Sunday, January 21, 2024

Embracing the Best and Worst of the Junk Wax Era

This past summer, a couple of bloggers shared their personal rankings of junk wax–era baseball card sets. Dime Boxes started it off with a worst list, and then Night Owl followed with a best list. Once I finished reading those two posts, I thought it would be a fun exercise for me, too. The junk wax era was part of my childhood, after all.
 
Let's go with the span of years from 1987 to 1993. And note that by 1992, my collecting focus had mostly transitioned from baseball cards to hockey cards. (Hockey was having a junk wax era of its own at that time. Maybe I'll come up with a list for hockey next. Pro Set and Score, I'm looking at you.)
 
Anyhow, let's start with my bottom 5 junk wax–era baseball sets, in no particular order.
  

 
 
 
1991 Fleer
 
You could probably light up a dark room simply by opening a binder of 1991 Fleer. I think it's safe to say that the bright yellow borders, which ran from card #1 all the way to card #720, caught just about everyone by surprise back then. A couple of years ago, I revisited the set and did a redesign, suggesting that it might have been a better idea for Fleer to go with white borders or charcoal borders. I still stand by that suggestion.
 
 
 
 
 
1988 Donruss
 
Did you know that when a group of zebras feel threatened, they begin running around in zig-zag patterns? All those black and white stripes moving in different directions are bewildering to a predator, which gives the zebras a better chance of escaping unharmed. 
 
Well, the blue, red, and black card stripes moving around those 1988 Donruss card borders can be equally bewildering to a collector. In fact, after looking up current ebay prices for full wax boxes of this stuff, it seems that quite a lot of collectors must have avoided '88 Donruss back then. And although it is true that sometimes the stripes line up in symmetrical ways when the cards are next to each other in a nine-pocket page, it certainly doesn't save this set from the bottom 5. Neither does a fairly strong rookie class (Roberto Alomar, Mark Grace, Tom Glavine, Matt Williams, Al Leiter, Ken Caminiti, Ron Gant, Gregg Jefferies.)
 
 
 
 

1990 Donruss
 
In all fairness, some of the trading card companies of the time were really going for it. And that's commendable. The market was more saturated than ever, and premium brands like Stadium Club and Ultra were appearing on the scene. For the flagship sets, there was pressure to really stand out. And listen. Sometimes you swing hard and hit a homer. Other times you swing hard and whiff. And your helmet flies off. And you fall down. That second scenario was 1990 Donruss. From the redder-than-red borders to the black and white paint speckles to the facsimile script to the clashing bright orange card backs to the litany of errors, it just hurt to open packs of these cards.
 
 
 
 

 1992 Leaf
 
Speaking of premium sets, there were a few years of Leaf designs in the junk wax era. And they started out well. 1990 Leaf was different and exciting with those silver rays shooting out of the bottom left corner of the card front. Then 1991 Leaf had those make-believe photo album borders, which were a little cheesy, but not terrible. Then 1992 Leaf came along, and it was just . . . boring. If I didn't know which year was which and you asked me to put all three of those "silver border" sets in chronological order, I would have guessed that the 1992 Leaf design came first, then they tried to do a little more with it (1991 design), and then they found their stride (1990 design). Note some of the odd photography and cropping in the 1992 set as well, featured on the three cards above.
 
 
 
 

1988 Fleer
 
The 1988 Fleer design seems unfinished to me. Or maybe it's that the designers had a few different ideas saved on a template, and just mashed them all together and called it a day. Some of those red and blue stripes are so short that they look out of place. They're really more like random dashes. Whatever they are, I want to tell them to follow through and go all the way across the card and to the edges of the borders. There are some memorable cards in this set, like San Diego's Tim Flannery posing with a surfboard, but there are also way too many photos of players standing around and looking sad. Or bored. Or nonplussed.
 

 
Now the top 5, also in no particular order.
 
 
 
 
1989 Bowman
 
Many collectors seem to loathe this set and would readily include it in their bottom 5. However, it's all about nostalgia for me. I was a kid collector back in 1989, and the uniqueness of '89 Bowman—from the larger size to the "stats by opponent" on the card backs to the reprints of the golden-age Bowman cards (an era that I was learning about for the first time)—conjures up a lot of good collecting memories for me. I also think this was the first set I collected that featured facsimile autographs on the front. It was fun seeing the penmanship of the pros.
 
