Tonight's reader pack comes from Nick via email...
(My notes are in italics)
Josh Barfield. First card in the pack has him on the Indians but
shows him wearing a Padres jersey. I hate when this happens...it
feels like the card it broken. We can't fix this with Photoshop yet?
Ryan Sweeney. Rookie card. Back of the card says "Sweeney finished
his MLB debut on a positive note..." which, translated into baseball
card language means "he sucks."
Chad Paronto. Apparently Upper Deck now just skips over years where
guys were in the minors and prefers lots of blank space over minor
league stats. This Paronto card jumps from 03 to 06 with no
explanation, leaving me to deduce that his 9.45 era probably meant a
demotion. This sucks. I love minor league stats on the back of a
card, mostly because I get to see what backwoods hickhole they came
from but also because, like in the case of the Fleer Roger Clemens
rookie, you can see how a major leaguer put up ridiculous stats before
getting called up.
Jaret Wright. The photos on these cards are beautiful...even if this
is the second card that shows the guy playing for his old team.
David Weathers. Shows him signing autographs while wearing his glove
on his head. Hilarious!
Magglio Ordonez. Good call by Upper Deck planting photographers at
the playoffs. This isn't a very good shot - Magglio is running like a
moron toward a celebration-pile - but it's still a hell of a lot
cooler than David Weathers standing in his warmups.
Joel Zumaya. Awesome card, and a famous photograph, of Zumaya
celebrating the ALCS. Someone's got champagne. Someone's taking a
cameraphone pictures. People are screaming and grabbing his head.
Just awesome. One question, though, did Upper Deck take this picture
or did they buy it from the AP?
Jeff Weaver. Pumping his fist after doing something good in the World
Series. Very cool. Shitty hair.
Hanley Ramirez. Bad photo on the front is made worse (to a Red Sox
fan) by all the talk about how good his ROY season was.
Yorvit Torrealba.
Nick Swisher. Cool use of the card's space with a shot of Swisher
flapping his arms for some reason.
Jeremy Bonderman. Yet another Tigers celebration card, this time of
Bonderman tipping his cap to the crowd. Classy.
Orlando Hudson. Good move changing the uniforms for the Diamondbacks.
Mike Mussina. Classy shot of the man in action...but there are 4 Nike
logos in this picture.
Josh Johnson.
Overall: The photos are real pretty and the design is simple. I'm
not a huge fan of the team-colored streaks coming in on the team and
position sections, but I've seen a lot worse. As for the players...I
guess this is pretty good out of 500 to choose from.
Nick's assessment of the set is fairly positive, while I found this set bordering on the boring. That's not to say that he didn't get a decent pack. The Success Rate is 53.3% (8/15), with Mussina, Bonderman, Swisher, Ordonez, Ramirez, Weaver, O-Dog and the clearly stoked Zumaya.
And Another Thing... Here's a fun fact about the Upper Deck set: like its Fleer imprint, Upper Deck is printing out the full team name 'Colorado Rockies' on the front of base cards for players of that team, rather than just the team nickname. I find this interesting, especially because it can't just be an Upper Deck thing; I'd have to think that Topps is also tied into this somehow, but because Topps prints all the full team names on the fronts of their base cards you don't notice the 'Colorado' in 'Colorado Rockies'.
This is especially interesting when you consider the 2007 Heritage set, since for some reason the Angels are listed only as 'Angels' (every other time has some form of place name or place abbreviation). It seems that faced with the prospect of having to find a way to squeeze 'Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim' onto the front of its cards, Topps didn't bother to even make an effort.
Email me with your pack and I might post it on the blog!
April 29, 2007
April 27, 2007
If You Only Buy One Issue of Tuff Stuff In The Next Year...
...make sure it's the June issue. I haven't (regularly) purchased Tuff Stuff since I had a subscription in the early Nineties (back when the book was over 180 pages thick every month), but I pick it up occasionally.
Now here's another reason: the June issue will feature an article in celebration of the year that spawned three of the ten best sets of the 1980s--1987. As an added bonus, I've given a few quotes on the matter.
If you don't get a chance to pick up a copy of the publication, here's a link to the web version of the article.
Now here's another reason: the June issue will feature an article in celebration of the year that spawned three of the ten best sets of the 1980s--1987. As an added bonus, I've given a few quotes on the matter.
If you don't get a chance to pick up a copy of the publication, here's a link to the web version of the article.
April 24, 2007
Card Critic: 2007 Upper Deck Series 1
By now everybody and their brother knows that the Topps board of directors is up in arms over the $384.5 million takeover bid from Eisner and Torante. A lot of them want it to go through, but a few contrarians want the company to keep the door open for higher bids.
As has been reported in major newspapers and other media outlets, one such rival bid has come in from Upper Deck, at a dollar higher per share than the Torante bid (a reported $10.75 per share versus Torante’s $9.75 per share). And so while other media outlets sort of fail to mention that this would be a very big deal should Topps rescind acceptance of the Torante bid and accept Upper Deck’s—the fact that there would be one major manufacturer of baseball cards for the first time since 1980 and spell the end of Topps’ Pavlovian equivalence with the word ‘baseball card’ in the minds of countless millions of Americans—I think that to get the full experience, I need to approach a review of UD’s Series 1 with this news in mind.
