Showing posts with label 1992. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1992. Show all posts

January 13, 2015

The Equation: Joe Oliver Edition

Here's today's equation.

Back in the early 1970s, Jim Henson and the Muppets adapted a few fairy tales, including The Frog Prince. In the Henson retelling, there is a character called Taminella Grinderfall. I think you can still find these TV specials on VHS, if not DVD.

Taminella Grinderfall 


+

Terry Gilliam in this cast photo of Monty Python's Flying Circus (far right)
 

=

Crazy Joe Oliver, circa 1992
"You want home plate? Come and take it!"

October 20, 2014

Recent Stuff

Here's what I've been collecting lately...

I found this on eBay. (Great back, too.) I'm a big fan of test prints, overprints, miscuts, blank backs, wrong backs, and misprints in general. I bought six similar test-print 1951 Bowmans sometime last year and have those framed. This one is just sitting on my desk. Can't remember what I paid for it; doesn't matter. I don't think it was more than $10...


...I bought a collection of basketball cards on eBay a couple of months ago. I paid about $15 for it. I had seen the Walton rookie and the 1986-87 Fleer Wilkins in the listing photo, so I thought that was a bargain for $15. There were a few other highlights. Here are some of them:


...I've completed the master set of 2014 Topps Heritage, as well as the Action variations subset, plus the red Target and blue Walmart subsets. I'm actively collecting Heritage chrome and mini subsets. The minis are proving to be a fun subset to collect. I will probably never complete it, as the Trout card has consistently pushed the $350 mark, and even the Jeter and Puig cards are too rich for my blood. But fun nonetheless...

... I've been actively testing out "new" sets for a future round of Junk Wax Battle. I opened a box of 1987 Fleer, one of my favorite sets that was always out of reach as a kid. The collation was excellent; no doubles in a whole box! Probably not good for a game like Junk Wax Battle. I also opened two boxes of low series 1992 Upper Deck baseball. An excellent set with enough fun cards and great photography to keep it interesting. Another one of my favorite sets that I couldn't really afford as a kid. We'll see what we end up doing for future rounds of JWB.

September 18, 2013

Studio Series: Jim Abbott


Jim Abbott, 1992 Leaf Studio Series

Today for our Leaf Studio series, we welcome Jim Abbott. Jim, c'mon in buddy ... whoa, that hat is mad high on your head, son! Just playing, please sit down while we use a projector to broadcast black and white footage of your pitching highlights. Now, tell us a little bit more about yourself ...


Jim: Welp, my full name is James Anthony Abbott and I bat left and throw left.

Emm hmm, emm hmm. A lefty, huh? How interesting.

Jim: My wife's name is Dana.

Is SHE a lefty? That would be crazy.

Jim: She's a Capricorn.

...

Jim: I majored in communications at the University of Michigan.

GO STATE! Just playing, Jim - I have no affiliation with Michigan and don't understand why anyone would live there or go there. And I can tell by the way you're communicating with me now that you've studied this art extensively. Tell me about baseball ...


Jim: Gee, well ... I was the No. 1 draft pick of the Angels in '88, and I actually never played in the minors.

Interesting. Why is that?

Jim: (shrugs shoulders) Dunno.

Great stuff, great stuff. Who do you like to face as a pitcher?


Jim: Welp, no offense to Pat - great guy - but probably Pat Tabler. He just doesn't seem to see the ball coming out of my hand too well. Everybody's different, I guess.

You're right, he sucks. Who really sticks in your craw?

Jim: Dave Henderson. That mother ****** has hit five *****n' home runs off me and he's hitting something like five *****n' twenty-nine against me. ****** ***hole.

Whoa. Did I mention the Studio series is a family program?

Jim: **** off.

What else, Jim? What's interesting about you?


Jim: Well, as you probably know - the elephant in the room if you will - my favorite singer is Neil Young. I just think he's the best. Favorite actor is Willem Dafoe. Loved him in Wild at Heart.

...

Jim: Favorite movie is The Godfather.

Holla!

Jim: My only regret is that Willem Dafoe wasn't Michael. He should have been Michael. Or at least Sonny, ya' know?

Ya' think? I feel like maybe they casted that movie appropriately, no?

Jim: Whatever. My favorite book is Lincoln.

Oh neat, I like biog-

Jim: NOT a biography. The one by Gore Vidal. It's a novel, you simpleton. He presents a panorama of the American political and imperial experience as interpreted by both fictional and historical characters, m'kay?

Got it. So I have to ask: favorite talk show host?

Jim: Letterman, duh. Richard Bey is a close second though.

Who's your bffbb - best friend forever in baseball?

Jim: Kirk McCaskill. I just trust him.

You'd most like to meet ... ?

Jim: Neil Young. I want him to sing me an acoustic version of "Southern Man" while Dana feeds me grapes in a grassy field.

Alrighty. Is there anything else interesting about you, Jim Abbott? Something that sets you apart from everyone else?

Jim: Nope.

Thanks for coming by. (stands up, moves in to shake Jim's hand) What the ...

