Upper Deck has left a better first impression with me this year. That's not to say that they are completely off the hook. They have made mistakes, but they deliver a more consistent product than the Topps Series One set.That being said, the set design is boring. The only thing that really saves the set is the photography. Upper Deck seems to capture more moments within moments than Topps. I'd love to know when Scott Podsednik played enough last year to attempt to bunt his way on. Maybe it was one of the games that I caught on the radio. I certainly don't remember seeing it. But there it is, as big as life on a 3.5 x 2.5 inch card.
There are 16 cards in the series one set for the White Sox. They do a slightly better job at capturing the team than Topps did. There is a catcher here for all the pitchers to throw at and a middle infielder.
- 281 - Mark Buehrle
- 282 - Jon Garland
- 283 - Jose Contreras
- 284 - Matt Thornton
- 285 - Ryan Bukvich
- 286 - Juan Uribe
- 287 - Jim Thome
- 288 - Scott Podsednik
- 289 - Jerry Owens
- 290 - Jermaine Dye
- 308 - Lance Broadway
- 325 - Donny Lucy
- 338 - Heath Phillips
- 379 - Jim Thome (CL)
- 391 - Jim Thome (Highlight)
- 395 - Mark Buehrle (Highlight)
Jim Thome has three cards?! I like Jim Thome as much as the next guy, but does he have to be the checklist card every year? Still, it's three Jim Thome cards. It's not like it's three cards of Mike MacDougal. These are the last White Sox cards of Scott Podsednik and Jon Garland and probably one or two more players.
I like the addition of Lance Broadway. He should be a stud starting pitcher. Donny Lucy is the catcher of tomorrow, today. This is a nice cross-section of the lineup. One of the reason why I like Upper Deck a little more over Topps is because of the amount of cards for each team. For a team collector, it's a dream. Where else will you get a card of Ryan Bukvich or Heath Phillips? Sometimes Topps gets lucky, but not often.
The only real beef I have is with the design. Upper Deck's logo did not have to be redesigned. It was fine the way it was. The photography is the saving grace in this set. If they were all boring or run of the mill photos, the set would be a waste. I love minimalist design on cards, but Upper Deck takes that idea to a new level. It's sharp, but the design gets boring very quick. The majority of Upper Deck's designs this decade have looked the same. That is not a good thing. Keep the cards, redesign the set.
6 comments:
I'll give Upper Deck kudos for photography. Doesn't this set look very similar to '95 Upper Deck?
I have picked up a few of the double packs at Walmart while I still wait on some Topps to come in. I agree, the photography is great. It is hard for me to see names but I guess I am getting old and need to have my eyes checked.
Anything good in the double packs or is it just base cards like last year?
I hate to say it, but Upper Deck should go back to borders. The 2007 set looked great because of them.
No one needs their eyes checked. These cards are difficult to read. Same as 2006. The names need to be inside borders. It does look very similar the '95 set. They need a drastic redesign.
I'm not the first to pick up on the similarities between '08 and '95 UD, but the player and team names on the '95s were easier to read than the '08s.
The "double packs," (a.k.a. "Fat Packs") have an exclusive "Hot Commodities" insert.
Upper Deck's regular set design the last few years is getting harder to read. 2007's was decent, but 2006 and 2008 are almost impossible to read at a quick glance.
Post a Comment