It’s interesting that Upper Deck would put in a bid to buy Topps. The two companies are so different that it’s almost like one needs the other for survival. Good and evil, Lego Town and Lego Space, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson…for one to simply disappear now would produce no winners. I would even argue that the average collector would lose tremendously. UD already owns the Fleer imprint and have turned it into a retail-only product for 2007, denying hobby store patrons the chance to pull some great (albeit worthless) ‘Perfect 10’ inserts. Adding Topps to the mix, Upper Deck would not be simply adding the Topps and Bowman imprints to their collection, they’d be acquiring the vaunted Topps Vault, which is basically the history of baseball cards post-World War II. With so many classic imprints to choose from and budgets to meet on every line, who’s to say that Upper Deck wouldn’t be tyrannical in their card set decisions and pump out crap set after crap set for all of eternity? Now at least if they do that, they have a competitor in Topps.
I’ve written about Upper Deck before at great length, but when they burst onto the scene in 1989, they got so many things right that the normal learning curve just didn’t apply. They led their sets with (and thus showcased) rookies. They included special cards, cards with fun, offbeat photography, artistic cards and holograms—lots of holograms. And they built on their success the very next year with randomly-inserted autographed cards, insert cards and more of what made their 1989 product great. Sure, they made a helluva lot more of the cards in 1990 and the set wasn’t career-defining, but it helped set the table for the company for the next few years. Their forward-thinking mentality helped them nearly corner the certified-autographed sports memorabilia racket and carried them into the 21st century. Round about this time, Donruss lost their license from Major League Baseball, Upper Deck bought up what was left of the Fleer imprint after the company went bankrupt and many of the other early-Nineties competitors fell by the wayside. Coming into 2007, the landscape is again sparsely populated, with only Topps and Upper Deck producing licensed sets. So far the two companies have released at least eight product lines between them, with many more on the way (there were 38 different product lines produced in 2006, not counting the scores of insert sets available as well). This set will be UD’s flagship base set for 2007. And it’s not a bad set. It’s a little boring, but that’s okay. There are literally a ton of cards in this set. There are 500 cards in just the first series, so that leads me to believe, without reading a sell sheet on the product, that there will be 500 in Series 2 and then a tacked-on Updates series that will come out in September or October of at least another 100 cards. That’s 1,100 cards, just in one set. Now we’re talking early-Nineties Score in terms of comparable bulk. 1991 Score was what a big set was all about: lots of subsets, lots of benchwarmers, role players, special cards, super stars, all-stars, et cetera. It looks like 2007 Upper Deck is nothing like that set. I got no cards that I would consider subset cards, just card after glossy card of regular players.
So then if the regular set is a bore, why bother collecting it? Well, the photography is great. Fantastic photos are an Upper Deck staple, and 2007 is no exception. And everybody’s got a card (and I mean everybody). And this product literally has desirable inserts coming out of its ears. Rookie Redemption, anyone? In preparation for this review I had considered a number of options: a hobby box, a retail box, a $9.99 retail box and a $19.99 retail box. I priced out the hobby box online and at the local hobby shop and found online to be cheaper by about $18. Same with the retail box, though it was tough to turn down the purchase while hefting it in hand at the shop. I also turned down the $9.99 and $19.99 boxes when I read how many cards you actually got for that price: for $19.99 you got 8 packs of 8 cards; for $9.99 you got four packs. Four measly packs!
Then I found that Kmart sold ‘fat packs’ which are essentially rack packs, as you get 32 cards for $4.99. So I ended up buying 3 fat packs. I’m not entirely disappointed in my pulls, as I understand that you pay a premium for hobby boxes because you’re basically paying for the chance for the big insert pull, and that was really not what I was looking for.I was looking for a clean base card design (yes, if boring), with readable player names (sort of), and comprehensive stats and engaging ‘somebody-kill-me-now’ back-of-card text from a bored Upper Deck copywriter (yes and no). I was pleasantly surprised by what must be a fat-pack-only or retail-only insert set called ‘Star Power’, which is only marred by the gigantic smear of the Upper Deck logo in the lower left corner. It’s insert sets like Star Power that make me begrudgingly like Upper Deck—it calls to mind the broadside announcements of early twentieth century circuses, complete with weathered parchment, circus-style fonts and subtle wear and tear fading on parts of the photos and background. I can almost see this set as a late-1960s Topps fold-up poster insert. Even the backs are nice, with the only downside being the ridiculous numbering system Upper Deck uses for inserts where they checklist based on the player’s initials. It’s infuriating, simply because it’s impossible to tell who you’re missing when you don’t know how many cards are supposed to be in the set.
Judging on first impressions from Series I, I can see why Upper Deck would want to gobble up the Topps Mystique right now. When Topps turns over an empty fist, a Derek Jeter publicity stunt falls out, smart marketing towards the older collector with lines like Heritage and Archives, and a deal with Ryan Howard, one of the game’s brightest young stars. It could be a smokescreen, but they seem to be hitting on all cylinders even while the company's in a crisis. When Upper Deck swings, out spills a big, tired white elephant. A thousand cards in one set...with no subsets? What is this, 2006?