September 26, 2012

Triple Play


                                          Kevin Brown, 1992 Donruss "Triple Play" series

This beauty right here is part of Donruss' "Triple Play" series. A triple play is when you get three guys out on one play. Donruss captured the essence of the triple play with this here picture of Kevin Brown pitching. Did this very pitch induce a dramatic and rare triple play? VERY unlikely, although I bet there were guys on base with zero outs. It probably induced a home run that induced Kevin Brown to punch something. Still though. TRIPLE PLAY. I like these primary and secondary colors. Very soothing. Let's check out the back to find out more about the triple play.





THE FIRST SPRING TRAINING BY A PROFESSIONAL TEAM IS BELIEVED TO BE BY THE CHICAGO NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAM IN 1886.

Interesting AND relevant. I always wondered, "Which professional team was the first ever to practice in March," and now I sort of know the answer! I like the term "believed to be" when used without any indication of who believes it. Let's just assume Kevin Brown himself researched this little tidbit while executing a triple play, since there is nary a mention elsewhere on this card about Kevin Brown or a triple play. Nevertheless, boy, I wish I could have seen the looks on the faces of the guys on the Chicago National League Team when Smokey "Too Drunk" Filmore suggested they practice baseball during huntin' season! History is hilarious.

Anyway, so it looks like Kevin Brown did not have a great year in '91, walking 90 and striking out 96. That is a 96/90 strikeout-to-walk ratio, which means that for every 96 guys he struck out, he walked 90. Talk about a triple play!

Kevin Brown is one of the most popular players to ever wear a Yankee uniform, and by popular I mean it's popular to talk about how he is not very popular, like, AT ALL. It' hard to pinpoint the exact reason Brown did not really connect with Yankees fans ... the not very pleasant persona? ... the lack of adequate performance? ... the time he broke his hand punching the wall like a meathead during a division race? ... the time he lasted two innings in Game Seven of the World Series, putting a bow on the greatest postseason collapse in baseball history? ... his inclusion in the Mitchell Report? Who knows. The point is that: triple play!

Brown sort of made a living of not connecting with his fans. According to Wikipedia:

Kevin Brown's tenure with the Padres during the 1998 season was somewhat marred when the San Diego fans chose to cheer slugger Sammy Sosa during his home run chase along with Mark McGwire. Frustrated by the fact that the Padres were trying to win games during a pennant race, Kevin Brown insulted San Diego fans to the media.

I kind of get that, and I kind of don't. Retrospect and steroids aside, baseball fans like to, I think, cheer for baseball, and it's cool to celebrate things that transcend your own team. That said, I like to think I would have booed the crap out of Sosa or McGwire were they to have attempted to pursue their ludicrous home run chase in the confines of Yankee Stadium. Nevertheless, I can totally picture Brown striking out Sosa, tossing his glove to the ground and screaming to the hostile home crowd, "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"

At least it appears Brown has been humbled by it all. According to Wiki:

In 2006, a neighbor accused Brown of pulling a gun on him after Brown accused the neighbor of putting yard debris on his side of the yard.

GIT YER LEAVES OFF MY SIDE ADA YARD SYLVESTER OR I'LL POP A CAP IN YER KEISTER I JUST DRANK THREE GALLONS A HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE JUST TRY ME

I don't think I could have made up something more befitting of my perception of a retired Kevin Brown than that, and that actually happened. Okay fine, it's believed by some to have happened.

So we got the gun ... we got the fist ... we're just one knife short of a ... TRIPLE PLAY!

August 29, 2012

Hologram Card Sponsored by Cereal Features Player Who Retired Six Years Prior

Did you ever wonder what would happen if Kellogg's Corn Flakes combined forces with Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Player's Association and also SportsFlics? Yes? Of course you have! WE ALL HAVE. And have you also concluded that this hypothetical joining of forces would inevitably produce the greatest ... thing, in like, forever? No doubt. Well wonder no more, fellow daydreamers! For today we unveil something that was unveiled in 1992 but that you probably never even knew about because it was too hot to handle/too cold to hold at the time.


Tom Seaver, 1992 Kellogg's/SportsFlics Corn Flakes All-Star

HIGH-DEFINITION.

Tom Seaver retired in 1986, so Kellogg's was mad timely with its Tom Seaver Corn Flakes All-Star hologram card from 1992. Say you were a kid in '92, and you were eating cornflakes because you were weird or your mom made you eat at least one bowl of cornflakes after downing six bowls of Chocolate Fruity Pebbles, and you were like, "I wonder if there's a super thick card inside this box featuring two indistinguishable images of an old fart baseball player* ..." Well, in this oddly specific scenario, you'd be in luck!

Tom Seaver: Never thought I'd see the day where I'd be featured on a hologram card! It's true what they say -- we're living in the future!

Kelloggs: Indeed, Tom! We here at Kellogg's, the cereal company, are at the forefront of hologram technology.

Regular kid: This is instantly the worst card I own. What is going on?

Seaver: What I want people to take away from my career the most is that I was a Kellogg's Corn Flakes
All-Star.

Kellogg's: Please, everyone, remember that the term Corn Flakes is trademarked and the phrase All-Star is
also copyrighted and owned by us, so ... be careful out there.

Regular kid: This card looks like someone took a Polaroid of a picture in a newspaper that was printed off-center, and then took a picture of that.



Seaver was the ultimate hard-working professional.