 
 
 
 
1991 Topps
 
The 1991 Topps set marked the company's first concerted effort to keep up with the great photography of the newer brands like Upper Deck, Score, and Leaf. They did an excellent job, and the set has held up so well that I decided to complete it a few years ago.
 


 

1989 Fleer
 
1989 Fleer has a solid design. There are some great action shots, and the 3D effect of the players overlapping the interior card borders works very well. Add the color-matched diagonal stripes, which really stand out against the surrounding light gray and white, and the coolness factor increases even more. You've also got many of the same rookies as '89 Topps and '89 Donruss, along with a couple of memorable errors and all their variations. (Billy Ripken and Randy Johnson.) And as usual with Fleer, the card backs were interesting and informative, showing some of the player's stats before and after the All-Star break. Just as with '89 Bowman, I have good memories of collecting this Fleer set in my young days. 
 
 
 
 
 

1989 Upper Deck
 
I think to this day, a lot of young collectors of the time will remember the feel and sound that came with opening those foil wrappers. But is it weird that I remember the smell, too? Regardless, 1989 Upper Deck changed the game. The crisp, bright white card stock, the hologram and full-color photography on the back, the Griffey Jr. star rookie. Upper Deck was a sensation. It's hard to leave it out of my top 5.
 
 

 

1987 Topps
 
I know The 1987 Topps design has been done, and redone, and redone again over the years. (Even the '87 set itself is a not-so-subtle redesign of 1962 Topps.) However, this is the set I collected the most when I was a baseball-loving, baseball-playing kid in New York. The Mets had just won the World Series with their fantastic cast of characters, and the Yankees had a good bunch of their own with Mattingly, Rickey, Winfield, Righetti, and broadcaster Phil Rizzuto on WPIX channel 11. I still get a big dose of nostalgia whenever I see a Mets or Yankees card from this set. All those fond memories outweigh the fact that Topps has exhausted this design.


 
ADDENDUM
 
Let's take a minute to talk about the term "junk wax".
 
I can understand that many folks automatically take it as a negative—enough to be upsetting, or insulting, even. But I also pause, and ask why
 
I mean, think about it. Junk can be a positive. Some of the coolest dudes out there are junk collectors. Have you ever watched the show American Pickers, for example? Mike Wolfe and Frank Fritz meet some authentic people with some authentic junk, that's for sure. There's nothing negative about that. And besides, there's almost always potential to find some gems within the junk. A 1991 Topps Chipper Jones Desert Shield. A 1990 Topps Frank Thomas no name on front. A 1989 Upper Deck Dale Murphy reverse negative. So how about we start thinking of the term junk wax with more positivity? With more fondness? Let's enjoy the term in all its junkiness. Put mustard on junk wax and eat it. (Not literally.)
 
And if you're so inclined to come up with your own best and worst lists of the junk wax era and post them on your blogs, go for it!

Thanks for reading, as always.

20 comments:

  1. I began collecting in the "junk wax" Era, and some of my favorite sets are from that time. I do have to agree with the best of the era; 1987 Topps was and still is one of the best looking sets ever in my opinion. I also liked some of the early Score sets while Donruss had some sets that left a lot to be desired while Fleer was in the middle depending on the year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point about Score, OhioTim. Their very first set in 1988 brings back some fun memories.

      Delete
  2. I think "junk wax era" is a perfect way to describe the time and I look at the term as more of an homage than a slight. ... Your bottom 5 is pretty much perfect, though I'd never put '89 Bowman above '88 Fleer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good way to put it Night Owl! It's definitely more of an homage than a slight. As for '89 Bowman, I really am different from most collectors there ;-)

      Delete
  3. I use the term Junk Wax Era all the time. Value wise... most of it was overproduced and doesn't hold a lot of monetary value... which some would classify as "junk". But one man's junk is another man's treasure... and I gobble up Junk Wax Era cards all the time. Personally... most of the collectors I know don't have a problem using the term.

    I've seen some YouTubers voice their opinions against using it. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Mine is the term fits and like you pointed out... "junk can be a positive".

    By the way... I like this topic. I'm gonna copy this link and maybe one day I'll get around to creating my own lists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go for it, Fuji! I'd love to see which sets make your lists. I'm sure many other readers would as well.

