[favrecollectors4]

Never realized that Paup played for the Jags and the Vikes after going to the Bills. Huh.

I've learned a lot about a lot of players. When trying to make the cards, I've tried to get images for players for all of their different teams over the years. Now that I'm getting to the predetermined limit I originally set up for myself, I've been searching for players that have only been on one or two teams. That has been unbelievably difficult. I chose the Paup because I liked him when he was with the Pack, and each of his teams was one that I needed to fill, except for the Pack. Oh well, I guess.

For those of you who have been communicating and making suggestions or comments, I have a couple of questions to ask. I want to display this set online in some way, but I want to know how I should form the set. My original plan was 440 cards and have players on each of their teams. That was 12 players per team, plus a coach card and some other randomness. I haven't been able to find images for players on all of their teams, so that isn't perfect. That's where the questions come in.

Please let me know what you would prefer.

1. Should the set include one random team for each player (with a different team to appear in a second series) or should I include as many cards of each player or coach in the set as I can find?

2. Should the set be organized by team (this would be based on the current location of the team) as it was in 1989 Pro Set or should it be random like Topps does it?

3. Should the Record Holders and Record Breakers be part of the set as a subset, or should it be considered an "insert"?

4. With 1989 and 1990 Pro Set designs already updated and in this set, what other Pro Set design would you like to see updated? 1991, 1992 series 1, 1992 Series 2, or 1993?

If you have the time, please explain why for each answer.

Thanks a ton.

Even though I have 9 cards done, I'm not adding them today so that these questions aren't "buried". I'll post them tomorrow evening.

Thanks again.

[montanacollector1619]

1. Should the set include one random team for each player (with a different team to appear in a second series) or should I include as many cards of each player or coach in the set as I can find?

2. Should the set be organized by team (this would be based on the current location of the team) as it was in 1989 Pro Set or should it be random like Topps does it?

3. Should the Record Holders and Record Breakers be part of the set as a subset, or should it be considered an "insert"?

4. With 1989 and 1990 Pro Set designs already updated and in this set, what other Pro Set design would you like to see updated? 1991, 1992 series 1, 1992 Series 2, or 1993?

If you have the time, please explain why for each answer.

Thanks a ton.

Even though I have 9 cards done, I'm not adding them today so that these questions aren't "buried". I'll post them tomorrow evening.

Thanks again.

I would say do all of the teams the player has been on in chronological order.

I like them organized by team or alphabetical, makes finding your team or player much easier.

Record Breakers and Holders should be part of the set like they were back then.

I always liked the Pro Set Power designs from 93 and 94.

[favrecollectors4]

I would say do all of the teams the player has been on in chronological order.

I like them organized by team or alphabetical, makes finding your team or player much easier.

Record Breakers and Holders should be part of the set like they were back then.

I always liked the Pro Set Power designs from 93 and 94.

Unfortunately, I will not be playing with the Power designs...yet. Btw, they were from 92 and 93. 94 has a few promo cards but the set was never released.

To get the multi layered feel takes a lot of time that I don't have. Each card would take me a half hour or more to make as opposed to the 5 minutes it takes me now.

With the first two questions, if I organize them by team, I can't put the players cards in chronological order because they'll be spread out throughout the set. I should have pointed it out. The only way to simulate that would be to place the players in the team they started with and include variations. That would look weird when Favre appears 4 times in the Falcons team set, despite the other teams. And I do know that I'm putting way too much thought into this. Just want to get it ready to display on a website and do it right.

Thanks for the opinions.

[montanacollector1619]

Unfortunately, I will not be playing with the Power designs...yet. Btw, they were from 92 and 93. 94 has a few promo cards but the set was never released.

To get the multi layered feel takes a lot of time that I don't have. Each card would take me a half hour or more to make as opposed to the 5 minutes it takes me now.

With the first two questions, if I organize them by team, I can't put the players cards in chronological order because they'll be spread out throughout the set. I should have pointed it out. The only way to simulate that would be to place the players in the team they started with and include variations. That would look weird when Favre appears 4 times in the Falcons team set, despite the other teams. And I do know that I'm putting way too much thought into this. Just want to get it ready to display on a website and do it right.

Thanks for the opinions.

Close enough on the Pro Set Power lol

Ok, alphabetical order with them in chronological order, kinda what I was getting at lol

[favrecollectors4]

Here are the 9 I mentioned. I'll have more soon.

[foleylion08]

1. Should the set include one random team for each player (with a different team to appear in a second series) or should I include as many cards of each player or coach in the set as I can find?

2. Should the set be organized by team (this would be based on the current location of the team) as it was in 1989 Pro Set or should it be random like Topps does it?

3. Should the Record Holders and Record Breakers be part of the set as a subset, or should it be considered an "insert"?

4. With 1989 and 1990 Pro Set designs already updated and in this set, what other Pro Set design would you like to see updated? 1991, 1992 series 1, 1992 Series 2, or 1993?


Thanks again.

1. Include as many as you can. Team fans would love to see some legends in their teams uni, even if they didn't play/played sparingly (i.e. Torry Holt, John Lynch and Ocho Cinco in New England).

2. Random would be best since you have such large differences in the number of cards for certain teams.

3. Include them in the set, but put them in the middle of the print run between like "vintage, pre 70s guys" and more recent legends.

4. I preferred 1993 personally.

Hope the input helps!

[favrecollectors4]

1. Include as many as you can. Team fans would love to see some legends in their teams uni, even if they didn't play/played sparingly (i.e. Torry Holt, John Lynch and Ocho Cinco in New England).

2. Random would be best since you have such large differences in the number of cards for certain teams.

3. Include them in the set, but put them in the middle of the print run between like "vintage, pre 70s guys" and more recent legends.

4. I preferred 1993 personally.

Hope the input helps!

It most certainly helps. I think I know ho I'm going to do it all, but I'm not 100 percent sold on the other design. I'll have more on that later this evening.

[favrecollectors4]

Here is the lone card to the set that I finished today:



And I asked everybody to give their opinions on what I should update next. Well, I updated all of them and want opinions on which one is the best. I used the exact same photo for all of the cards. Surprise! It's Favre!

1991

1992

1992 Series 2

1993


I like them all, but I'm biased.

[Kingofallmarks]

I like all of them too, but if I had to choose I would say 1993.

[favrecollectors4]

I like all of them too, but if I had to choose I would say 1993.

1993 was definitely my hardest to make. I'm actually leaning towards 1992 1. I've always loved that design for some reason, even if it is so similar to 1991.

Anyway, updates for today. Been super busy, so I only have 3 for you.







Later