Tom Seaver drank a glass of orange juice and ate a bowl of Kellogg's Corn Flakes each and every morning before kissing his family goodbye and going off into the treacherous world of making hundreds of thousands of dollars for throwing a baseball once every five days.

He used excellent control and pitch selection along with a 98-mph fastball

Pretty sure the 98-mph fastball exceeded pitch selection in importance. When you have a 98-mph fastball, pitch selection is either a) not every important, or b) fastball.

to exceed his team's winning percentage 16 of 20 seasons.

Being able to exceed your team's winning percentage for X-amount of seasons is just a weird thing to mention. For starters, as we always say, wins are stupid for a pitcher. Also, it means the team(s) you pitched for kind of sucked, which is neither here nor there. Also, the pitcher's wins are shared by the team, which actually works against the pitcher in this statistical nightmare. Also, wins are stupid for a pitcher.

Anyway, I hope you have enjoyed today's installment of Hologram Cards Sponsored by Cereal Featuring Players Who Retired Six Years Prior. Hat tip to Bill, blog-follower and lover of cornflakes, apparently.

*Only on this blog can a player of Tom Seaver's stature be referred to as "an old fart baseball player." You're all getting your money's worth.

May 09, 2012

Card vs. Card - May 9

The Champ: 1992 Topps Craig Wilson
The Challenger: 1991 Topps Archives "1953: The Ultimate Series" Eleanor Engle



We've got a new champ tonight: Eleanor Engle pulls out the win, 8-7.
We're going to stop doing these for a little while till we figure out a better way to display the polls on the blog.

May 08, 2012

Card vs. Card - May 8th

The Champ: 1992 Topps Craig Wilson
The Challenger: 1992 Donruss Roger Clemens Diamond King



Craig Wilson makes quick work of Clemens, 18 - 5. Make sure to come back tomorrow to vote in the next Card versus Card poll!

May 07, 2012

Card vs. Card - May 7th

The Champ: 1958 Topps Moose Skowron All-Star
The Challenger: 1992 Topps Craig Wilson


Craig Wilson pulls off the upset! Bring on the fresh meat tomorrow!

May 02, 2012

Card vs. Card - May 2

The Cards: 1987 Donruss Rated Rookie Bo Jackson vs. 1992 Fleer Rookie Sensations Frank Thomas


Bo knows victory: 21-6

April 20, 2012

Cardboard Fenway: 1992 Donruss Studio Heritage Wade Boggs

Cardboard Fenway - #62. 1992 Donruss Studio Heritage Wade Boggs
The Red Sox and Yankees will be wearing throwback uniforms in today's game. The uniforms will be circa 1912, which pre-dates the uni Wade's donning here by six years.

Cardboard Fenway: 1992 Fleer Roger Clemens and Incredible Hulk Highlights

Cardboard Fenway - #63. 1992 Fleer Roger Clemens / Incredible Hulk Career Highlights
I know what you're thinking: Performance-enhancing drugs! Har har har! These cards were created for an old year-end report back when Marvel owned Fleer (or something like that). I like that Hulk is also pictured in front of the center-field bleachers and dugout wall, though he's not shown sitting. Which can only mean that Hulk is very, very short.

March 12, 2012

The Heritagical Zipper

I've always liked the Heritage inserts from 1992 and 1993 Donruss Studio, but never really found any in my packs. Today I found five from the 1992 set in the quarter bin at my local shop, including this excellent card of Cal Ripken Jr. donning this "historical" zip-up Cooperstown Collection varsity jacket retailing at the O's team shop at Camden Yards for $139.95—uh, priceless original, probably game-used, yeah, game-used uniform of the St. Louis Browns.

Let's say you were in charge of one of the most compelling insert sets of the year, and you had two options: work the phones, pull some strings, and get real honest-to-goodness old, original uniforms for the superstars to don, or... see if the Sports Authority is open and go down there with your camera, the smokey backdrop you found whilst dumpster-diving behind the Sears, and a few guys in tow.


Hey Cal, just hide the tags on that zip-up replica jersey, we probably only got one shot at this before security comes.

September 20, 2008

More Miscuts

A few weeks ago, Reader Scott sent me a great big stack of blank-fronts, blank-backs, wrong-backs, misprints, and miscuts. To celebrate, I've put them with my other screwups in a binder.

The most interesting thing, besides the sheer quantity of screwups Scott sent, is that the blank-fronts he sent were broken down like so: 22 from 1989 Topps; 19 from 1990 Topps; and 14 from 1991 Topps. OK, that's a lot from each of those years. But here's where it gets crazy and leads me to put out a somewhat far-fetched conspiracy theory: the checklist numbers of the cards are grouped. For instance, here are the card numbers for the 1989 group:

237
246
681
685
686
690
691
692
694
697
702
703
716
717
718
722
723
757
783
788
789
792

So, that's like four separate checklist groups (and yes, I think it's awesome that #792 was included in the stack). And the same sort of breakdown is true for the 1990 and 1991 groups, respectively. It leads me to believe that there was at least one entire set from 1989, 1990, and 1991 (if not other years as well) printed as blank-fronts.

In other miscut news: I've been going through boxes, putting together the 1976 set (still need about 150 cards), and in the stacks of commons I've found miscut wrong-backs: Dick Drago (Wilbur Howard/Dave Parker) and Bill North (Father/Son Hegan/Father/Son Smalley).

