Topps Project 2020 is the worst product since 1991 Fleer

[1977 Cloth]

Originally Posted by Oliroller

1977 Cloth, didn't Cartoon already screw your Henderson set?

I am okay with the Cartoon Henderson. I am a big A's fan first, so it works. The Henderson image from the 1980 pose is still there and it will look great at the center of a display. Thiele and Efdot are actually more off, but again I am fine with those as reimagining in their style.

[Silas Barnaby]

Originally Posted by 1977 Cloth

I assume that is directed at me among others. I would have done outright profanity, if I didn't think I would get flagged.

I was only directing my comment at the poster that referred to cards as urine and feces and called one of the artists an 'expletive moron'.

To me you are in the 'passionate disliker' category, which is healthy for the thread and project.

[Silas Barnaby]

I love Thiele's card except for the face.

Too Lionel Ritchie.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by PDCCollectibles

Wow, I didn't think a hobby could make someone this angry.....

I don’t fancy idiocy. Even when you are taking about “art”

[Wiseysez]

A little art befitting this page



Generated from my Apple iPhone using tools.sportscard.trade

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by eldavojohn

Yeah this product is clearly not for him, wish he'd move on to some flagship product where every card closely conforms to a look and feel.

There's 400 cards in this project. Four hundred. By twenty different artists who make money by pushing the line on what's acceptable. You're going to hate at least one card/artist. There's nothing wrong with saying you hate it but to demand some arbitrary conformity across an artist or player just makes no sense to me.

There clearly were no constraints issued by Topps and, frankly, this set would be boring to me if there were. Take a picture of the card, open it on your phone with instagram, apply twenty random filters. There's your Project 2020.

How many MLB products does Topps release a year? Let this one product not have to conform to rules.

Also, nothing is stopping you from saying "there's only 18 cards per player because I don't recognize OMA or Siff as an artist". If the cards don't "match" in your eyes, there should be no love loss in just not buying the card.

The stated goal of this set isn’t do what you want. It’s reimagine these 20 specific cards.

[AirplaneDon]

Topps put the criteria as “reimagine”. The artists submit their cards to Topps for approval to be released. If the card is released, it clearly has Topps approval and has therefore met their definition of reimagined. Simple.

It’s fine if you don’t like it, and if it doesn’t meet your personal (and likely inconsistent) definition of reimagined. But it’s disingenuous to say artists aren’t following the rules of the set as there is a literal process in place that says otherwise.

[ThoseBackPages]

once topps signed some of these "artists" to a contract, topps was screwed with whatever they submitted for a particular card

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by Shinjoy

OMA's card is closer to a re-imagining of 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas, and it doesn't have as tight a connection with the original's design as most of OMA's other cards.

But, I'm not outraged. It's valid to re-imagine 1990 Topps as a 1990 magazine cover. The original 1990 Topps pic wouldn't make sense on a magazine cover. It barely makes sense on a baseball card.

No. It’s him stealing the text of a sports illustrated cover and putting it In a Beckett style cover.


It’s extremely lazy and not at all what a 1990 Topps card looked like, let alone the frank Thomas card.

Even the caption about this being his last hit in comiskey park is wrong. As the Getty image he may not have permission to use in this format is an undated photo of frank. Oh, and the wrong uniform as well. Franks last hit in the old park was in then new silver and black pinstripes uniform.

[Oliroller]

Actually you are wrong. The wording is "last home run hit in Comiskey Park", not last hit

[UGLI baby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by kabrune2

I have to agree with 1977 here, I was ok with oma using different photos from the same year the original Topps photos were used if he kept the card design somewhat the same, but when he deletes the photo, the border, and everything that made the card ‘iconic’ to whoever decided it was ‘iconic’ at Topps, it’s not reimagining the iconic card but rather throwing away the entire card and creating a new one... and in the Frank Thomas card he created a magazine, not even a card imho.

With that said I like the way it looks, very visually appealing to me, but I wouldn’t consider it a reimanged 1990 Topps Frank Thomas, but just a new Frank Thomas card produced in 2020.

This same idiot put 1995 and 1994 photos of mattingly on a 1984 card and called it art.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by Oliroller

Actually you are wrong. The wording is "last home run hit in Comiskey Park", not last hit

Alvin Davis hit it. NOT Frank Thomas.

[ThoseBackPages]

Reimagine doesn't mean do whatever the heck you want to do. one would think that there would be some kind of resemblance to the original card. if you take OMAs Gwynn and show it to a veteran collector taking project 2020 totally out of the equation, what are the odds that they will know that the card is supposed to represent a 1983 topps card?

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by eldavojohn

I wouldn't like it, I would want to try to understand it. I would disagree with that artist's interpretation because a grotesquely broken leg isn't the same kind of "hurt" as Frank Thomas. But it would fall within the bounds of the project since it was an interpretation of a card.

An artist could release a card that is a Cardinal's red colored rectangle (with a border so Topps can print it offcentered) for Bob Gibson. I wouldn't like it. I don't like monochromatic art. But it would fall squarely within the bounds of an interpretation of the card.

Man, never go to a modern art museum you would hate it. Some of the art isn't even hyperrealistic! Some of the artists can do hyperrealism and, get this, they choose not to.


As I mentioned earlier it's a clear homage to Beckett Baseball Card Monthly and Sports Illustrated. I love it. Sorry not sorry. When his rookie card came out there were a lot of these publications that were everywhere, it's awesome to have that on a card. Yeah I wish the date was sometime in 1990. Yeah, I would change minor things about. But I'm not OMA. I'm sorry it's so far "out there" that you don't appreciate it. That's about all I can say. It's not the Thiesmann break. False equivalences are pointless.

This isn’t Beckett project 2020. Or si project 2020.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by Oliroller

Here is my unpopular take of the day sure to generate pages of disdain...….a year or two after this Project is over, OMA will be the most collected full artist set in this Project.

For toilet paper maybe.

[Oliroller]

On September 27, 1990, Frank Thomas hit the last home run in old Comiskey Park

[Silas Barnaby]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

For toilet paper maybe.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

OMA has been consistently terrible since day one with his 1991 Fleer Gwynn

Tru dat

[1977 Cloth]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

Reimagine doesn't mean do whatever the heck you want to do. one would think that there would be some kind of resemblance to the original card. if you take OMAs Gwynn and show it to a veteran collector taking project 2020 totally out of the equation, what are the odds that they will know that the card is supposed to represent a 1983 topps card?

This is what I have been saying. Reimagine can be whatever you want by definition, but I believe we all know what the spirit of this endeavor was supposed to be.

[eldavojohn]

Congratulations, ewokpelts, your medal's in the mail for the third time I regret all my posts in this thread.

Time to check out ... again.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by Shinjoy

I think this is mostly because they're exceptionally good. When OMA and Shore (and Don C) do something out of the box, it helps that it's well-thought out and striking and looks good and has consistency with their other work.

Photoshop and copy and paste si cover text is not thinking out of the box

[Oliroller]

His arguments lose merit when he is consistently wrong

[AirplaneDon]

Originally Posted by 1977 Cloth

This is what I have been saying. Reimagine can be whatever you want by definition, but I believe we all know what the spirit of this endeavor was supposed to be.

Clearly Topps disagrees with you.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

Reimagine doesn't mean do whatever the heck you want to do. one would think that there would be some kind of resemblance to the original card. if you take OMAs Gwynn and show it to a veteran collector taking project 2020 totally out of the equation, what are the odds that they will know that the card is supposed to represent a 1983 topps card?