Card Design & Photography

[game8]

For a long time i thought it was the design that turned me off ITG. As i think more on it however i think it is the prospect side of their sets and slabed on their higher end sets.

For me my favorite sets over the past few years would be legends masterpieces, And 2006-07 Parkhurst. However for some reason i did not like ITG 1972 and i have not been able to figure out why.

Edit: A possible reason for not liking 1972 could be that there are no players that apeal to me in the set. However i liked the concept and if they were to do a 1986 set that may interest me

[OPCfan]

Actually, I do like this years Ultimate 9th edition. Having patches (albeit manufactured ones) on the base cards adds a feeling of value to them and having them all slabbed straight from the factory should be mandatory for high end sets. People pay more money for a box of the cup and pull damaged cards and that's just not right.

Don't get me wrong on ITG. ITG does a lot of things right. Full marks for creativity on their part which is something I find lacking in UD right now. Plus good on them for including the junior and womens leagues which is something you don't see in UD much anymore. Personally I don't have much interest in the juniors and I only (barely) follow the NHL but I've been thinking about collecting some on the side since the spits won it all last season. I'm not much of a sports fan but for some reason I'm a collecting addict and most of the trivia I know about the game I gleaned from cards so maybe that (and the Colbert report) will help get the OHL some more attention to hockey fans which I'm all for. Also kudos to them on memorabilia. I often see nicer patches, swatches and pads pulled from ITG than UD.

1972 on the other hand I only bought 1 pack of. There's something about the design that looks amateurish to me compared to the 71-72 Topps/OPC design even though it is almost a direct imitation.

ITG's sets seem to me to be primarily based around the sport (1972, BTP, H&P) while UD's seem to exist for the purpose of showing off their printing technology. Originally the gimmick for SPx was die cut cards and holograms (now just a bunch of shiny foil), Ice was to show of the plastic (acetate) clear printing sort of style (now just regular cardboard except rookies I guess), BD was the sort of dark foil-ey design (which it still is). I realize that cards aren't a s popular now than back in the day so there's less benefit for making really snazzy base cards but I think if UD can charge $20-$40 for high end product they should at least make them look cutting-edge. SPx was (I think) at one time the highest-end product on the shelf. Now it's mid-range.

The only real advantage I give UD (besides being licensed of course) is the designers seem to have a better sense of aesthetics (imo) than ITG. I'd love to be the guy doing the designs, that is unless Tavares97 snatches up the job before me! But I'm not busting on ITG. Just to try to cut in on UD's monopoly gets major respect from me! I'm all for competition.

[jonpop]

aside from some repetitiveness in UD's designs, i have no complaints. while ITG can't be faulted for the images they're restricted to, they've simply never matched UD in terms of actual design. that's just my opinion though.

i feel UD tries to keep it more modern whereas ITG, having a niche in prospects and vintage players, tries to keep it more retro. if ITG gets their license back, they'll seriously need to hire a better designer. from what i hear, they have great breaks in their products but i'm not one for breaking an ugly product.

Have to agree here. I've spent 20 bucks maybe on their product since they've been around.