Weak Superfractors in '09 Bowman?

[Superfractor]

So I just received my first Superfractor from one of the '09 Bowman releases and I must say, they have turned quite weak. There's really nothing super about the card. As you can see from my the signature, I had to re-scan just the Blackmon super and re-touch it quite a bit. Here's the original and there's almost no difference between the super and your common refractor.
::facepalm::
I'm wondering if my Charlie Blackmon is the exception or is that how they all look/scan? (mediocre Superfractors) In actual life, the card has the technology that Superfractors are known for but without the grandiloquence.


http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac17 ... test-1.jpg

 

[cmixer]

BOOO - love the GOLD ones

 

[1st4040]

yours looks just like others that have been posted..

 

[Superfractor]

BOOO - love the GOLD ones

Me too. I thought it would compliment the golds, but it just distracts.

 

[subpop77]

FAIL :?

 

[Superfractor]

Did a quick search and it seems they're pretty tamed in terms of pizzazz.

If anyone owns the Red Refractor to complete my rainbow, let me know. Thanks.

You know it's fail when the X-fractor has more personality than the Super-Fractor. ::facepalm::

 

[Fandruw25]

So I just received my first Superfractor from one of the '09 Bowman releases and I must say, they have turned quite weak. There's really nothing super about the card. As you can see from my the signature, I had to re-scan just the Blackmon super and re-touch it quite a bit. Here's the original and there's almost no difference between the super and your common refractor.
::facepalm::
I'm wondering if my Charlie Blackmon is the exception or is that how they all look/scan? (mediocre Superfractors) In actual life, the card has the technology that Superfractors are known for but without the grandiloquence.


http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac17 ... test-1.jpg

At least it looks like the right signature on the card. I don't think eye appeal is what drives these prices up so much anyways...maybe a bit but not as much as the player on the front.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i126/ ... ractor.jpg

 

[beefycheddar]

But in contrast, 09 Topps Chrome and the Non Rookie Supers from 09 Bowman may be some of the best looking supers in years.

 

[Superfractor]

So I just received my first Superfractor from one of the '09 Bowman releases and I must say, they have turned quite weak. There's really nothing super about the card. As you can see from my the signature, I had to re-scan just the Blackmon super and re-touch it quite a bit. Here's the original and there's almost no difference between the super and your common refractor.
::facepalm::
I'm wondering if my Charlie Blackmon is the exception or is that how they all look/scan? (mediocre Superfractors) In actual life, the card has the technology that Superfractors are known for but without the grandiloquence.


http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac17 ... test-1.jpg

At least it looks like the right signature on the card. I don't think eye appeal is what drives these prices up so much anyways...maybe a bit but not as much as the player on the front.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i126/ ... ractor.jpg

Oh ,yeah, I don't purchase my Supers for their appeal but it is one of the things I enjoy. Do you know why they would alter the overall scheme of a prospect chrome Super-Fractor for the '09 year? I mean, I see no reason continuing with the gold-like style, being a bad idea. Sweet Jones, by the way.

 

[Superfractor]

But in contrast, 09 Topps Chrome and the Non Rookie Supers from 09 Bowman may be some of the best looking supers in years.

That Luis Esposito is sweet and it seems quite dynamic, unlike my Blackmon. Could it just be that Esposito's background is lighter and so the Superfractor layout is more visible compared to the dark background of my Blackmon?

 

[Fandruw25]

Oh ,yeah, I don't purchase my Supers for their appeal but it is one of the things I enjoy. Do you know why they would alter the overall scheme of a prospect chrome Super-Fractor for the '09 year? I mean, I see no reason continuing with the gold-like style, being a bad idea. Sweet Jones, by the way.

I never really liked the appeal of the supers in the first place. I think they are trying to do something different to entice more collectors, just as many manufactures have done in the past. I understand that some people are buying for appeal but for the most part I feel as though many are just doing it hoping for a flip and basing that on the 1/1 notation, not design. They tried it this year and people didn't like; I would bet next year there will be a new design or they will revert back to what made it what it was. (BTW, on the Jones, that's A-rods Sig :lol: )

 

[Superfractor]

Oh ,yeah, I don't purchase my Supers for their appeal but it is one of the things I enjoy. Do you know why they would alter the overall scheme of a prospect chrome Super-Fractor for the '09 year? I mean, I see no reason continuing with the gold-like style, being a bad idea. Sweet Jones, by the way.

I never really liked the appeal of the supers in the first place. I think they are trying to do something different to entice more collectors, just as many manufactures have done in the past. I understand that some people are buying for appeal but for the most part I feel as though many are just doing it hoping for a flip and basing that on the 1/1 notation, not design. They tried it this year and people didn't like; I would bet next year there will be a new design or they will revert back to what made it what it was. (BTW, on the Jones, that's A-rods Sig :lol: )

Yeah, I'm definitely in the minority. I simply love what they were in the past and it seems the only reason I'll be going for upcoming Rockies supers will be to attempt and complete my rainbows. I do hope they return to Gold Superfractors.

LOL at Jones facsimile: I'll take your word for it, though.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Its great that the design changes year after year, it makes it even easier to remember which year the card is from. Obviously Topps does this on purpose. I bet they will not use the same superfractor design twice, of course this means that not everybody will like the design every year.

I never really liked the appeal of the supers in the first place. I think they are trying to do something different to entice more collectors, just as many manufactures have done in the past. I understand that some people are buying for appeal but for the most part I feel as though many are just doing it hoping for a flip and basing that on the 1/1 notation, not design. They tried it this year and people didn't like; I would bet next year there will be a new design or they will revert back to what made it what it was. (BTW, on the Jones, that's A-rods Sig :lol: )

Yeah, I'm definitely in the minority. I simply love what they were in the past and it seems the only reason I'll be going for upcoming Rockies supers will be to attempt and complete my rainbows. I do hope they return to Gold Superfractors.

LOL at Jones facsimile: I'll take your word for it, though.[/quote]

 

[beefycheddar]

Its great that the design changes year after year, it makes it even easier to remember which year the card is from. Obviously Topps does this on purpose. I bet they will not use the same superfractor design twice, of course this means that not everybody will like the design every year.

This was really the biggest design change year due to the fact that there was a new team designing Bowman this year as opposed to years past.

 

[Superfractor]

Well, I'm not going to make my judgement on this year's supers final. I'll wait 'till I get my hands on other Rockies supers from this year.



By the By: Always looking for Rockies prospect supers.


Anyways: Thank you everyone, for the insight.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Interesting. It would be great if they could get the same design team and printer that did '97 or '98 Bowman's Best, those designs are superfractorish.

Its great that the design changes year after year, it makes it even easier to remember which year the card is from. Obviously Topps does this on purpose. I bet they will not use the same superfractor design twice, of course this means that not everybody will like the design every year.

This was really the biggest design change year due to the fact that there was a new team designing Bowman this year as opposed to years past.

 

[subpop77]

always liked the Bowman '05 the best IMO

 

[Superfractor]

Now that I see it and have some insight: Lulz at "Charlie Blackmon [weak] Superfractor." title. I'll change it as soon as pujolsjunkie's package comes in...

(and by package, I mean parcel of cards, of course.)