If you’ve followed me on Twitter for any length of time, you know I love collecting old baseball cards, and you know my scale tips heavily nostalgia > actual value. Most of the boxes I’ve bought in the past year, from card shops or eBay, have been priced in the $5 to $20 range and have been firmly from the heart of the Junk Wax Era.

These cards were my childhood, and I still cherish them. So what you’re about to read comes from that place of love. Please remember that. I’m not really angry, just disappointed.

Because as I’ve opened these boxes (and packs I’ve hunted down in antiques stores), I’ve been reminded that not all memories are happy memories. Some of these cards just, well, stink. Some stink because their designs are either repulsive or bland, and some stink because billions and billions of them were produced and cards I once thought were going to be worth big money are basically worthless. It’s the harsh truth of the Junk Wax Era.

MORE: Ranking the 13 best sets of the Junk Wax Era

Speaking of the “Junk Wax Era," there are many opinions, but no official start or end to the period. For our purposes, I’m defining the start as 1987 — when production totals jumped dramatically again, after a hefty jump in 1986 — and ending it with 1993. By then, companies had started to realize, at least to a certain extent, that maybe it was a good idea not to completely flood the market with more cards than anyone could possibly handle.

Make sense? So, here are the 11 worst sets of the Junk Wax Era. This is mostly my own ranking, but I asked for help from some of my Twitter followers and not only did they contribute their own comments, but they influenced my ranking at least a tiny bit.

Let’s jump in. We’ll start with my thoughts on the sets and then you can read the Twitter-submitted comments.

11. 1990 Donruss

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/f7/15/1990-donruss-041420-ftr-snjpg_s8uodj4yabsz1tcxdt7hbnvb3.jpg?t=2051156569&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: Honestly, I kinda like this set. And I was only going to rank the 10 worst, but, wow, y’all had lots of venom stored up for this set, so I’ll add it here and just let you Twitter folks have at it.

@kuchemJ: Complete discrimination against kids who couldn't read cursive yet. What were they thinking? I mean I get it, you know Ken Griffey Jr. by the pic, but what about some rookie with a .210 batting average? The cursive on the front of the card looks like some cheesy intro from some early '90s TV show.

@fungogolf25: So many errors. They were so quick to print these terrible cards that they didn’t proof anything. Juan Gonzalez reverse negative. Birthdays are wrong. Batting averages are wrong. Just a big mess. An error should be valuable, not the norm.

@unmarketing: Mostly, my hunt for the fake John Smoltz. I had always been fascinated by error cards and John Smoltz’s card had Tom Glavine’s face. I started collecting more packs, knowing I hit a gold mine. I shoveled driveways and ran to the store to spend my earnings after each one. I ended owning the full set, including 15 error cards. That’s when I found out unless it’s part of a limited first run, the error card is worthless. FML

@ChrisInSTL: In hindsight, 1990 Donruss was just awful. Script names were difficult to read, orange borders were garish, and brutal photography. Seriously — the most dynamic and sought-after player the previous year, Ken Griffey Jr., doesn’t get an action shot. He gets a kneeling, back-lit spring training photo. And this set had so many errors, there are only two explanations — 1. Donruss was inept or 2. they intentionally made errors to drive demand. I vote #2. Also, it’s sort of a kick in the gut that the big rookie that we were chasing out of this set at the time was Ben McDonald.

@ssb19876: Let's start with the hideous red design with the cursive name and the paint spackle on the side. Goodness those are and were horrible to look at! And the real reason I hated that set? The heartbreak! All those rookie cards ... Sosa, Olerud, Gonzalez, etc. Man, did I think I had the motherload of sets, only to realize they were not only ugly, but outrageously over-produced to the point I could buy a complete unopened set for under $15 today. And I assure you, I spent at least $500 on wax boxes of that crap in 1990.

@tim_wheel: The set is so full of errors that you really have to wonder who rubber stamped the go-ahead for release, and if they even cared about the product they were bringing to market. In fact, the set is so low quality, and so bereft of high-end rookies (apologies to Larry Walker), that the only cards of any value in the set are the error cards. The set is so bad that one time, when I placed a fairly large order for mid-'90s through mid-aughts factory sealed Topps sets on eBay, and the seller included a “free bonus” 1990 Donruss sealed factory set with my order to fill the shipping box, I almost wrote him a note demanding an apology for mailing me literal garbage.