      Delete
  4. '89 Bowman stinks.
    I like '89 Fleer.
    I tried to get people to use the term overproduction era, or OPE. But it didn't take.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heheh. I'm on the '89 Bowman island by myself ;-)

      Delete
  5. Are these your 2024 opinions or 1980s/1990s opinions? This might inspire me to do a post about how my opinions have changed over time for some of these.

    I like the '88 and '91 Fleer designs, don't particularly care for '89 though it's better than '90.

    I love American Pickers, though I haven't watched it in a while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great question, Bo! I hadn't given it much thought, but I'd say most of the sets listed above are based on my 2024 opinions. When I was collecting as a kid, I think it was more about simply being happy to see a new product and buy some packs each year than it was about the design of the cards. That being said, however, I certainly never had many cards in my collection from some of those "bottom" sets, like '88 Fleer, '90 Donruss, or '91 Fleer. So I guess that reveals something about my opinions back then, too.

      Delete
  6. I use the term very loosely, especially for my Junk Mall Junk Wax Wednesday series as in those 1988-1995ish packs of cards you can still find all over the place for a buck or two, not so much in a negative way though. There was a lot of good stuff in that era, if not in sets then in certain individual cards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, sir. And you know what? It's kind of fun to be able to buy packs of those cards all these years later at very affordable prices. So that's another positive.

      Delete
  7. I refuse to hear any slander against '91 Fleer! Conversely, I refuse to hear any love for '89 Bowman! (The points you made for '89 Bowman are all salient - I can just never get past the oversized thing.)

    I agree with most of your other picks though. Glad you mentioned '92 Leaf - a just plain dull set if there ever was one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heheh. I love the enthusiasm, Nick. Thanks for providing some inspiration for this post!

      Delete
  8. I never cared for any of the Leaf sets personally. I thought, and still think, that they're all ugly. I liked the '89 Bowman set as a kid, but don't have any feelings towards it one way or the other as an adult. And '91 Topps might just be the best looking baseball set that was produced that decade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hard to argue there, Jon. And it's interesting. I remember being kind of lukewarm about 1991 Topps at the time, but when I looked back on it a few years ago, I found that it really was a standout of the '90s.

      Delete
  9. My original collecting period as a kid alines perfectly with how you define the era (got my first cards in 1987 as a kid, quit collecting in 1993 as a teenager) so these sets all resonate strongly with me.

    There are some tough calls to be made on a top-5 or bottom-5 list and I enjoy quibbling about such things. Was 1992 Leaf really worse than 1991? 1991 Donruss than 1990? Its hard to say.

    1989 Bowman is always going to stir up debate, especially since you put it at the top of your best list. I actually really like the design of the 1989 set - its simple and gives the photo a prominent position without a lot of clutter mucking it up. And I respect them going with the non-standard size. The problem I have is that the photos themselves are just really bad. I think all of them come from spring training games with uninspiring backgrounds and there are a ton of boring posed shots (like that Ripken). It was really in 1991 that Topps discovered the importance of interesting photography and if they had combined that set's photos (or subsequent year's) with 1989 Bowman's design I'd have put that at the top of my list.

    1989 Upper Deck is a great set, but I've always preferred the design of the 1990 set a bit more. Great photography, and the design is a bit sleaker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice point about 1990 Upper Deck, Sean. There was so much hoopla around the inaugural set, that sometimes it's easy to overlook 1990. Would enjoy seeing your top-5 and bottom-5 at some point, too!

      Delete
  10. I remember when I first returned to the hobby, yeah it kind of upset me to hear cards from my childhood era of collecting referred to as "junk". But it didn't take long to realize that, yep, the card companies were printing millions of cards then, and in turn they aren't all that in demand today. But yeah, you can still love/collect them. Hell, I'm buying junk now more than ever thanks to my cardart activities of the past year.
    Sometimes I use the term "overproduction era", but it just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

    As for 1992 Leaf, I agree that the base set is boring, but man, I freaking love the black gold parallels. Somehow a black border with a little gold foil turns those awkward photos into works of art. It's like Clark Kent turning into Superman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, there are certainly some nice advantages to the "overproduction" aspect of the era. Looking forward to seeing more of that card art, for sure! And good point about the black gold parallels in '92 Leaf. They do look sharp.

      Delete