Well, that's not a very good example of ugly design, since Lamanno's gear and pose make this particular card awesome. This set, though, had some terrible colors for backgrounds paired with washed out colors for the players. Don't get me wrong, this design screams vintage. Something just didn't transfer right for the 2006 set.
Poor design can be overcome by stellar content, and I had the mojo on this birthday pack.
Sure it's an ugly card, and Longoria's eyes appear to be missing, but it's one of Longoria's first rookie cards. A much better pull, in my opinion, than a Bryce Harper.
I also snagged a hit:
It's a chunk of Pods' bat. Pods is definitely up for trade. I'll be holding onto the Longoria.
2006 has nothing on 2007 Bowman Heritage, but I'll open a pack like this any day.
'49 Bowman is ugly. But it isn't 1948 Bowman UGLY. The thing I hate the most with Topps/Bowman Heritage is the fact that the pictures are deliberately made lower quality. Why can't we have nice pictures on classic designs? Why must all the photos be washed out? Here's an idea: drop one of the lame parallels (how about black border) and do a "tradition" parallel which is washed out or pixelated, etc, if you must.
ReplyDelete'48 Bowman is ultimate ugly, makes '49 look fun and flashy. You're right on about '06 Heritage and many other BH sets. See, that's why '07 was the perfect--they didn't have to lower quality to look vintage.
ReplyDelete