10. 1988 Score

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/84/8c/1988-score-041420-ftr-snjpg_9usrjmc3mh821fx6cajygaipe.jpg?t=2051107505&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: I was VERY EXCITED for a new entry into the world of baseball card collecting in 1988, and so initially I really liked these cards, even though I never seemed to get any good cards, and they were everywhere. For me, 1987 was the golden year of collecting, with three great set designs and rookie classes, and it took me a while to accept that 1988 Score just wasn’t a good set. It was kinda like "The Phantom Menace." Stick with me. The three classic "Star Wars" movies were AWESOME, so when "Phantom Menace" came out, my brain couldn’t accept that it was actually horrible, even though deep down there was this nagging truth straining to get out. Basically, 1988 Score is my "Phantom Menace" of baseball cards.

@ToddHertz: ’88 Score gives me the heebie jeebies for two reasons: 1. The borders usually didn’t match team colors. I remember ranting to friends about why an Ozzie Smith card would be purple! 2. My first autographed card was an ’88 Harold Baines (orange border!?) and I worried it was fake because I bought it from a neighbor kid named Mick.

@11TimeChamps: No creativity at all. I vividly remember being upset anytime someone would get me a pack of ’88 Score. Such a boring looking card.

@JohnStolnis: Score should have never gotten into the game. These single-color monstrosities were garish and horrific-looking, and the colors they decided to use didn’t match the team colors in the slightest. They seemed to be trying to re-create what ’87 Fleer did with their all-blue cards, but those were beautiful. These were ugly and blah. No team logo on the front of the card, either? No thank you. These cards were mass produced, worth absolutely nothing, and ugly to boot. They truly were the very definition of worthless.

9. 1989 Bowman

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/1d/3e/1989-bowman-041420-ftr-snjpg_17fvz5dyjteu617nua7jduyxdl.jpg?t=2051764017&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: THE CARDS WERE TOO TALL! Sheesh. I get what they were trying, the throwback look in the comeback year, but this caused all kinds of logistical issues. Loved the rookies; Junior Griffey was here and Bowman was the only company to have a 1989 Jerome Walton rookie, which was a big deal back then. But the photography was meh, at best, and did I mention that the cards were too tall to fit in binders, card holders or boxes? Aargh.

@ChrisInSTL: I remember buying quite a bit of 1989 Bowman when it came out because it had sort of a throwback look, sort of the anti-Upper Deck. But it had one fatal flaw — the cards were taller than standard so they didn’t fit in my baseball card album. And THAT, my friends, is a deal-breaker.

@ericthewelch: The size of the card was the worst. It never fit nice and neat with other cards in the white card boxes. I understand wanting to set yourself apart (see: Upper Deck) from the pack (pun intended), but making the card bigger set themselves apart for all the wrong reasons. Additionally, the new take on back-of-the-card stats was a nice attempt but ended up annoying me.

@CStoneman3: This is the set I truly hate more than any other. Just horrifically boring visually, awful card stock quality and virtually every one of them I ever had ended up getting dinged or outright bent because of that stupid extra 1/4 inch.

8. 1992 Score

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/d2/4e/1992-score-041420-ftr-snjpg_59gyd81racxe1xgctaj06cvmo.jpg?t=2051284569&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: For the life of me, I have no idea why anyone would want to take up so much of the front of their baseball card with a block of solid color, when that space could be used for, I dunno, literally anything else (preferably a full baseball photo). And, yikes, this base set was 893 cards, which meant you were opening at least three full boxes to even have hope of completing the set. I’m generally a fan of fun subsets, but I also hate overkill — so it’s a dilemma. I’m looking on eBay right now and someone is selling the entire set for $3.99 (shipping is $12.25, tho).

@CStoneman3: I presume this aberration was meant to be avant-garde or something. I despise random, irrelevant colors on cards (see 1975 Topps) and that dumb, non-team colored bar that took up a quarter of every player pic drove me especially nuts. Removing the background from PART of a photo just to show you can is idiotic. Making sure the colored bar doesn’t even coordinate with team colors seems a special effort to cause me to have an aneurysm. The worst of these years.