April 21, 2007
April 20, 2007
Another Card Gone Vlad
OK, is it just me or does Topps have a thing against Vlad Guerrero? On the cards I get of him, not only is he never in the field, but he always looks like he's ready to pick a fight. I wrote about a Cracker Jack card of his late last year where he appeared to be a stalking zombie (or homeless drunk), and now here he is in Topps 2007, wielding a bat in the dugout with a studious 'I'm-gonna-kill-em' look on his face. And that's just the front of the card. On the back Topps' checklisters have assigned him #300, a huge compliment and a testament to his ability as one of the game's greats, but they've done something more, something that undermines all that comes with the importance of that hero-worship spotlight. It comes in the form of a quote:
So, I get it, the quote is saying a nice thing about him. But it's the juxtaposition of the quote and the choice of the quote with the photo that irks me. Just for a moment let's recognize Topps for what it is in the world of baseball: a gatekeeper. Its editors and photographers, writers and executives shape the game that's presented for our consumption. Mickey Mantle? He's just a good ol'boy, hard nosed and a winner. One of the game's greats. You'll never see any innuendo about Mantle being a 'freak'. Or what about A-Rod, David Ortiz, Ryan Howard or any other superstar from the handful of superstars playing today? I invite you to show me where Topps has so greatly skewered our views of any one of these elite players by referring to them as anything but wholesome individuals. It's very clear to me that Topps wants me to believe that Vlad Guerrero is crazy. Crazy as in he'll eat a live chicken and then go 5 for 6 with 3 doubles and a stolen base crazy.
I have to be honest, I don't know Topps' history of use of the word 'freak' on its cards, in a quote, as a descriptor, headline, or in any other use, but I don't think it's something they should be able to get away with using lightly. Sure, it's a punchy quote to use, but they must have had other quotes about Guerrero. If anyone is going to be a called a freak, it should be Pedro Martinez–at least he's a weirdo both on the field and off.
April 11, 2007
Wallet Worthy: Drew from Thrill22.com
What is your favorite card? I have a few: 1953 Topps Ed Mathews. 1971 Topps Willie McCovey. 1978 Topps Eddie Murray. Tonight, in what I hope will become a running series on The Baseball Card Blog, I'm opening the floor to Drew, a fellow collector, to tell us about his favorite card.People often ask me which of my thousands of Will Clark cards is my favorite. My mind always moves to some of my more valuable cards, including the 1993 Finest Refractor, 1993 Pinnacle Cooperstown Dufex and my newly acquired 2005 UD Heroes auto/patch. While I really like all of those cards, and adding them to my collection was a thrill, they've never been my favorite.
Instead, my favorite card has long been Will's 1993 Donruss "Spirit of the Game" card. It's only worth a quarter or so, but it has been my favorite pretty much from the day I acquired it. While I don't actually recall when I first got the card, it was most likely at a card show not long after its release. I'd been collecting Will's cards since 1987, and the baseball card industry's growth in the early 90's gave me dozens of new cards to chase at card shows each summer. The chase hasn't stopped yet.
For Giants fans, memories of that summer of 1993 will always be bittersweet. In what some have named "The Last Pennant Race," the Giants sprinted to a wide lead over popular favorite Atlanta, only to see the Braves catch fire and pull ahead in September. The season's final day started with each team knotted at 103-58. The Braves cruised to an easy win in their afternoon game against the expansion Rockies. The Giants, on the other hand, had to face their long-time arch rival Los Angeles. San Francisco quickly fell behind, never putting up much of a fight, and losing the last pre-wildcard National League West crown by a single game.
When you first look at Will's Spirit of the Game card, it may look uninspired. While it does feature a nice action shot of Will slashing a ball down the third base line, for some reason the picture never really did much for me. I think Donruss may have cropped it just a bit too tight, hoping to show Will's well-known sneer and eye black. The card is, at least, uncluttered by borders and graphics, allowing the picture to come through clearly.
It's only when you turn the card over that its real appeal comes through. The card's reverse is an absolutely classic baseball card, and is particularly appropriate for that summer of 1993. The image shows Will with his batting helmet in hand, acknowledging the home-town crowd in the glare of the bright San Francisco sun. It's tough to say for sure, but I like to think Will's standing on second base after driving home two runs to put the Giants ahead late in the game. The crowd's on its feet, cheering their long-time team leader after he once again came through in the clutch. Even better, Will's showing off his famous intensity, failing to break his game face even as thousands cheer him on.
The card's design adds to the great image, generally allowing the photo to tell its own story, something too few baseball cards do. Other than the card number and copyright, the only graphic is the bold text telling baseball fans what they already knew.
Will left San Francisco after the 1993 season. While I long suspected he'd leave as a free agent, I didn't know how I'd react when it actually happened. I remain a die-hard Giants fan to this day, even after the player who brought my devotion to the team left for Texas. I know not all baseball fans liked Will during his career, but I have yet to find one that didn't respect and appreciate him. He was, simply, The Thrill, and this card shows him as I'll always remember him, basking in the sunlight on a warm San Francisco afternoon.
Drew runs Thrill22, a Will Clark fan site/card gallery.
Do you have a favorite card you want to share with the rest of us?
Email me for more info.
