Monday, March 24, 2014

Topps 1965 and Heritage 2014 Side by Side

Each year I like to take a look at the Heritage set side by side with the original cards.

Let's start with the design.


The two match up fairly well but I have spotted a few differences.  One I've discussed in previous posts--not using the same logo.  The red-bordered area on the Heritage  cards is just a bit shorter than the originals.  It's hard to tell on the two cards above, but check out the Banks and Rizzo cards below and you'll see the difference.  A third difference is a minor one....the 2ND on the original cards is in all capital letters, while on the Heritage version the ND uses lower case letters.

I don't know if it would be a design issue, but the biggest gripe I have with Heritage are the backgrounds on the pictures.  Look at Barney's.  Topps goes with the posed shot, which would match up with '65 cards.  But the background...plain ugly blue.  That looks terrible when compared to the look at Shea Stadium we get on Amalfitano's card.  I don't want fuzzy backgrounds, I want to see ballparks!


Boy would it have been awesome if Topps could have gotten Rizzo to pose sideways like the Banks card. In fact, that should be the SP variation theme that Heritage uses.  Have a regular card, but then have the SP mimic a pose from the original.


There's an SP that I would chase!

Here come the rest of the 2014 Heritage cards along side a comparable player from the '65 set.












  1. You're absolutely right about the cards being the worse for not having ballparks in the background. I was idly pondering this over the weekend, and if I were Topps I'd send a staff member - doesn't even have to be a proper photographer - to stand on the field of each ballpark and take shots which could be photoshopped into the background of cards like Darwin Barney. That way you don't necessarily have the logistical problems of taking photos in the actual ballparks, but you get the same effect.

  2. I think that idea about having the SP poses mimic the ones of comparable players from the original set is a great one, especially on one as recognizable as the '65 Topps. Since this is such a great idea, I doubt Topps would ever do it, but I thought you'd like some confirmation of your genius.

  3. I don't like these 1965 Heritage cards at all. I hope Topps gets their act together and improves the quality before they get to the 1967 Heritage.

    And what's the point of having 2 cards for a player when I'm sure many of the players are not represented at all?