The 1997 Pinnacle baseball card set was highly anticipated at the time of its release due to Pinnacle’s reputation for producing high-quality cards with innovative designs and inserts. Collectors would be in for an unexpected surprise with this set due to an unusual packaging choice by Pinnacle that caused significant issues.
Pinnacle had been producing baseball cards since 1991 and established itself as a premier brand that collectors looked forward to each year. The 1996 set was one of Pinnacle’s most popular to date with popular inserts like Hall of Fame, Diamond Kings, and Hologram Parallels. Coming off this success, there was excitement around what new ideas Pinnacle would introduce for 1997.
Initial details and photos of the 1997 design showed another visually striking set that continued Pinnacle’s tradition of creative art and colorful styling on the fronts of the cards. The base card backs also featured an updated look with team-specific color schemes and fonts. Promotion of new parallels and inserts like Atomic Refractors, Studio Originals, and Master Editions further stoked collector anticipation for the release in late winter/early spring of 1997.
It was the unorthodox packaging choice that would ultimately define this set and taint collectors’ views of it for years after. For unknown reasons, Pinnacle elected to package the 1997 cards in sealed metal cans instead of the standard plastic or wax packs. Each can contained 36 factory-sealed foil packs with 4 cards each for a total of 144 cards per container.
On the surface, the cans seemed like a fun, novel way to display and store the packs and cards. But major design flaws soon became apparent. The thin metal provided little protection and the cards would get dented, creased or clipped at the corners during shipping and handling even with cushioning. The adhesive sealing the packs inside also resulted in damaged surfaces as cards stuck together.
Within weeks of hitting hobby shop shelves, collectors online and in store were complaining of widespread issues with damaged cards right out of the cans. Normally pristine parallels and stars like Prospect Premieres of Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter arrived mangled. Attempts to return damaged products were mostly unsuccessful as the distributor claimed the damage occurred post-purchase.
The 1997 Pinnacle cans rapidly gained an infamously bad reputation. Resale values on eBay reflected the lack of demand from wary collectors. Whereas high-end Pinnacle inserts from prior years maintained their premium, 1997 versions plummeted due to condition concerns from the questionable packaging methodology.
Despite the negative press, Topps, the parent company of Pinnacle at the time, made no public statements acknowledging the problem or how to rectify damaged cards for collectors. As frustration mounted on hobby forums, the damage was already done to the perception and subsequent collecting/speculating interest in 1997 Pinnacle cards going forward.
In hindsight, metal cans were an objectively poor choice that did not adequately protect the enclosed cards like plastic or wax materials would have. Whether it was an attempt at a unique marketing hook or poor research on structural integrity is unclear. But it remains a cautionary tale for other companies on how packaging decisions can adversely affect a product line’s reputation if not thoroughly tested beforehand.
For years, you couldn’t sell a 1997 Pinnacle card on eBay without multiple comments about potential damage from the cans. As the memory has faded for more casual collectors from that era, values have rebounded some as supply dwindles over time. Still, conditioned gems from the set often trade at steep discounts versus undamaged copies due to the uncertainty around surface quality no matter how aesthetically pleasing the design is.
The cans fiasco was bad timing for Pinnacle/Topps too, as the sports card market started cooling in the late 1990s amid overproduction. While the brand survived and remained popular through many subsequent respectable releases, the marketing misstep with 1997 left a blotch on an otherwise strong track record up to that point. It serves as a lesson about unforeseen consequences when not properly playtesting packaging concepts before large-scale rollout.
In hindsight, even in poor shape, the 1997 Pinnacle cards hold appeal for committed collectors due to the brand pedigree and unique inserts/parallels included. As the furor has died down over time, more fans are willing to cherry pick for PC favorites despite potential condition drawbacks. The design merits still shine through despite the ill-fated metal container experiment that came to define this set more than anything found on the cards inside.
