The winner last night was: John Sharp
1998 Topps Finest: I like the set, but there are issues that exist.
1) Many of us card collector's have a touch (or more so for others) of OCD. We have "our" way of doing things especially when it comes to our collection. Whether it is our routine when cards come in, or how we organize them, binder them, count them, heck even what we collect and how we store them. Limitless pretty much. One of the things some of us get touchy about is the condition of cards or at least certain cards. Another thing that really gets my goat..... ah you'll have to wait until page 6 (2nd card) to see and then read more on that subject or two.
Topps released this 275 card set in two series 1-150 and 151-275.
There you can see that Loiselle does not have the protective coating on it. It is the only card in my completed set without the protector. That annoys me, so I have taken to the web to rectify that. Simple enough handles the OCD issue with this set. However it brings me to another talking point that irks me. Why in the hell did Topps make a parallel set without the coating (listed as no protector) and if that wasn't enough there are refractor version of both. Now Back in the day when this set and other sets were released I couldn't stand having the coating on them, and thus I would peel it off. Some of the sets even said to peel it off. Eventually I found that to be a pain in the ass. Here is the kicker, let's say you peel it off, isn't it now the parallel? So why? I am not aware of any difference between the no protector cards and ones that had the protector and was peeled off. Maybe there is, I'm not aware of it and really don't care. I feel better now that I vented that.
I'm not done venting or discussing OCD with this set. The writing on the protective coating is another thing. I consider it a quality control issue. They are not always lined up correctly. Look at Sosa, Javy, and Kent above. See the difference, I notice crap like that, and that is not even close to being how off they are on some cards.
There you have the complete set. I know I griped a lot, but I really do like the set and all of that venting could have been avoided by just not putting the darn coating on the cards to begin with. I would prefer them off, but like I said earlier such a pain in the ass.
I wasn't collecting when this set came out, but I would think that protective coating would drive me crazy too...
ReplyDeleteI definitely have my preferences when it comes to card condition -- modern singles (especially if I'm building the set) *must* be centered at least 60/40. Minor corner dings/scratches are accepted on a case-by-case basis.
ReplyDeleteThe coating of these late-90s finest cards bugged me at the time, and I initially preferred unpeeled singles. After a while I peeled a couple, to let the card front shine. Also because I thought it would prevent that awful color bleed which bothered me so much I sold off all my late '90s Finest/Chrome sets :(
Topps Chrome and I NEVER got along.
DeleteDo you consider the protective coating part of the card? I've heard PSA will downgrade these with the coating on them. But as a collector, I want my cards as if they just came out of the pack.
ReplyDeleteI don't collect graded cards so PSA doesn't bother me. I'd prefer the coating off of the cards, but it is just a pain in the butt taking them all off especially after 24 years now.
DeleteThe whole concept of protective coating seems like a huge swing and a miss. But now not having the coating seems like the cards are not in original condition, so I leave them on. Wish they were never there to begin with though.
ReplyDeleteI opened up some of this when they came out, and I've also left the coating on the cards.
ReplyDeleteGood Job! 👍
Put me in the camp as seeing these as a massive waste of time. They seem annoying and you can't fully see the players because of the writing on them. I would say removing every single card in the set would be awfully time consuming too....
ReplyDeleteright there with you
DeleteThe ‘No Protector’ cards are pretty easy to distinguish from cards that have had the protective coating peeled off. The back of ‘No Protector’ cards have the Chromium technology like the front and regular cards don’t (the basic raised lines around the player and text will match front and back on ‘No Protector’ cards, and the back of a regular card that has been peeled is just like a normal back. I pulled a Ray Lankford from a pack in 1998, I don’t believe I have it, but I might have a Tony Saunders. I’ll check and shoot you a pic if I do.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
DeleteI love Finest... Or used to.
ReplyDeleteYou have to admit that the protective coating/no protective coating was a bit of a genius move to make a bit more money with little effort off of us OCD collectors... I know that I had to have both versions for my player collections
Definitely a weird concept. But I like 1998 a lot more than 1996 and 1997 Finest.
ReplyDeleteI've wondered what the difference was between the protective coating and non-protective coating. I also wondered why the non-coating cards were a premium. Thanks to Jeremya1um for the explanation.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of ways I am OCD about my collection, but condition is not one of them, so I haven't cared about the coatings. I think just about all of the ones that are supposed to have them have it, but a few don't and fortunately i don't care. I've got plenty of other irregularities to annoy me instead.
ReplyDeleteLordy this made my head hurt. Reason #7891 not to try to complete a late '90s set. ... I used to peel the coating off all my Finest cards, then I didn't. So I have a mix of both but it doesn't bother me.
ReplyDeleteWhen I pulled the Chrome/Finest patents I hypothesized that the protective layer is part of the clear stock and shipping the cards with that layer was a cost-saving choice by Topps so they didn't have to peel that layer before packing. (to be specific, I wouldn't be at all surprised if modern Chrome has the protective layer as well only it's peeled in the factory now)
ReplyDeleteAnyway that post is here if you're interested.
https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2019/08/01/chrome-finest-reversed-printing-and-opaque-whites/
Oh, I don't peel because I fall into the "keep things as pack fresh as possible" camp but I'm also not particularly moved by these so feel no compulsion to get all the Giants or Stanford guys let alone peeled and unpeeled copies of them.
I would have left them on too. Thanks for showing the whole set! They were too rich for my blood back then so I never bought any.
ReplyDeleteProtector or no, that is a nice looking set. I never knew about that one.
ReplyDeleteI concur that most of us are OCD to some degree, though we have to be sure to rein it in sometimes. I liked trying to collect master sets, but the whole Donruss variation with the period threw that out the window, as did the current Topps business model of having 120 alternate cards (most of them short prints) in a set AND two or three alternate rookies of completely different current players. Ticks me off.
Peels suck! Thankfully they only stuck around for a few years.
ReplyDeleteThe peels have never bothered me, but I can understand why it bothers the bulk of the collectors responding to this post. I would have grabbed a Loiselle too. The only mismatched set I want is a frankenset.
ReplyDelete