The Set: It was the previous season, 1996-97, that Finest lost some of it’s momentum in the market. This was largely due to a delayed release of the cards. But it’s my opinion that two aspects of the set structure also contributed to this. They introduced tiers, levels, of rarity so that it was very difficult to complete a set because the rare cards were so hard to obtain. Secondly, the subsets began to be called themes and had their own numbering system, some of which didn’t match the set order (for example, in ’96-97 Topps Finest Apprentices, Kobe Bryant is A10 and Allen Iverson is A23, but Iverson actually comes before Bryant in the main set).
So back to 1997-98 Finest, a slightly larger set at 326 cards this year. The tiers of rarity and the themes remained. First, the tiered print runs. Take Series I for example where this Tim Duncan rookie card is found. Cards 1-120 are common, cards 121-153 are uncommon at 1:4 packs and cards 154-173 are rare at 1:24 packs. These were the same odds from the previous year. The difference here in 1997-98 is that, instead of border color, the tier level is indicated by the foil used in the card construction, bronze/silver/gold foil as cards become more rare. Tim Duncan also has silver and gold cards in this set, #306 and #325. This #101 is great if you’re looking to add a Tim Duncan rookie to your collection at a very affordable price though. And the themes in Series I increased to six, so there was even less unity in the set. Series I themes were Debuts (which is where you find the rookie cards, including this Tim Duncan, the first card in this Debuts subset), Catalysts, Ballhawks, Finishers, Force and Masters. One thing that gave this year more structure was that the Debuts cards, the rookies, were grouped together in numerical order. This was cards 101-120. So, unlike the previous year, these weren’t scattered throughout the set and it avoided numbering issues like the Kobe Bryant/Allen Iverson cards we mentioned earlier. Series II was similar, with levels of rarity and five different themes.
And the parallel sets became more complex too! You still had every card available in a refractor version, that didn’t change. Then you had the Embossed set. This was a parallel of just uncommon and rare cards, and the rare cards were die-cut. Finally, you had the Embossed Refractor set. These are just refractor versions of the Embossed set. So don’t let the appearance of the die-cut cards, or the fact that the commons don’t have an Embossed version fool you. Think of the parallels like this, “normal set +refractors” and then “Embossed set + refractors,” knowing the Embossed set is just the uncommon and rare cards.
I’m happy to have this #101 Tim Duncan though. The “NBA” background makes it a bit cluttered, and his black jersey blends into the background a bit too much, but it’s still a great card. And I guess I’m glad to know that when he was a psychology major doing his project on narcissism, the department chair seems to have liked him!
Protective Film: Another item to discuss is the protective film. Whether the film is on or off doesn’t seem to impact the value drastically. Some collectors like the card closer to its original state with the film on. They don’t want to risk any damage to the surface, and especially the corners and the edges, when removing it. It’s intimidating to start picking at the edges or the corners when removing it. But there is also a valid argument to be made for removing the film. The design of these cards is busy enough to begin with and the film really clutters it with the words “Topps Finest Protector, Peel and Remove Coating” scrawled across the front. Also, it could be the case that when grading cards with the protector on, scratches and defects on the protector lower the grade of an otherwise nice card. The company clearly intended for the film to be removed, it’s the only way to see the card as it was intended to be enjoyed. In extreme cases, if there are enough defects on the protector, it can really inhibit enjoyment of the card, especially if the card is simply for a personal collection. And in this situation, the protective film did its job protecting.
You must be logged in to post a comment.