April 10, 2007
Fantastic Card of the Day
Riddle me this: Why did Fleer make a faux Pro-Visions card of Robin Yount for its 1992 set and portray him in such a way so that it seems like he enjoys having balls fly at his face? Also, why did they put this card within the base set? Why didn’t they make it a special insert? Did they know how bizarre this card is? So many questions. And yet, after years of studying this card, I think I’ve found an answer: Fleer knew this card would be bad—I think the only way they could’ve made this level of airbrushing (boardwalk sweatshirt level, for those of you keeping track) work would’ve been to put Robin up on a mountain top against a starry night sky, surrounded by wild wolves (or at least Franklin Stubbs, Paul Molitor and Bill Wegman sitting on the hood of an old Mustang, in what would be ahead-of-their-time gangster rapper full-body fur coats, raising their cans of PBR in an American Gods/Fellowship of the Ring kind of tableau in a toast to Yount’s 2,874th hit, the one this card is supposed to memorialize)—so after viewing the final airbrush from the artist the Fleer executives conferred and threw the card at the back of the set. And for the record, so what if they airbrushed a few rolls of neck fat at the base of Yount’s neck, like the extension of a t-shirt? This card is one of the few highlights of what is pretty much a crummy, forgettable entry by Fleer to the already vast hobby landscape of 1992.
What really puzzles me is why Fleer never did Pro-Visions: The Set. I’m the guy who pretty much kept Donruss in business in the mid-Nineties, the way I bought packs of Studio, and looking back on those sets, they didn’t really have much going on after 1993 (unless you count that one of David Cone and his corn nibblet teeth sitting in front of his locker. That was a great card.) But Fleer Pro-Visions? I’d have to say that, with so much original art, it would’ve been a costly, labor-intensive set for Fleer to produce, so maybe it could’ve been a shorter boxed set with 132 cards. All I know is that Fleer probably would’ve ended up overworking their artists, resulting in stick figure drawings on half the cards, or lousy uninspired backgrounds like the one on this Yount card, which is, by the way, your Fantastic Card of the Day.
April 05, 2007
Ask Ben A Question Vol. 4
Time to answer some questions from readers. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m really bad with answering mail in a timely fashion, but I will answer it eventually. I’ve received 250 blog-related emails since January 1, so if you don’t see your question here, you just have to trust me: I will get to your question. Also, if you have a question and you don’t see an answer to it here, search through earlier posts of Ask Ben A Question. If you still don’t see an answer, email me!
We have tons of basketball, baseball and football cards in great shape. None of them are probably in valuable category. Know of any organizations out there that could give them away to a kid or group of kids just getting in to the hobby, or something like that?
-DW, email
You’ve struck upon a great idea, really one that many us curmudgeons unhappy with our trunkloads of 1988 Donruss, 1991 Fleer, 1991-92 Fleer Basketball and 1990 Score Football need—a way to get rid of these cards that doesn’t involve burning them or throwing them away. Besides listing the cards as a free listing on your local Craigslist, try Assure A Cure’s
Sports Cards for Kids Program. The program takes donated cards, gift-wraps them and gives them to hospitalized children worldwide (text summarized from their website). The site was updated last summer, so I assume it’s still going.
Ben,
What ever happened to the art of baseball card trading? Do you know of any websites or clubs that facilitate trading? I would like to complete some sets both new and old without breaking the bank. Thanks Ritch
P.S. I have an '88 Topps Len Matuzak in mint I'll trade you for your '52 Mantle.
Did I ever tell you about how I got back into cards? It was in 2003, Topps Heritage had just come out and they mimicked the ‘54s and I found myself drawn to purchase box after box of them. I ended up going for the Master Set, and I’m only eleven cards shy of completion. After three boxes (that’s over $200 for those of you counting at home), I was still missing about 60 cards from the set, if not more, so you know what I did? I found a website that promoted itself as a safe haven for traders. I had pulled a Don Larsen Team Topps autographed card and traded it for 60 to 70 cards that I needed. Without that trader’s website, I would probably still be screwed, stuck with a half-complete set and paying $2 shipping charges on $0.50 commons. Anyway, to answer your question, Ritch, trading is becoming a lost art. The only trading I saw at the last show I attended was a private collector trading a few Maris and Berra doubles for a couple hundred dollars. Right. I can’t seem to find the site that I had used, but here’s a fairly substantial one: Sports Cards Forum. I would read the FAQs link on the site before agreeing to anything, just to be sure it’s what you’re looking for.
From your blog, it seemed like you would be a good source of information. I own a case of Topps 1994, series 2 baseball cards. It is still sealed and has 36 packs of sealed cards inside. I was wondering if you knew if it was worth anything. Obviously, it is difficult to tell because I dont know what cards I have but any information you might now would be great.
-David, email
Thanks for the question. First off, what you have is called a 'box' of cards, containing packs of cards. A case is a larger box containing boxes of packs of cards. Second, I'm afraid that your box isn't worth very much, maybe $15 at the most. If I were you, and was considering opening the box, I'd weigh two options: first, do you like having the box unopened? There's a sense of mystery associated with it that will be gone as soon as it's opened. Second, have you had this around for a long time and you really really want to see who's in those packs? Either way, you won't gain much financially by keeping the box unopened. And if you open it, you're guaranteeing yourself and your friends (if you have a pack-opening party) at least ten minutes of fun.
