base cards: 98 of 100 – 49.0% complete (10 duplicates)
trivia cards: 55 of 136 – 40.4% (16 duplicates and higher)
14 – Pete Rose (front and back)
44 – Eric Davis (front and back)
84 – Cincinnati Reds Team Hitting Leaders
35 – Cincinnati Reds Team Pitching Leaders
- base cards
The base cards were a huge disappointment. I was very much looking forward to this box, and I should have known better. The images are fuzzy – borderline worthless. The fact that each card includes three player images (each equally worthless) is not much consolation. The backs of the cards are actually the best part because you can actually read them and tell what is going on.
- trivia cards
Since when is a “trivia card” a listing of statistical data? Doesn’t there need to be a question on the card for it to be a trivia card? These were a disappointment.
I did not scan any of the subset cards. A few cards had multiple panels to show off multiple players, like the top shortstops or similar. It did not matter who they put on the cards because the pictures are unrecognizable anyway.
- marketing cards
Each pack included a marketing insert card. I don’t know if these are interesting to anyone. I think they’re cool, especially since the real cards in the packs suck so hard. All the packs in this particular box had the following offer to buy some logo pins.
Other packs from a different box had an offer for disc cards.
Yet another box had an offer for some more trivia cards.
Other boxes may contain other offers. It seems that Sportflics had no problem trying to get people to send in more money.
What a dud? I guess this box deserves some credit for getting my juices flowing in anticipation of the break. The disappointment, however, was pretty big. Why does this product suck? It is because the player pictures are terrible. If a card has terrible pictures, then the card is bad. Back in 1987, all cards were marginal at best. It’s just that nobody knew it. When I bought (and loved) Sportflics as a kid, I liked the cards because they were different. Sportflics tried something new, and it really did stand out from the other cookie-cutter garbage.
Why don’t these cards stand up to the test of time? Again, it’s because the pictures are awful. Twenty-five years later, we now have cards with great photography and beautiful pictures. We know better now. Sportflics tried commendably to do something new. A couple years later Upper Deck followed with the unthinkable – don’t make a different product, just make the product better. There is a lesson somewhere in here for Topps.
Other blogs’ takes on 1987 Sportflics
As far as I can tell, nobody else has featured 1987 Sportflics in a box break or pack rip. Luck them.