@15CK15CK: This set was just plain ugly. Well, the third or so of the set with the orange accent color was ugly. Although, even the blue and green accent was annoying, since it took up 25 percent or more of the card. I think I bought three packs of those and not one more after that.

7. 1988 Topps

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/93/a5/1988-topps-041420-ftr-snjpg_ou9rxgagmh7y1txc1sm7hkvwc.jpg?t=2051132441&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: Look, 1988 was just a bad year for card companies. Spoiler: Fleer is the only set from that year that didn’t make this list (and there are plenty of people who dislike that one, but I like it and it’s my list, so there). And, if we’re being honest, the awful 1988 lineup was probably one of the reasons everyone loved the 1989 Upper Deck set. It was damn cathartic to have a legitimately good-looking set of cards after 1988’s debacle.

But this is about 1988 Topps. The design is bland. The 1987 set was the iconic wood-grain border, and the 1989 set has a great, simple design that just screams “classic Topps.” The selection of rookies wasn’t great for any set in 1988, but Topps managed to miss almost everybody — no Roberto Alomar, no Mark Grace and no Gregg Jefferies in the base set. Topps somehow didn’t even add Jefferies, a hobby phenom, you’ll remember, in its 1988 Traded set, where Alomar and Grace made their Topps debuts.

@ChrisWGamble: 1988 Topps wins based on the pure boredom that comes to mind with the set. The design was as basic as it gets. The only rookie worth having is Tom Glavine and even that card is as exciting as the prospect of being quarantined for another month. We all know 1988 wasn’t an exciting year for collecting but Score came out, Donruss gave us funky blue borders, Fleer gave us a kind of patriotic border with those red and blue stripes. Topps gave us a bland team name at the top, the player name on a little ribbon in a corner and a mostly boring photo. This is arguably the most boring set ever produced and to this day zaps my energy like I’m a kid coming down from a sugar rush as I sort my collection.

@DaSanz23: The cards on the bottom of the boxes was a bit of a no-no for me. I never cared for the idea. And at 792 cards, it was extremely overwhelming, especially if you are a completist and collect all the image variations and error cards and such.

@mattdaigle: 1988 Topps might as well have been printed on toilet paper. I got so many dinged-up corners from my wax packs and the gum stained a fair share as well.

MORE: The story of a small New Jersey card store with a big heart

6. 1991 Donruss

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/ec/22/1991-donruss-041420-ftr-snjpg_swsj4aih21j01ilfx2bnot0et.jpg?t=2051212145&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: It’s the first year Donruss split its offering into Series I and Series II, which didn’t help. And the rookie-card selection is just pitiful. Not even the classic Rated Rookie logo could spice up that lineup — nine of the 40 RRs spread over the two series finished with a negative career bWAR (yes, I looked them all up). Yikes. The 1991 Upper Deck set had rookie cards for Hall of Famers Chipper Jones, Mike Mussina and Jeff Bagwell. Donruss whiffed on all three. In the pre-coronavirus days, you could go to any baseball card show and pick up a box of these for $5, if dealers even bothered to bring them.

@Yay4Sportsballs: First of all, these cards are UGLY. The multi-colored stripes and paint splatter all over the blue or green borders just screams early '90s, and not in a good way. Another problem I have with this set is the sheer over-production of these cards. They made a gazillion of this set, and I kept buying packs and boxes, convinced that I was someday going to land the Holy Grail: one of the Elite Series cards numbered to 10,000 each. I bought hundreds of packs, but all I ever got was mountains of worthless, ugly cards (and at least 10 complete Willie Stargell puzzles). Lastly, the Rated Rookies in this set are wholly unimpressive.

@15CK15CK: This was one of, if not the first set to come out with a Series I and a Series II. Man, did that piss me off as a kid. Using allowance to buy packs, but having to split between the two series to try to get the set. Especially since I thought Series II, with the green borders, was the cooler-looking design. The blue borders just looked to similar to ’88, which was too recent.

@DougDavis66: Just awful color combos on the card front with stripes and dots. A negative for me with all Donruss cards are incomplete statistics. I like to see career numbers.

