picture selection is not as good as UD ot TSC
>	this is still my favorite offering this year. I was also quite
>	please that I was able to complete two sets from one box.

I always thought Fleer`s selections were pretty good. Perhaps, as you say,
maybe not as good as UD (or TSC). Anyway, I took to these cards right away.

>4. Skybox

>	I've never really been a fan of Skybox, but I think I like this
>	years better than last years. They simply look better (IMHO).
>	Nothing I can really get excited over though...

I agree here too. A big improvement this year for Skybox. The rookie cards
are great.

>5. Hoops
>6. Topps

>	Haven't bought either one. 
>	

Hoops are cleanly designed: Just the way I like em. Good stats and trivia on
the backs.

Topps regulars, are, well... what do you expect for $.69 per pack (going rate
around here). I pretty much decided against them when I found out there isn't
any Kemp in the first series. Gotta wonder what Topps was thinking about here!
Anyone know if the TSC's first series has a Kemp in it?

>rc

>PS: You forgot Fleer's regular set.

Fleer elevated this years card from bottom of the barrel, to "a better looking
bottom of the barrel" card. Actually, I think that I like them better than the
Topps card.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		Is it IBM compatiable? NO - ARE YOU?
 - FUSION - FUSION - FUSION -FUSION -FUSION -FUSION -FUSION -FUSION -FUSION -
    Domain: mark@tc.fluke.COM (Mark Nagel) Voice: +1 206 356 5098
      UUCP: microsoft!fluke!mark or sun!fluke!mark
     Snail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / Everett WA  98206
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------