This answer goes for almost anyone who has an unopened box from the late Eighties to early Nineties. It’s time to face the music: your unopened material is just not worth very much at all. If you’re okay with that, then rock on and let’s have ourselves one wicked all-night, gum-chewing, wax-ripping kegger. If not…well, be thankful you didn’t sink your savings into 100-count lots of 1987 Topps Mike Greenwell. Opening pack upon pack upon pack of worthless crap can be fun, but a hundred Gators? Not anyone’s idea of a good time.
Alright...
I've collected pretty much the entire series 1 set of Topps. I've torn through a bunch of packs that I bought at Target.
I do have a 2007 Jeter. I pulled a red back in a jumbo pack I bought from a hobby shop.
Still, has Topps limited the circulation of the Jeter? Have card companies ever done that before? I seemingly remember the same issue in 1990. I tore through pack after pack after pack of 1990 Topps to find a Griffey Jr. Never got it. Ended up buying it at hobby shop. Got a boatload of Griffey Sr in a Reds uniform though.
As far as a regular, white back Jeter...I must have opened 50-60 packs and still haven't got one yet.
Thoughts?
-Andrew, email
Not to rub it in, but I bought a box at Target and got a regular, white-backed Jeter in it. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think Topps is holding back on this card, but it has been well-publicized that it would be corrected in subsequent versions of the set, leading anyone with half a brain to see that it was a publicity stunt by the Topps company to generate interest in a somewhat lackluster product. It is not a stated shortprint, and not considered a traditional insert card, and, in the grand scheme of things, the Jeter probably is not harder to get than any other normal card in the first series. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks there is some kind of hidden agenda with this card, something the company’s not telling us about production figures, but really I’ve got nothing but theories. Sorry Andrew, it’s probably just bad luck. Try taking a road trip to a Target or Wal-Mart somewhere in another state and buy some boxes there. It could have to do with distribution.
Ben,
I googled for about 10 minutes and couldn't find an answer so I thought you might be the man to ask. In 1990, why didn't Upper Deck make a Star Rookie card of Frank Thomas?
I would say that due to Frank not playing in 1989, and UD not making draft pick cards for the set could be the answer but, what about the Griffey SR from the year before?
You can also argue that there are only so many rookie cards allocated per set. That's true, but Frank Thomas was a 1st Rd. 7th pick in 1989!! Regardless, if a '90 UD Frank Thomas was made, I wonder if it would book close to or around what the '89 Griffey does today. What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance.
-Adam, via email
Why indeed. Big Frank was there for Upper Deck. He was in every other goddamn set released that year, so what gives? Why is it that the first Upper Deck card of Thomas is in 1991 and shows him on the bench, slyly giving someone the finger? Was it that, with the 1989 set such a smash hit and 1990 pre-sold to oblivion, the guys at Upper Deck just forgot to get Thomas signed and delivered for the set? Or was he not in the player’s union yet or what? I’m running out of ideas here, so I’m sorry Adam, but I don’t know why he wasn’t included. Sometimes things just don’t work out; guys don’t end up with true rookie cards in sets that should clearly have included them. And really, I think Thomas handled it well: you can barely tell he’s pissed-off and flipping the bird on that 1991 card.
Finally I’ve received two emails that I would like you, dear knowledgeable reader, to see if you can help me answer. You can either respond by commenting to this post, or by emailing me, which I’ll send along to your fellow readers in search of answers.
Hi. Is there any chance you might have this card, or know where I might get one? I'm told it's a 1955. It is black & white, and has a blank back. Please let me know. -Greg, email
I stumbled upon your web site while I was trying to find a way to design my old fantasy baseball cards. I run a fantasy 8 team league (all the players and teams are made up) I run the game off the old Earl Weaver Baseball software that has been partially updated and called igiBall. This will be my 15th season and each year I try to do something ‘special’ to make the league feel more real.
I can’t believe there is no web site/design software that provides a series of templates and would allow one to upload a picture (real or otherwise). I once owned a formal piece of software that let one do this, but it is now very outdated.
Can you provide any help? Point in any direction? -Rich, email
We have tons of basketball, baseball and football cards in great shape. None of them are probably in valuable category. Know of any organizations out there that could give them away to a kid or group of kids just getting in to the hobby, or something like that?
-DW, email
You’ve struck upon a great idea, really one that many us curmudgeons unhappy with our trunkloads of 1988 Donruss, 1991 Fleer, 1991-92 Fleer Basketball and 1990 Score Football need—a way to get rid of these cards that doesn’t involve burning them or throwing them away. Besides listing the cards as a free listing on your local Craigslist, try Assure A Cure’s
Sports Cards for Kids Program. The program takes donated cards, gift-wraps them and gives them to hospitalized children worldwide (text summarized from their website). The site was updated last summer, so I assume it’s still going.
Ben,
What ever happened to the art of baseball card trading? Do you know of any websites or clubs that facilitate trading? I would like to complete some sets both new and old without breaking the bank. Thanks Ritch
P.S. I have an '88 Topps Len Matuzak in mint I'll trade you for your '52 Mantle.