5. 1991 Fleer Ultra

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/10/23/1991-fleer-ultra-041420-ftr-snjpg_139bl5fjnspir1xbvl80k12uyb.jpg?t=2051260441&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: Apparently Fleer thought it could just slap the word “Ultra” on cards, throw a little silver in the design, charge a premium pack price and collectors would go crazy. Uh, nope. The photography is a bit better in this set than the standard Fleer offerings of 1990 and 1991, but that’s not a high bar to clear. The company clearly was not trying in 1991, which was evident with its 1992 offerings. That base Fleer set was, in my opinion, stunning with its green card stock, high-quality photos and large names (normally not a fan, but it worked for 1992 Fleer), and the 1992 Fleer Ultra set was, and still is, one of my all-time favorite “premium” sets. Everything that was great about the 1992 Fleer Ultra set shines a spotlight on how awful the 1991 offering was. Blah.

And, to be honest, this was probably a better set than the 1991 Donruss, but it’s ranked higher/worse because at least Donruss didn’t have the audacity to call its offering “Ultra” or something equally misleading. Yes, I’m still annoyed. Apparently none of my Twitter followers agreed, which is why there are no comments, but I’m still ranking this set No. 5.

4. 1989 Score

Why this set was the worst: It’s like Score heard all the criticisms of the colorful 1988 debut set and went completely in the other direction: “Hey, they said we’re too colorful so let’s produce the blandest set imaginable and show those jerks!” I mean, that had to be it, right? The most damning criticism of 1989 Score is this: It’s completely forgettable. It's so forgettable that I didn't even have any to take a picture of (if you want to see what they look like, here you go). Also, no Ken Griffey Jr. rookie. Unforgivable in 1989, and not much better in 2020.

One more thing, because I don’t want to seem like I’m only hating on Score. I love, love, love the 1990 set. I’ve bought TWO boxes in the past calendar year, and might try to find another when I finally open the dozen or so packs I have remaining. The Bo card — you know the one — and the first-round picks and rookies were all great. So, y’know, kudos to Score for finally getting things right with its third effort.

@halemckirnan: I can’t imagine a more generic baseball card template. A geometric diamond on a bed of random colors with block lettering of team, position and player name. A completely half-assed effort. The only saving grace to Score ’89 is the Chris Sabo card is perfect. Sabo was the Reds gritty 3rd baseman (known as Spuds for obvious reasons). Is he bunting, slap-hitting to right, whiffing on a change-up? Who knows, but it’s a perfect card.

MORE: On Cory Snyder, baseball cards and youthful naiveté

3. 1991 Fleer

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/a/d3/1991-fleer-041420-ftr-snjpg_acygrilzg0uc13wtq550ey65j.jpg?t=2051236569&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: Let’s start with this: There’s only one reason this isn’t in the No. 1 spot: The Pro-Visions insert set. Those cards, painted by artist Terry Smith, are glorious. They were stunning in 1991 and they are stunning now. I still want to have poster-sized versions up on the walls of my yet-to-be-started man cave/basement. It should be pointed out that those cards weren’t even Fleer’s idea — Smith wrote the company with his idea and finally, more than two years later, Fleer said yes. Thank you, Terry. Unlike the No. 4 set on our list — King Blah Score — these yellow cards with zero imagination were offensively awful. But you don’t have to take my word for it.

@sloopylew: 1991 Canary Fleer is just the worst set — I hated opening them, the overall quality of photos was terrible, and the damn bright yellow was blindingly annoying. Minus the exceptional subset of drawn and colored stars (that Eric Davis is money!) this set is a complete joke. Not a single card in there would I put in a collection. Post cereal made higher-quality cards.

@halemckirnan: First of all, they are ugly & look cheap. Who picked mustard yellow? Secondly, as a Reds fan, this is the first season after the wire-to-wire season when the Reds won the World Series after beating the Bash Bros. These yellow-and-black Fleer cards look like an homage to the Pittsburgh Pirates unbranded team-issued card giveaways that all teams used to give away at the parks. The Reds beat the Pirates in the playoffs in ’90, so why did Fleer pick those losers as its card template?

