Topps Archives card stock, thoughts wanted

[mmier118]

Is it just me or would Topps Archives been a much better set if it was printed on the same card stock as topps Heritage. For some reason I just think that the card stock used is super thin and it feels like the cards were cut out of a magazine or something. I especially dislike the ones with the 1954 design and the thin stock. Am I the only one that feels this way or are there others that think this set could have been so much better with a different and thicker stock, like the old cards they are mimicking. Any thoughts?

 

[PujolsCollector]

Yea. The archives cards are super thin. It is crazy, I picked one up at the top and bottom of it and it bowed to the middle I was like wth is this crap?

 

[Mick65]

That is my biggest complaint with Archives, it's too bad that they can consistently get it wrong with a product.

 

[tonsofcommons]

I agree. It's too bad they didn't use the same card stock as the 2001/2002 Archives set.

 

[Leaf]

It costs way more to use the paper used on heritage..

 

[Mick65]

Exactly, Don't know how they made any money in the past at a quarter a pack and regular stock that didn't curl up the minute you opened it. Donruss was on to something in 1981, don't know why they didn't stick with it.

We just put a big rubber band in the car, an engine costs way more....

At $85 a box you have to make choices, flimsy card stock or a auto of Steve Balboni. (And I really like this product, just a pet peeve from an old school collector)