Did I ever tell you about how I got back into cards? It was in 2003, Topps Heritage had just come out and they mimicked the ‘54s and I found myself drawn to purchase box after box of them. I ended up going for the Master Set, and I’m only eleven cards shy of completion. After three boxes (that’s over $200 for those of you counting at home), I was still missing about 60 cards from the set, if not more, so you know what I did? I found a website that promoted itself as a safe haven for traders. I had pulled a Don Larsen Team Topps autographed card and traded it for 60 to 70 cards that I needed. Without that trader’s website, I would probably still be screwed, stuck with a half-complete set and paying $2 shipping charges on $0.50 commons. Anyway, to answer your question, Ritch, trading is becoming a lost art. The only trading I saw at the last show I attended was a private collector trading a few Maris and Berra doubles for a couple hundred dollars. Right. I can’t seem to find the site that I had used, but here’s a fairly substantial one: Sports Cards Forum. I would read the FAQs link on the site before agreeing to anything, just to be sure it’s what you’re looking for.
From your blog, it seemed like you would be a good source of information. I own a case of Topps 1994, series 2 baseball cards. It is still sealed and has 36 packs of sealed cards inside. I was wondering if you knew if it was worth anything. Obviously, it is difficult to tell because I dont know what cards I have but any information you might now would be great.
-David, email
Thanks for the question. First off, what you have is called a 'box' of cards, containing packs of cards. A case is a larger box containing boxes of packs of cards. Second, I'm afraid that your box isn't worth very much, maybe $15 at the most. If I were you, and was considering opening the box, I'd weigh two options: first, do you like having the box unopened? There's a sense of mystery associated with it that will be gone as soon as it's opened. Second, have you had this around for a long time and you really really want to see who's in those packs? Either way, you won't gain much financially by keeping the box unopened. And if you open it, you're guaranteeing yourself and your friends (if you have a pack-opening party) at least ten minutes of fun.
This answer goes for almost anyone who has an unopened box from the late Eighties to early Nineties. It’s time to face the music: your unopened material is just not worth very much at all. If you’re okay with that, then rock on and let’s have ourselves one wicked all-night, gum-chewing, wax-ripping kegger. If not…well, be thankful you didn’t sink your savings into 100-count lots of 1987 Topps Mike Greenwell. Opening pack upon pack upon pack of worthless crap can be fun, but a hundred Gators? Not anyone’s idea of a good time.
Alright...
I've collected pretty much the entire series 1 set of Topps. I've torn through a bunch of packs that I bought at Target.
I do have a 2007 Jeter. I pulled a red back in a jumbo pack I bought from a hobby shop.
Still, has Topps limited the circulation of the Jeter? Have card companies ever done that before? I seemingly remember the same issue in 1990. I tore through pack after pack after pack of 1990 Topps to find a Griffey Jr. Never got it. Ended up buying it at hobby shop. Got a boatload of Griffey Sr in a Reds uniform though.
As far as a regular, white back Jeter...I must have opened 50-60 packs and still haven't got one yet.
Thoughts?
-Andrew, email
Not to rub it in, but I bought a box at Target and got a regular, white-backed Jeter in it. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think Topps is holding back on this card, but it has been well-publicized that it would be corrected in subsequent versions of the set, leading anyone with half a brain to see that it was a publicity stunt by the Topps company to generate interest in a somewhat lackluster product. It is not a stated shortprint, and not considered a traditional insert card, and, in the grand scheme of things, the Jeter probably is not harder to get than any other normal card in the first series. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks there is some kind of hidden agenda with this card, something the company’s not telling us about production figures, but really I’ve got nothing but theories. Sorry Andrew, it’s probably just bad luck. Try taking a road trip to a Target or Wal-Mart somewhere in another state and buy some boxes there. It could have to do with distribution.
Ben,
I googled for about 10 minutes and couldn't find an answer so I thought you might be the man to ask. In 1990, why didn't Upper Deck make a Star Rookie card of Frank Thomas?
I would say that due to Frank not playing in 1989, and UD not making draft pick cards for the set could be the answer but, what about the Griffey SR from the year before?
You can also argue that there are only so many rookie cards allocated per set. That's true, but Frank Thomas was a 1st Rd. 7th pick in 1989!! Regardless, if a '90 UD Frank Thomas was made, I wonder if it would book close to or around what the '89 Griffey does today. What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance.
-Adam, via email
Why indeed. Big Frank was there for Upper Deck. He was in every other goddamn set released that year, so what gives? Why is it that the first Upper Deck card of Thomas is in 1991 and shows him on the bench, slyly giving someone the finger? Was it that, with the 1989 set such a smash hit and 1990 pre-sold to oblivion, the guys at Upper Deck just forgot to get Thomas signed and delivered for the set? Or was he not in the player’s union yet or what? I’m running out of ideas here, so I’m sorry Adam, but I don’t know why he wasn’t included. Sometimes things just don’t work out; guys don’t end up with true rookie cards in sets that should clearly have included them. And really, I think Thomas handled it well: you can barely tell he’s pissed-off and flipping the bird on that 1991 card.
Finally I’ve received two emails that I would like you, dear knowledgeable reader, to see if you can help me answer. You can either respond by commenting to this post, or by emailing me, which I’ll send along to your fellow readers in search of answers.