@mattkemm: 1991 Fleer cards were just atrocious. If being blinded by the “construction yellow” border wasn’t bad enough, there’s just nothing of even decent value.

@StillyRyan: My hatred for this set is two-fold. The obvious reason is because this set is hideous. Whoever decided that yellow borders was a good idea should’ve been fired. Just dreadful. The main reason for my disdain of this set is that I had asked for a box of '91 Upper Deck for my birthday. I was pretty convinced that my parents were going to get it for me because they actually went to Shinders! When it finally came time to open my gifts, I tore the paper off to expose the red abomination of the '91 Fleer box. My parents explained that "it was the same thing." Such a letdown. No chance at Nolan Ryan and Hank Aaron autograph cards for this guy.

2. 1988 Donruss

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/ef/30/1988-donruss-041420-ftr-snjpg_x5gdysgmpu9q13qoxp39q2n8w.jpg?t=2051070537&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: This might be the most uninspiring set design of all time. Maybe it’s because I loved the 1987 Donruss set, and I’m a big fan of 1989, too (though that set had significant centering issues). It’s not that the set is bland, like 1989 Score or 1988 Topps, but I knock off points (from my made-up, biased scale) because it looks like Donruss tried to be creative but wound up with uninspiring all the same. The photography, kids, ain’t great. It looks like half of the pictures were taken with disposable cameras ("Look at me and smile. Or don’t. It doesn't matter to us.").

I seriously thought about putting this one No. 1 — these are the only packs I’ve opened in the past few years that actually bored me — but here’s why I was swayed against that decision: Donruss actually did a decent job picking rookies that year. Better than the other 1988 sets. They were the only ones to include Roberto Alomar in the base set, and they had Mark Grace, Tom Glavine, Al Leiter and Gregg Jefferies (though Glavine and Jefferies somehow didn’t make Rated Rookie status).

@mattdaigle: 1988 Donruss was the first non-Topps card I got into but I'll forever be haunted by the fact that I placed all my eggs in the Gregg Jefferies basket and traded away many a better card for multiple copies of something that I thought was rare and valuable. Spoiler alert: they were not.

@thesportsrabbi: 1988 and 1989 Donruss have to be it. Living in Montreal and suffering through the Topps Canadian brother O-Pee-Chee for years, our only other option north of the border, Donruss began inundating the market with off-center cards that bore terrible photography. Some of the Rated Rookie players looked so out of it, including Kevin Elster or Al Leiter in '88 and Ken Griffey Jr. and Randy Johnson in '89. But at least they were in the set!

1. 1990 Fleer

(Ryan Fagan/SN) https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/sporting_news/35/d7/1990-fleer-041420-ftr-snjpg_uqui0if47nwuz40n0jldufd5.jpg?t=2051185145&w=500&quality=80

Why this set was the worst: Let me put it this way. I love my toddler daughter very, very much. More than I thought was humanly possible. And my daughter loves opening packs of baseball cards, especially 1990 Fleer packs with the stickers from the box I bought for $10 last fall. She takes the little round team stickers from each pack and puts them all over the house. It’s her joy. We’re down to our last three or four packs. But, folks, I’m not buying another box of 1990 Fleer for her. I just can’t bear the thought of looking through more packs of that awful, horrible set. Every single pack she opened had — not an exaggeration — at last 10 cards with horrible centering. Even the All-Star inserts are bad. I’m angry just typing this. It’s a good thing BabyGirl loves those Donruss puzzle pieces, and a double-good thing I found cheap box of 1988 Fleer stickers on eBay this weekend. She’ll have plenty of packs to open, but they won’t be 1990 Fleer.

@ABDugoutStories: For my pocket change — and that's really all you should be spending on any of these cards — I will select the 1990 Fleer set as the absolute worst. The reason it gets the nod is simple. This may very well be the most dull set of baseball cards ever assembled. From the white border on the front — or is it vanilla? I can't tell — to the mainly white background on the back, this set has no personality whatsoever. Don't believe me? Look at Bo Jackson's card. The most exciting player of the era and that's the image you use? Or there's a double-chinned Mark McGwire grimacing while he plays catch. The list is endless. Admittedly, there are some decent-looking All-Star inserts and some, uh colourful, Soaring Stars added. But the base set has the personality of Ben Stein's droning voice from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." Go crack some packs, but leave these on the shelf.

