Top 5 Worst Topps Sets of All-Time

With over 65 years of Topps baseball cards to take into account, it's pretty clear that not every set is going to be a winner. However, some years of Topps Flagship products leave me scratching my head, wondering how the design beat out other options that Topps could've gone with.

In some instances, one's own opinions can affect how well or poorly they perceive a set. With that being said, some products are either so fantastic or such disasters that almost every collector has the same opinion. 

Specifically, I've never heard anyone actively speak out against 1972 or 1975 Topps. The same could also be said for Topps' worst sets, products that were just so bad that I doubt many collectors would list it as one of their favorites.

A while back, I wrote about my top 10 favorite Topps sets ever made. It included only sets from the 60s-80s, featuring 2 sets that I've actually completed, 1972 and 1975 Topps.

This time around, I'll be counting down my top 5 least favorite Topps Flagship sets. I went with 5 rather than the 10 I did for last years' countdown because I can't say I strongly dislike 10 of Topps' base set designs. 5? Well, that's a different story.

#5 2012 Toppa

The saving grace of the 2012 Topps set was the photo quality. Certainly, by the year 2012, Topps was consistently putting out a product year after year with top-notch photography and well-chosen images. Because of that, the lackluster and minimal design with foil text is almost forgivable.

Almost.

The weird oval design in the bottom left corner is all the set has to help not make the product just a card with a picture on it, and I can't really say the set benefits too much from it. Combined with the awkward logo placement, 2012 was one of the worst sets that the 2010s put out, more on that coming up.

#4 2016 Topps

When I think about how painful the 2016 Topps set was both 2 years ago and now as well, I often contemplate if I'm thinking too much about the set and disliking it solely because it's a recently released set.

I quickly respond to all these qualms with a resounding "NO."

In nearly every way possible, 2016 Topps was a mess. This time around, Topps couldn't even hide behind the stellar photo choices due to the ridiculous smoke covering up the edges of the cards. Additional smoke is used in the box around the players' name because that's so incredibly necessary, and the cut-off logo takes awkward placement to a whole new level.

#3 1996 Topps

Let's say a player makes a less than flattering face and that photo ends up making it onto a baseball card. Would you want to see that photo on the same card twice? Me neither, but apparently Topps thought collectors would like that in 1996.

Tim Wakefield is the only player that I know for sure has a '96 Topps card in his PC, but the photo of choice is nothing too bad. However, from what I've seen, there are a lot worse cards in the set than this one. Even without the 2nd smaller photo at the bottom, the set is minimal with not much at all going for it overall.

#2 1994 Topps

The '94 Topps set makes very little sense to me. Specifically, certain decisions that were made such as the player name font, colors used, and the design at the bottom of the card just don't seem to work well together as a cohesive set, leaving it to be ranked as one of Topps' worst efforts.

I don't think a font like the one used for Manuel Lee's name would ever work on a baseball card just because it's not quite vintage enough nor is it very modern. I can tell that a lot of these sets tried to remain minimal while incorporating different colors or designs than the ones that had been used before, but the final product, in the case of 1994 Topps, was not a success.

#1 1995 Topps

The border around the image in the 1995 Topps set looks like what happens when you get 90s cards stuck together and you have to try and carefully peel them apart. That, combined with another poor font choice, lack of exciting images, and the worst card backs I've ever seen in my life makes for a historically terrible set sandwiched between 2 other lackluster products.

The worst part about '95 Topps is that nothing works well together. Neither the player name nor the team name fonts are cohesive, and the image is just the perfect size so that nothing else could happen, but the small borders look awkward.

In fact, whereas I could see where other sets were trying to accomplish, I'm genuinely confused as to what '95 Topps was attempting to do.