Also, I offer no explanation on the double-prints, except to say that they may be the coolest cards I've ever seen. And yes, they're blank-backed.

Thanks Scott, you've totally made my year!

May 06, 2008

1990 – 1994 Countdown: #3. 1992 Bowman

Every sport has at least one: a set with such a high quotient of rookie superstars that it’s not even fair comparing it to others. Basketball has three entries, simply because cards weren’t made all that often: 1957-58 Topps, 1961-62 Fleer and 1986-87 Fleer. Only in the last one were there a large number of actual rookie superstars, not just players enjoying their first card. In football, there are 1984 Topps, 1986 Topps and 1989 Score. Hockey’s got 1951-52 Parkhurst and 1980-81 OPC & Topps.

Baseball’s littered with sets like this: 1949 Leaf and 1952, 1954, 1965, 1975, 1985 and 1987 Topps come immediately to mind. And of course there are others, like 1992 Bowman. As an exercise of mental dexterity, I’m going to list the names of ten players who appeared in ’92 Bowman and I want you to tell me which ones had their rookie appear in another set. Ready?

Derek Lowe
Pedro Martinez
Jeffrey Hammonds
Mike Hampton
Manny Ramirez (two cards in the set!)
Carlos Delgado
Mariano Rivera
Mike Piazza
Trevor Hoffman
Garret Anderson

Only Martinez, Piazza, Hammonds and Ramirez had rookies in other sets. Now I want you to tell me if that mattered.

Of course it didn’t. 1992 Bowman was, is and always will be the muthafuckin’ set for early-Nineties rookies, and I’ll be damned if it mattered that Pedro Martinez’s only true rookie wasn’t part of it (it came in 1991 Upper Deck Final Edition). If you were a young player—and your name wasn’t Shawn Green—your rookie, for all intents and purposes, was in this set.

This was easily the biggest thing in the hobby in 1992. No other set even came close: ’92 was an off-year for the blossoming ‘premium’ craze as Leaf, Ultra, Stadium Club and Studio put out so-so sets. Only Pinnacle (Score’s foray into higher quality) made its debut. In other words, it was a perfect time for a below-the-radar set like this to take hold.

And thanks in part to a handful of short-printed cards, Bowman’s leap into foil (no more simple, thread-bare gold foil relegated to a corner icon, as in 1991) and at least three distinct rookie waves, it’s never had to loosen its grip.

As I mentioned in a previous post, 1992 was the most popular of the early Nineties Bowman sets. But was it the most deserving of the attention? I happen to like 1991 more, but that set doesn’t bring as much to the table as ’92.

1992 is in the top five of the early decade not just because it’s a rookie juggernaut. It’s in there because of the foil, the short prints and the general overhaul Topps did on Bowman between 1991 and 1992.

It’s fair to say that 1991 Bowman wasn’t much to look at. Actually, if we’re more truthful, the last time Bowman had released a good-looking set was 1955. Taking that into account, Topps printed 1992’s set on coated white stock with a bright action shot and thick white borders on the front and a color headshot on the back. All together it wasn’t a bad design; you could almost even call it attractive. In fact, you probably wouldn’t know the average card was a Bowman were it not for the completely indecipherable block of statistics on the back, the brand’s trademark inclusion.

The funny thing about this set is that it is one of the few modern-era sets that’s as relevant today as the day it was released. Simply put, every player of the last generation—regardless of his star quality—had a card in this set. Okay, at least a number of them did. And it’s not even that 1992 had such a great rookie class. It’s that this set managed to include a lot of guys years before they showed up in other brands. Take Derek Lowe, for instance. After his Bowman card in 1992, he doesn’t show up in another brand (besides Bowman) until Donruss 1998. Granted, he didn’t make the majors until 1997, but that was Bowman’s thing: get a guy early, way before the competition.

April 30, 2008

1990 - 1994 Countdown: #7. 1994 Score



You see, this set is a bad mother--
(Shut your mouth)
But I'm talkin' about 94 Score
(Then we can dig it)


Admit it, you were thinking the same thing… and you’ve seen this set the same way since it came out. 1994 Score is a bad mother: it’s strong in the right places, it makes risky moves and they work, it’s classy and suave and no one understands it but its woman (I guess “its collectors” would be more appropriate). If this were 1994 and you lived in a magical world where baseball cards came alive, you definitely didn’t want to run into Score down a dark alley. Unless your name was Fleer or SP, it would beat your ass every time.

It would do this in a number of ways, least of all with its silent-but-deadly, take-no-prisoners blue border. It’s almost impossible to believe that the same company responsible for 1992 Score created this set only two years later. Where the former was card design in puberty—an experimentation of ugly gradients and bright colors—’94 was understated and mature. Look no further than ’93 Score for the initial design shift towards sophistication, and though it’s not a popular set with collectors, that set did most of the heavy lifting for the brand’s later editions, ’94 included.

Also, where ’92 was bloated (893 base cards), ’94 was lean (660 base cards). Granted, we probably should give 1992’s set a pass on its massive checklist, as it was produced a year or so before it became industry custom to strip subsets from base sets and upgrade them into inserts, a practice Score started in 1993. By 1994, formerly traditional base set highlights like Dream Team and The Franchise (represented in ’94 as Gold Stars) had been sequestered to life as hard-to-find inserts, cutting down on the number of base set subsets. The strategy worked. In 1992 it was fun to get a Dream Teamer in your pack. By 1994, getting one was the best thing to happen all week (and yes, ladies and gentlemen, that’s how sad my social life was as a 15-year-old).

But this set didn’t just beat you with a flawless base set or good-looking inserts. It beat you with a classy parallel. I know what you’re thinking, and you’re right: I do hate parallels. But we’re talking about 1994 here, fool, the year the parallel came of age. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if news came out that 1994 Gold Rush was hand-crafted by dwarves burrowed deep beneath the Misty Mountains. Seriously, I think Heaven is missing a baseball card-related angel: Gold Rush is the most perfect parallel set ever created.

And as if that weren’t enough for you, if by some fluke you were still conscious after this pummeling, Score would send you to the hospital with its version of the right-arm wind-up, left-arm knockout. I’m speaking of course of Rookie/Traded.

Sure, it included the awesome Alex Rodriguez rookie “Call Up” redemption card, but the real scene-stealer here was the R/T base card design. It looked, in a word, terrible (though putrid, ugly, forgettable and shitty also fit the bill). But that wasn’t the point. The point was that the cards didn’t look like the regular set.

Thinking forward once again, Score took the opportunity Rookie/Traded created and not only debuted a new company logo but debuted a new card design, one that would—with a few tweaks here and there—carry over into their 1995 product. It was an ingenious move. The set itself, besides the hard-to-find Rodriguez insert, was weak and forgettable. But the idea that it could be an extension of the regular set and be some kind of live testing ground for future sets, well, that’s pretty powerful.

April 27, 2008

1990 - 1994 Countdown: #9. 1992 Topps

What makes a set truly great? Are there certain things great sets possess that lesser sets do not? If a great set is the product of previous years’ evolution, then shouldn’t earlier years be considered great as well? Just what is it that pushes the great set to a higher plane? I’ve asked myself these questions a number of times while writing this countdown. And while their answers are hard to pin down in the majority of cases (because there are very sets that stand apart from the pack), 1992 Topps is different: There’s more than one thing that elevates it to greatness.

In 1991, Topps debuted gold foil stamping on some of the subset cards in the Bowman set. (Topps also added a small gold foil palm tree accent to a miniscule quantity of its flagship and sent them to troops as part of their Desert Shield distribution program.) Interesting in a footnote kind of way, the gold foil itself didn’t add much to overall card design. If anything, it was a ‘hey, look what we can do’ kind of thing. That changed for 1992, which saw Topps increase its gold foil stamp quotient exponentially, resulting in the Topps Gold base set parallel. Really, there were two parallels—Gold and Gold Winners—but nobody really wanted Gold Winners: they were much easier to find than straight up Gold (this difference could very well have been the first instance of tiered desirability). And though Gold technically wasn’t the first time Topps had done a base set parallel (the Tiffany sets of the 1980s were Topps’ first true parallel sets), it was the first parallel randomly inserted in packs (Topps Tiffany cards had been available only as complete, factory-sealed sets).

In addition to the introduction of widespread gold foil stamping, ’92 Topps saw an increase in quality photography. Unlike Topps photography in the 1980s, (it took the company nine years to reach its zenith in 1988), 1990s Topps photography peaked early. With the introduction of the Stadium Club brand (and by extension officially bringing Kodak into the fold) in 1991, the idea took hold that every card, not just those of stars, could feature nice photos. There were a handful of such ‘cinematic’ cards in the 1991 flagship issue, but 1992 saw 26, certainly a dramatic increase by anyone’s count. In fact, it seems like the Pittsburgh Pirates hired their own private photographer; just about everyone on the team got decked out across their own empty Three Rivers Stadium backdrop.

Any great set has to have a great checklist. The first thing you notice about this set’s checklist is that Topps cemented institutional hero worship upon Nolan Ryan (#1 in 1990, 1991, 1992). Up until that point, the company had bestowed subset hero worship on four players (Babe Ruth in 1962, Hank Aaron in 1974, Pete Rose in 1986 and Ryan in 1990), and institutional hero worship on only one: Ted Williams (#1 in 1954, 1957, 1958). This may seem like a no-brainer on Topps’ part, but remember that while certain checklist numbers through the years may have ‘felt’ like they should have gone hand in hand with certain players (#500 with Mickey Mantle, #600 with Willie Mays, #250 with Stan Musial, #200 with Warren Spahn or Sandy Koufax), very few numbers were given to certain players repeatedly. (As an aside, just wait until the Mickey Mantle estate ends their relationship with Topps: I bet that card #7, their current holy number, will go right back into circulation.)

1992 saw the return of the four-headed rookie card, on hiatus since 1978. It was also the fourth year in a row that draft picks were given their own subset, highlighted by Cliff Floyd, Aaron Sele, Manny Ramirez, Shawn Green, Pokey Reese and Brien Taylor rookies. Record Breakers, All-Star Rookies and All-Stars rounded out the subsets. The All-Stars were especially strong, with seven Hall of Fame caliber players (plus Bonds and Clemens). I think it’s telling that three of the five subsets were rookie-related. Add in a boatload of unmarked rookies and this set is literally crawling with them (110 total for the set). Chalk it up to the Bowman Effect. With Topps establishing the Bowman brand as the legitimate ‘home of the rookie card’ in 1991, the company built off of that assertion in the 1992 Topps flagship by including scores of ‘cup of coffee’ type players, older rookies and career minor leaguers briefly up in the majors. As a result we’re treated to cards of guys like Alonzo Powell, Jose ‘The 700 Year Old Rookie’ Mesa, Bryan Hickerson and John Wehner. For a lot of guys, 1992 Topps would be their only major league card for their career.

In the grand scheme of things, that’s not a bad proposition (What if your only card was in 1988 Donruss?). This set is one of the best-designed sets the company has ever released. You may regard that last sentence as pure hyperbole, but I beg to differ. Let’s break this down. Clean white borders had been a Topps design staple for most of their 40-odd years of producing cards (notable years without continuous white borders: 1962, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1975, 1986, 1987, 1990), so their inclusion in 1992 was no real surprise. If anything, the surprise is how well the borders play off the rest of the card.

On the front, thin lines framed the photo, with one specific to team colors, the other white. Player name and team were set against small team-colored rectangles that filled out along the bottom of the frame, though never touched the white border. The three card front elements (the accent frame and two bottom boxes) each featured a different team color. For the Rangers, the accent frame was in gray, the player name box in red and the team name box in blue. It’s done to complement the photo, and achieves this in striking manner. It’s interesting to note, but nothing besides an odd arm or leg ever touches the surrounding white border. That may not seem like much, but previous years’ design routinely allowed elements to touch or overlap the borders (see 1988, 1985, 1980 and various others).

So while the frame and borders evinced a certain Frank Lloyd Wright sense of design, the real star of the card was the photograph. The photo was given free reign over the frame, giving nearly every subject a larger-than-life, magazine cover presence. In those instances where the player didn’t seem to literally pop off the card, the photograph was interesting enough to make you think they did.

As for the card backs, 1992 was quite possibly, in my estimation, the best-designed Topps back since 1971. ’92 was the first Topps flagship back to feature anything in color, and instead of a meaningless headshot (like Fleer used for its 1991 back), Topps chose a panorama of that player’s home stadium. It was a nice touch; gave the card grounding. Besides, not all of the cards had a photo, only for those players with a few years experience. Most veterans had too many years of service to list everything and include a photo, so when you got one with a photo it seemed special. Out of 792 cards, 595 featured a stadium on its back.

One of the questions I’ve asked myself before ranking a set is whether the set in particular was a product of its time, or a product that helped create its time. In this vein, the innovations put to use in 1992 Topps (gold foil stamping, tiered parallel sets) not only added to the frenzy of card collecting at the time, it laid partial groundwork for the years that followed. Add in its glorious design, killer checklist and stunning photography and not only do you have a great set, you have the best Topps set of the early decade.

April 11, 2008

1990 - 1994 Countdown: #12. 1992 Pinnacle

(Note: I figured out what set I had overlooked, so everything's okay now. Enjoy #12.)

Life is full of existential moments. Moments when you look around and say 'Goddammit, I'm alive!' Moments--however fleeting--when you can honestly admit you haven't the faintest clue why your life took the path it did, but you're willing to make the best of it.

I get this feeling every so often. Maybe it's because I'm mercurial by nature. Or maybe it's because I've been a card collector for so many years. My addiction has led me down strange roads, through countless binges on crap sets, depositing thousands upon teeming thousands of unnamed commons in boxes, bags and stacks in my closet, on my dresser, under my bed, in my thoughts and dreams. If somebody somewhere thought 1990 Fleer was a good idea, then there's no reason why I shouldn't exist too.

This is kind of a depressing tangent to indulge, but I wanted to somehow swing it back round to highlight just how welcome a set like Pinnacle's inaugural was in 1992. But I can't figure out how to do that, so I'll sum up my introduction like this: By the late winter of 1992, my class of baseball card collectors had been guzzling down set after lousy set, at least 19 since the start of the decade. We'd pined for Leaf and Stadium Club, ridiculed Fleer Ultra behind its back, kicked ourselves for stockpiling Ben McDonald and Greg Anthony and generally wondering how long we'd be able to keep collecting in the face of rising prices and our own waning interest.

Cue Pinnacle. The black borders. The silhouetted player photograph and gradient. The thin gloss on front and back. The Team 2000 insert set. The stars, the rookies--even the commons were awe-inspiring. On the whole, 1992 was a very good year for baseball card design, and Pinnacle was at or near the top of that heap. It was also one of the last mid-level 'premium' debuts before manufacturers began introducing high-end sets like SP and Finest in 1993.

It felt like there was a hierarchy with Score: Select was preferred, Score was the workhorse and Pinnacle was there to fill in the gaps. As a middle child myself, I was always endeared to this set for that very reason. This argument is not to say that the company did not invest in making Pinnacle a great brand; it did.

It was the quality of Pinnacle (more so than Select, if you ask me) that allowed the company to elevate itself back to the standard the premiere Score issue set back in 1988. It was a necessary move, especially as the perceived quality of the Score flagship brand began to diminish with its over-production in 1991 and 1992.

I never bought more than two or three packs of this set when it came out, but I remember pooling money with a friend to purchase the Series 2 set for $15 and going out of my way at shows to buy singles of my favorites. Why even mention this? My only point is that the checklist is a non-factor in my ranking this set as high as I do. By 1992 the checklist of a set became almost a non-issue in choosing a set to collect (key word here is 'almost').

With the explosion of the hobby came more rookie oversight. For instance, Bowman and Upper Deck included Kenny Lofton rookies in their 1991 sets (I consider UD's Final Edition as part of the 1991 set). You could chalk it up a casual exclusion by the other sets or as a Fred McGriff-type rookie scoop UD and Bowman got on their competitors. Whatever you want to think, it's very different from the old Donruss sometime-practice of including guys as Rated Rookies in more than one year (Danny Tartabull, Lance Dickson) and throws a wrench into the idea of knowing for certain which card is Lofton's rookie. Especially when Pinnacle includes him twice in its 1992 base set and again in the Pinnacle Rookies tack-on end-of-year set. And with confusions like this one, considerations towards checklist fall behind design in terms of determining a set's desirability.

Luckily in Pinnacle's case, the set's got design in spades.

April 08, 2008

1990 - 1994 Countdown: #20. 1992 Topps Kids

(This post originally ran on February 22, 2008)

The Popeye muscles. The icicles on the end of Chili Davis’ bat. The Pop art sensibility and the 35¢ packs bobbing like life preservers in a sea of overpriced, insert-laden deadweights. The short 132-card checklist. The fun facts and anthropomorphic baseball equipment trading knowing looks with players and fans. Topps Kids, we hardly knew ye. Well… we knew ye—and some of us really loved ye (just not enough of us for ye’s liking).

This set, while defiant in the face of the mo’ money, mo’ problems hobby, was a product of Topps talking out of both sides of its mouth. Little kids were getting priced out of a hobby that had been geared towards them for generations, and much of it was Topps' doing with sets like Stadium Club. And yet Topps, ever the quixotic cavalier, rode to their rescue with cheap cheap packs, fun cartoons and explanatory tidbits about the game and the hobby.

The set launched a niche within an already niche hobby: what I’ve dubbed ‘Kids Kards.’ Both Donruss and Upper Deck followed the Topps lead with their own Kids Kards sets (Triple Play and Fun Packs, respectively). But while its competitors each churned out a few sets (Donruss produced Triple Play from 1992 to 1994 and Upper Deck made Fun Packs in 1993 and 1994), Topps Kids only survived through one year. Why?

I have a theory. While the cards were fun, and have gained a bit of notoriety for their pre-steroids depiction of players as muscle-bound Goliaths, Topps overlooked one very important thing about the hobby landscape of 1992: kids may have been priced out, but they were still collectors like everybody else: they wanted bells and whistles. They wanted shiny inserts. Upper Deck and Donruss understood this and incorporated these things into their Kids Kard sets. And Topps, though sage to recognize a market ready for its own set, was too wrapped up in its nostalgia of simpler times and simpler cards to see that its creation patronized its target audience.

I loved this set when it came out (and no, I wasn’t a little kid). I loved its playfulness and, as a collector experiencing foil fatigue at the time, I immensely enjoyed the fact that there was a shiny-things-free lower-priced set out there. I also liked the gum.

Though I’d forgotten about the set for a number of years, my admiration of it has grown. I jumped at buying a box online last summer and live-blogged a pack for A Pack A Day (click on the link to read the entry).

Earlier today, I got a chance to pose a few questions to David Coulson, the illustrator for Topps Kids, as well as other Topps sets.


The Baseball Card Blog: How did the set come about?

Coulson: I'd been working for as a freelance illustrator for Topps on and off ever since I started freelancing in the early 1980s. I was initially brought on by Art Spiegelman to illustrate a non-sports display box, and continued working primarily on non-sports projects, although I remember also illustrating a baseball and a football sticker album.

BBC Blog: Did Topps approach you early on in the development process?

Coulson: In the early '90s I was contacted by Brad Kahlhammer, an art director there who I'd worked with frequently, to design the cartoon back for the prototype Topps Kids card. It was a product that they were hoping would get young kids into baseball card collecting again (after years of decline in that demographic), hence the fun look and the low price point.

They had already had an illustrator design a few rough samples for the fronts (Richard McGuire is who I remember). This soon developed into me drawing all of the cartoon backs for the series, and drawing all the illustrations and hand-lettering for the fronts and the packaging as well. Some of the front styles were based on the style of the previous samples, the colored pencil rendered bodies with the photo heads being an example. There were at least 7 or 8 different front designs, all illustrated by me and mostly colored by me, with the exception of the cartoon silhouettes and graphic shapes which were colored at Topps.

For the backs I did only black & white illustrations (and lettering) and they had several different colorists do the colors, which is why if you look closely you can see different techniques of color application.

BBC Blog:With a checklist of only 132 cards, player selection must have been tough (only four or five players from each team). Were there any illustrations that didn't make it into the set?

Coulson: I don't know how they decided which players to include. I was provided with a script and stats for each back along with photo reference for each player and uniform reference for each team. I was able to come up with my own sight gags and similar incidental word balloons based on the scripts.

