Skip to content

From the World of “Why?”: Photographic Follies Edition, Volume 3

September 21, 2011

1991-92 Ultimate Draft Picks Alex Stojanov

On one Wednesday of each month I like to write an article here at the bbbros.ca blog that takes a look at an aspect of the hobby and/or a specific card that leaves me wondering “why?”  Among the many themes that make an appearance in my From the World of “Why?” series are the Photographic Follies Edition articles in which I highlight some of the worst examples of photos that have found their way on to a sports card.

As you can see in the feature photo for this post, today I present a perfect example of just such an occasion with this 1991-92 Ultimate Draft Picks gem of former NHL tough guy Alek Stojanov.

I had actually planned today’s post months ago after discovering the card in a box of cards inherited from my brothers-in-law in the spring.  Strangely enough, not more than a month after discovering this card for the first time, I found this post at the blog Shoebox Legends, which led me to this post at the same blog.

Apparently I’m a couple of years late to the party when it comes to noticing the flaws in this Stojanov card, as it was the first example used on Shoebox Legends to identify why this might be the worst set ever produced.

For the purposes of this article though, I’m going to focus my attention on the Stojanov card alone rather than reiterating the thorough lambasting Shoebox Legends (justifiably) gave to the entire set.

Put simply, this card is a shining example of how not to choose an image to use on a trading card and leaves me with far more questions than answers.

Why would you ever use a picture that doesn’t show an athlete’s face?  That could be anybody on earth who just happens to be wearing a jersey with “STOJANOV” stitched on the back of it.

Why would you ever use a picture that shows a player getting levelled by a body check?  Shouldn’t you be featuring the player in a more positive light than being upended, falling face first toward the ice, with no helmet to help cushion the blow?

Was there no other option available that could have been used in place of this near-useless image?  The entire set looks to have been created using photos from a shoot that the company held with the sole purpose of producing this set.  There was really no other photo taken of this guy?

Aside from stating the obvious and saying that any photo other than this one should have been used (aside from an image of Stojanov’s inevitable crash landing following this hit), there really isn’t much more to say when trying to offer up a solution to this prime example of a Photographic Folly. If this is the best you’ve got, then perhaps saving some trees and ink is the more responsible alternative to releasing this set.

*****

If you enjoy the From the World of “Why?” series of posts here on the bbbros.ca blog, then be sure to head on over to the blog My Hockey Card Obsession.  The “To the Bike Spokes” posts are an entertaining read and definitely more creative than anything I have come up with when it comes to examining some failures featured in hockey card products.

If you have any examples of cards that leave you wondering “why?” then get in touch by leaving a comment in an article, emailing me at bb_bros@hotmail.com, or connecting on Facebook and Twitter.

Also remember to subscribe to the bbbros.ca blog by clicking the “Sign Me Up!” button in the right column or subscribing via the RSS feed.

Until Sunday’s Month-End “Business” Update, all the best in your collecting pursuits!

Ryan

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: