1972 Hitmakers Non-Sport Forum

I just rated a few sets, not based so much on aesthetics but more on how important they are to the music card world. I noticed this set already had two votes, for an average of 4.5, which baffled me. Why would anyone rate this set less than an 8? I think it's a 9, at least. A bunch of Hall of Fame music rookies, some names that have almost/literally no other cards, a variety of genres, durable construction. Aesthetically, it's one of my favorites. The color schemes are very nice. The design is pleasing, perhaps simple as far as modern sports cards but positively complex as far as most vintage music cards go. The best part is the back where there is an inordinate amount of biographical information for music cards. The only downsides are that they're oversized and maybe also that they're not especially rare, although like any music card set before 1990 they are still scarce in the context of sports card sets. So why would anyone knock it? Somebody help me understand.

The 1957 Topps Hit Stars set had 9 votes for an average of 6.6? What in tarnation...

Who on earth is voting so low for an all-time great music card set like that, and why?

If I were to showcase 10 music card sets as the best/most-important/most-loaded/prettiest, this is a rough idea of what that'd look like chronologically, if anyone feels like revisiting their votes. (Having some kind of first card or rookie designation in a Note would probably help so that people can see which music sets are the equivalent of 1933 Goudey, 1952 Topps, 1975 Topps, etc.)

1957 Topps Hit Stars

1959 Nu

1966 Monty Beat

1966 Heather Pop

1967 Heather Country

1968 Panini Cantanti

1971 Bergmann

1972 Panini Cantanti

1972 Hitmakers

1977 Monty Punk

1979 Warner Brothers

EDIT: I forgot 1959 Nu, which makes it 11, and if I had to bump one off the Top 10 then...yeah, I guess it'd be this Hitmakers set, which is incredible, because it's a powerhouse set.

Here's a rough mockup of what this set's checklist would look like if someday music cards were granted rookie status. (I estimate I'm only a little over halfway toward the goal of inputting all the relevant music sets, so these particular designations wouldn't be reliable enough until the sets are at least 90-95% done.)

The 1952 Topps set is rated 8.6 after 87 votes. The 1933 Goudey set is rated 8.5 after 25 votes. The 1975 Topps set is rated 8.4 after 185 votes. I have a suggestion: If anyone votes less than a 5 or 6 for a set like that, they should be banned from rating any sets for at least a year, because they are either trolling or they have such a horrible/clueless sense of judgment that their opinion needs to be quarantined.

OK, we get it. I'd tone it down a little bit as a couple of posts are on the hairy edge of violating forum rules.

The problem with the ratings is there's no context. Heaven knows why people rate sets the way they do. Just look at some of the Random Card of the Day comments. Some people think a card is great while others think the same card stinks. Some people will rate a "historic" set high while others couldn't care less. Trying to regulate ratings criteria would be a futile effort.

You're doing a great job with the music cards. Don't worry about how others rate them.

They were ALL removed?

So be it.

I'll just pretend the rating feature doesn't exist.

Hey, if you don't like a set, you don't like a set. If I was to rate all the sets I owned a card from (first it would take a while to do so), but I would rate the 1990 Fleer baseball set a 1. I really never liked it, and thought their quality was terrible. I know several people who think it's great. Am I trolling them by rating it a 1? Not at all. I don't like it. Never did. Maybe the same is the case with these other sets. We can't tell, we don't know. And it's not fair to "disallow" low ratings to sets because (the generic) you like the set. So what? I happen to really like the 1981 Fleer set. Others don't. Great! Who cares? Opinions are that way, and set ratings are strictly that, opinions.

You cannot be serious that you'd like to stop people from being able to rate sets because they don't like the same ones you like? That's absolutely ridiculous of you to even suggest.

So, yes, if you can't handle someone disagreeing with you about an opinion, you probably shouldn't be participating in that aspect of the site/hobby.