Hi. Is there any chance you might have this card, or know where I might get one? I'm told it's a 1955. It is black & white, and has a blank back. Please let me know. -Greg, email
I stumbled upon your web site while I was trying to find a way to design my old fantasy baseball cards. I run a fantasy 8 team league (all the players and teams are made up) I run the game off the old Earl Weaver Baseball software that has been partially updated and called igiBall. This will be my 15th season and each year I try to do something ‘special’ to make the league feel more real.
I can’t believe there is no web site/design software that provides a series of templates and would allow one to upload a picture (real or otherwise). I once owned a formal piece of software that let one do this, but it is now very outdated.
Can you provide any help? Point in any direction? -Rich, email
April 04, 2007
Card Critic: 2007 Fleer
After college I had a job as a clerk in a bookstore that catered to the mental health professions. And while it’s been nearly five years since I’ve worked there, I can still rattle off the names of the best sellers, from the DSM IV-TR and all its forms and practice guides to the Wiley series of pharmacology notebooks to the trade paperbacks on proper early childhood development and gender roles, addiction studies and alternative healing. But perhaps the most memorable thing that that store sold (besides full-scale Rorschach test packets) was a series of guided relaxation exercises on cassette, including guided visualization. It’s in this vein that I’d like to begin my review of the 2007 Fleer baseball set.
I want you to start by imagining a piece of clean white cardstock, regulation size, and split it vertically 80/20. I want you to go to your light table now and from your cache of photos of major leaguers, select only those of players in action, where the player is the only one in the shot. What kind of player is he? If he’s a position player, show him in the field or at the plate. If he’s a pitcher, show him pitching. Don’t be a wise-ass about it, just show the players in action on the field. Good. Now, I want you to focus on clean, resourceful graphics that complement logo and teams colors, and use those colors for accents in the lower 20% of the card. Good. Now I want you to think about names and logos, and where they can go, and while you think about that, also think about keeping clean vertical and horizontal sight lines…Good. Now I want you to think about the white of the cardstock. Is it still visible on your card? If it isn’t, give your card an eighth of an inch border of white on all sides. Good. In the upper right let’s make it stand out, and curve it off. Good. Now match that curve with one in the lower left where we’ve stashed our logo. Good. Now tie it together with a scripty text for the team name and take a step back… Congratulations, you have completed The Baseball Card Blog’s Guided Creation of the 2007 Fleer Base Card.
That’s really all there is to the front of the base card. Slap a Fleer logo on it and you’re done. And you know what? It’s not that bad. In fact, I kind of like it. The only bad thing about the base set is that there are no posed sideline or headshots—all cards feature action shots. As for the positives, let’s look at the design a little closer: they’ve chosen a dull coat gloss for the front and a matte finish for the back, the trademark Fleer clean white border is present, and the design is pretty straightforward. Topps’ 2007 offering—with its little boxes, silver foil stamp and facsimile autograph—is bells and whistles in comparison to Fleer. This base set is decidedly no-frills, which is very nice. 
This set really only runs into problems once you leave the base set. The inserts (which, in a nod to the classic mid-Nineties Fleer vein come nearly two or three to a pack) are almost all Ugly, and yes, that’s ugly with a capital U. The Rookie Sensations’ backgrounds look suspiciously like screen captures from the surgery channel, when really they should’ve been posed sideline shots, to complement the action-heavy base set.
The In The Zone cards are possibly the ugliest insert card of the year so far, and that’s including Topps’ Alex Rodriguez Home Run History set, which are hideous. The Year in Review cards should not be an insert set at all, but a subset in the base set. The card I got of Bobby Abreu isn’t that bad, but it looks like the designer didn’t know where to ghost-out Abreu’s photo and bring up the celestial calendar background. It ends up looking a little muddy, but a good idea for design. But perhaps the worst idea for an insert set is the parallel set, which is basically the base set without the white border. I’m going to call them Little Cards. I think they’re dumb. If Fleer wanted to put out a little set and have it be exactly like the regular set, why didn’t they also issue little packs and little blaster boxes? Then it would’ve at least been more collectible, a la the 1975 Topps Minis. Instead collectors are faced with the prospect of a parallel set with no redeeming value except that the cards are missing their border. Besides, what’s the point of paying a premium on a card if anyone with a pair of scissors can turn a regular card into a parallel? The Little Cards get the thumbs down.
But there are two insert sets that get the thumbs up: Crowning Achievement and Perfect 10. These two insert sets have the strongest similarities to the two insert sets in the seminal 1987 Fleer set, Highlights and All-Stars. They also do the nicest job of all the insert sets in the field of gold foil stamping. The moment I pulled this Ryan Howard Perfect 10, I immediately thought of the cover of Chris Ware’s Quimby the Mouse, which is a lesson in the fine art of gold foil stamping. Like Topps’ Larry Bird Missing Years set inserted into their 2006-07 basketball product, these two insert sets may be the only reason I still buy these cards (besides liking the base set). They’re clean, crisp and understated. Even the logo doesn’t bother me (and logos always bother me).
Now, a word about distribution. I heard somewhere (either from a friend or a reader) that Upper Deck was only distributing Fleer in retail locations, or in other words, not through hobby dealers. The cards that I bought and based this review on came in a seven-pack box that I bought for $10 at Kmart at Penn Station in New York City. I’ve never seen packs of this product sold at hobby shops or shows, but only because I haven’t been looking. Now, if that’s the case, that Upper Deck has no plans to sell this set through hobby channels, I feel they’re making a big mistake.