@kuchemJ: What is the obsession with stripes? Grey stripes on the '89 set and that weird blue and reddish stripes on the other. I mean honestly, Fleer was the Dollar General of baseball cards anyway, so why add fuel to the fire? I mean, honestly, what kid did you know back then bought Fleer? I judged it at age 10, and I'm still judging at 42.

@ericthewelch: For some unknown reason, I decided to attempt to build the 1990 Fleer set strictly by buying packs and the occasional box. I opened pack after pack of off-centered, hazy pics surrounded by a dull design. Suffice to say, I never finished the set, which is now worth a whopping $15 (according to Beckett). However, the aura around the Jose Uribe card is fascinating.

MORE: Ranking the top 15 baseball card sets of the '80s and '90s

Honorable mentions

Some of you Twitter folks included sets that didn’t make my list, but your comments were so great that I’m including a few of them here. Thanks for contributing!

@kuchemJ: The Upper Deck holograms … MOTHER. OF. GOD. What a cheap ass marketing ploy. Upper Deck was the F boy wannabe with an STD. I mean I get it, Upper Deck 90-92 from a graphic design standpoint had some nice pictures, but to put some stupid hologram so the kids would run in droves is pathetic. Also, I HATED Upper Deck 'cause the "slick looking popular" (I have much more colorful language I'd prefer to use) boys in my school loved Upper Deck and I had to hate it 'cause I hated them. They were jerks who didn't appreciate the only true baseball card in my book, Topps. I'm purist.

@StillyRyan: My hatred of 1990 Score has nothing to do with the cards themselves. It’s a story of betrayal and thievery. My friends and I were all huge Bo Jackson fans growing up (even being from small town WI) and were all on the hunt for his famous black and white shoulder pads with baseball bat card. For some reason it had eluded us for many months but then one day, I opened a pack and there it was! I proudly bragged to my friends that I had finally found the Bo Jackson. One day shortly after I found our holy grail (at the time), we had all gotten together at a friends house to trade cards like we frequently did. I showed off my Bo like it was my prized possession. After the get together, I was looking thru my cards and my Bo card was gone! I searched up and down for it to no avail. I grilled every one of my friends that were there and no one fessed up to stealing the card. To this day, I have no idea who had stolen my holy grail.

@halemckirnan: This is an aesthetic issue. I view Topps ’89 as the classic baseball card design (two-tone pennant team script + name as a nod to baseball heritage). The 1989 Randy Johnson Expos card is a perfect example; it could have been from 1964 or 1989. But the 1990 Topps jumped too far ahead with a futuristic design. Players helmets/hats covering the team name, the vanishing needle-point color-design. Yuck.

@heyjude1982: I hated 1991 Topps as a kid. I thought the design was tacky, especially that huge 40th anniversary logo. And if a 9-year-old boy in rural Missouri thinks you’re tacky then. Brother. you’ve missed your mark. The photo quality was low on much of that set that I had, not like poor poses or composition but actual photo quality. There was a low bar in that era and they still fell short. My other beef was those cards came perpetually bent and felt like they were copy paper thin.

@mattkemm: 1988 Fleer resembled a Fruit Stripe gum wrapper way to much.

@sloopylew: 1987 Topps can go to hell. I must have had 1,400 total cards but never once pulled a Bonds, Cansaco, Palmeiro, Bo, McGwire. I like the design, but I didn't need 43 "Brewers Leaders" cards. Didn't help that today you can buy the whole set for $15. What I could have done with all the money I invested in you, Topps!

@Yay4Sportsballs: The 1992 Triple Play cards were made for and marketed towards 5-12 year olds, and I was 9 when this set came out. I eagerly bought these up when I could find them, but I ultimately found them to disappointing. With a base set of just 264 cards and only one 12-card set of inserts, I quickly ended up with mountains of duplicate cards. When opening packs of these, I kept waiting for something fresh and exciting to emerge, but nothing ever did. I also hated the red-orange-yellow gradient of the borders and the off-kilter framing of the photos within.