Weird Card Wednesday: 1970 Jim Palmer

palmer doug

Doug Schuyler showed me this 1970 Jim Palmer and I was all like “Huh? I don’t get it.”  Then it hit me.

If you’re lucky enough to hit “Cakes”’ second column, what happens when you roll a 36?  There simply isn’t a number there.  Palmer has a 36-33 and that’s it.

This is a favorite card format by a lot of APBA fans (error notwithstanding).  I wonder how graphic designers feel about it.  The fonts don’t line up correctly and I admit that bugs me a little.  I still like the format; it has a lot of sentimental value.   Maybe more if all of the numbers are included.

thanks, Doug!

Thomas Nelshoppen

I am an IT consultant by day and an APBA media mogul by night. My passions are baseball (specifically Illini baseball), photography and of course, APBA. I have been fortunate to be part of the basic game Illowa APBA League since 1980 as well as the BBW Boys of Summer APBA League since 2014. I am slogging through a 1966 NL replay and hope to finish before I die.

8 Comments:

  1. I never liked the GTOP font. As you say, the columns are often askew, plus the numbers just look so crammed together and small. Phooey.

  2. I love the font. Probably because it’s the 60s card font I grew up with.

    I don’t see how the choice of font causes alignment issues – can someone explain what they mean by that?

    • Hi Steve,

      I personally liked the format from when I grew up in the 70’s with what appears to be in an Arial bold font. While I don’t know “how they work” completely is that if you take this font, whatever it may be, and switch it to say Arial the size of the lettering changes by a fraction of a size in sometime both height and width, and even switching to bold alters it further, so if you are using a template it causes alignment issues, especially with tabs involved.

      I am hoping someone smarter than me can either verify or correct this.

      The next font switch appears to be around my return to the game in the 90’s which is a Times New Roman font, which I liked, but again causes slight alignment issues compared to the other versions.

      Guessing the missing number is a 7.

  3. Steve, I suppose they are separate issues, but misalignments seem particular to certain sets including this one, and the first 1969 reprint among others.

  4. I personally don’t see anything wrong with this card.

  5. Love it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.