This set feels perfect for young collectors, as insert cards are being distributed almost as freely as cards from the base set (I pulled 17 insert and parallel cards out of a total of seven packs), players from the same team are checklisted next to each other, and there seems to be a healthy dose of rookie cards that are readily accessible within packs (the packs I bought said that they contained at least two rookie cards on average). Plus, how can you go wrong with a set that calls every team by its nickname except the Rockies, which it calls the ‘Colorado Rockies’? I mean, c’mon, how great is that?
I want you to start by imagining a piece of clean white cardstock, regulation size, and split it vertically 80/20. I want you to go to your light table now and from your cache of photos of major leaguers, select only those of players in action, where the player is the only one in the shot. What kind of player is he? If he’s a position player, show him in the field or at the plate. If he’s a pitcher, show him pitching. Don’t be a wise-ass about it, just show the players in action on the field. Good. Now, I want you to focus on clean, resourceful graphics that complement logo and teams colors, and use those colors for accents in the lower 20% of the card. Good. Now I want you to think about names and logos, and where they can go, and while you think about that, also think about keeping clean vertical and horizontal sight lines…Good. Now I want you to think about the white of the cardstock. Is it still visible on your card? If it isn’t, give your card an eighth of an inch border of white on all sides. Good. In the upper right let’s make it stand out, and curve it off. Good. Now match that curve with one in the lower left where we’ve stashed our logo. Good. Now tie it together with a scripty text for the team name and take a step back… Congratulations, you have completed The Baseball Card Blog’s Guided Creation of the 2007 Fleer Base Card.
That’s really all there is to the front of the base card. Slap a Fleer logo on it and you’re done. And you know what? It’s not that bad. In fact, I kind of like it. The only bad thing about the base set is that there are no posed sideline or headshots—all cards feature action shots. As for the positives, let’s look at the design a little closer: they’ve chosen a dull coat gloss for the front and a matte finish for the back, the trademark Fleer clean white border is present, and the design is pretty straightforward. Topps’ 2007 offering—with its little boxes, silver foil stamp and facsimile autograph—is bells and whistles in comparison to Fleer. This base set is decidedly no-frills, which is very nice. 
This set really only runs into problems once you leave the base set. The inserts (which, in a nod to the classic mid-Nineties Fleer vein come nearly two or three to a pack) are almost all Ugly, and yes, that’s ugly with a capital U. The Rookie Sensations’ backgrounds look suspiciously like screen captures from the surgery channel, when really they should’ve been posed sideline shots, to complement the action-heavy base set.
The In The Zone cards are possibly the ugliest insert card of the year so far, and that’s including Topps’ Alex Rodriguez Home Run History set, which are hideous. The Year in Review cards should not be an insert set at all, but a subset in the base set. The card I got of Bobby Abreu isn’t that bad, but it looks like the designer didn’t know where to ghost-out Abreu’s photo and bring up the celestial calendar background. It ends up looking a little muddy, but a good idea for design. But perhaps the worst idea for an insert set is the parallel set, which is basically the base set without the white border. I’m going to call them Little Cards. I think they’re dumb. If Fleer wanted to put out a little set and have it be exactly like the regular set, why didn’t they also issue little packs and little blaster boxes? Then it would’ve at least been more collectible, a la the 1975 Topps Minis. Instead collectors are faced with the prospect of a parallel set with no redeeming value except that the cards are missing their border. Besides, what’s the point of paying a premium on a card if anyone with a pair of scissors can turn a regular card into a parallel? The Little Cards get the thumbs down.
But there are two insert sets that get the thumbs up: Crowning Achievement and Perfect 10. These two insert sets have the strongest similarities to the two insert sets in the seminal 1987 Fleer set, Highlights and All-Stars. They also do the nicest job of all the insert sets in the field of gold foil stamping. The moment I pulled this Ryan Howard Perfect 10, I immediately thought of the cover of Chris Ware’s Quimby the Mouse, which is a lesson in the fine art of gold foil stamping. Like Topps’ Larry Bird Missing Years set inserted into their 2006-07 basketball product, these two insert sets may be the only reason I still buy these cards (besides liking the base set). They’re clean, crisp and understated. Even the logo doesn’t bother me (and logos always bother me).
Now, a word about distribution. I heard somewhere (either from a friend or a reader) that Upper Deck was only distributing Fleer in retail locations, or in other words, not through hobby dealers. The cards that I bought and based this review on came in a seven-pack box that I bought for $10 at Kmart at Penn Station in New York City. I’ve never seen packs of this product sold at hobby shops or shows, but only because I haven’t been looking. Now, if that’s the case, that Upper Deck has no plans to sell this set through hobby channels, I feel they’re making a big mistake.
This set feels perfect for young collectors, as insert cards are being distributed almost as freely as cards from the base set (I pulled 17 insert and parallel cards out of a total of seven packs), players from the same team are checklisted next to each other, and there seems to be a healthy dose of rookie cards that are readily accessible within packs (the packs I bought said that they contained at least two rookie cards on average). Plus, how can you go wrong with a set that calls every team by its nickname except the Rockies, which it calls the ‘Colorado Rockies’? I mean, c’mon, how great is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)