As far as I recall there were no illustrations that didn't make it into the set, although there were several that had to be revised when a player was traded after their card was drawn but before being printed.

BBC Blog: Finally, I approach baseball cards like they are little pieces of modern art, worthy of attention and critique. Are you a collector? And if so, do you have any favorite cards (that you've worked on or otherwise)?

Coulson: I agree with you about cards in general, although I am not a collector myself (except for my own samples). More recent sports card jobs I've done for Topps include the Bazooka Baseball, Bazooka Football, and Bazooka Basketball full color comic strip inserts series (Don Alan Zakrzewski art director), meant to be reminiscent of Bazooka Joe bubblegum comics, but also very similar in feel to the Topps Kids series. Each of these was a series of 24 insert cards, and unlike Topps Kids, they each continued for at least 2 or 3 years. I also drew black & white cartoon spots for the main series of Topps Baseball and Football cards for the 2006 year (Erik Kroha, art director), which was probably over 500 cartoons!


Here are a few other Topps Kids and David Coulson resources on the web:

Local Cartoonist Wows Kids (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 7/12/06)

David Coulson, Topps Kids illustrator (official site)

February 22, 2008

1990 - 1994 Countdown: #22. 1992 Studio



Hi there. I’m Gary Sheffield. I was just pomading my phat-ass Kid’N’Play hi-top fade. If you're wondering how I keep it so perfectly coiffed... well, let’s just say a couple drops of flaxseed oil under the tongue helps.



This is one of the most underrated sets of the early decade in terms of design and on-card content (as opposed to checklist, which was mostly a dud). 1992 saw Studio incorporate a warmly lit color headshot (less Herb Ritts and more… stock photography? The creativity of the headshot photography in this set was a little suspect) set against a larger black and white action photo. Its border design bears a strong resemblance to the same year’s Gold Edition from Leaf, though in its inverse (large gold border highlighted by a thin black frame). The thin gloss coat makes the colors pop on the front and shows off a classy ‘Studio’ watermark on the back.

Like the other Studio sets, what really gave this set oomph was the biographical data it gave on the back. While not as punchy as, say, 1992-93 Skybox basketball, the Studio sets provided more than enough unintentionally hilarious information. For a lesson in the power of juxtaposition, look no further than Paul Molitor: Intense Individual:

Hobbies are golf and racquetball… Favorite singer is Bruce Springsteen; actor is Robert De Niro; movie is Silence of the Lambs; book is the Bible.

…can you imagine being roommates with him on the road? Yikes.

All right, so this set is ranked probably a little too high. But tell me, why am I a sucker for Senior Superlative sets? Were the other brands really that boring by comparison? It’s fascinating that a brand like Studio could survive more than one or two years, and yet it effortlessly transcended its novelty status in 1991 to a real set, with real cards—produced every year—that carried weight in the Hobby almost until the end of the decade (the last Studio set was released in 1998). The brand even gave the Hobby one of its most memorable insert sets of the early decade in Heritage (debuting in this 1992 edition).

I should amend my thoughts at the beginning of this review. This set isn’t underrated: it has a weak base checklist and the design—while quality—is about on par with other sets one step up from the manufacturers’ respective flagships. What this set is is surprising. Surprising in that it’s surprising that it was made, surprising that the hobby, while reveling in its own bloated-ness, could float a set like this for more than just a year, and surprising that as a brand Studio flourished for eight years, mostly on the combined strengths of the emotional angle of the cards and the one, excellent insert set.

February 21, 2008

1990 - 1994 Countdown: #23. 1992 Upper Deck

While other kids my age were busy doing whippets under the bleachers after school, I was at home, in my room, by myself, blowing my mind with the three-photo cards found in 1992 Upper Deck. Upper Deck debuted the gimmick in 1989, but it was hardly old hat three years later. I mean, did you hear me? Three photos on one card! And they all overlapped! The concept rocked then, and it still rocks today (I’ve stared at this card of Ken Griffey, Jr. now for at least five minutes straight and still can’t figure out if I’m looking at three or four overlapped photos).

With cards like these stealing the spotlight, you almost forget that 1992 Upper Deck had all the hallmarks of a great set: a fantastic design, memorable rookies, fun subsets and a checklist that didn’t turn anybody away at the door. Toss in a bizarre (yet timely) insert of Tom “Mr. Baseball” Selleck, an autographed Ted Williams Hero(es) Worship card and enough holograms to start your own hall of mirrors and you were looking at probably the best set Upper Deck had assembled up to that point. Taking nothing away from its landmark inaugural set from 1989, 1992 Upper Deck was great simply because it didn’t look cheap, with its bright colors, inviting graphics and thinly glossed stock, even though it was.

And that’s an important distinction to make. 1989 wasn’t a cheap set to buy into, even though it probably should have been: the cards, while totally revolutionary at the time, have not aged very well (outside of the Griffey rookie and two or three others). They feel flimsy, with dull, muted colors and photography that doesn’t jump as far off the page as it probably should, given the set’s stature in the hobby. But cards from 1992? Perhaps because it was never going to be (or intended to be) considered a Pillar of the Hobby-type set, it hasn’t had as far to fall. My argument’s coming out all convoluted, but the gist is that because 1990 Upper Deck missed out on one of the biggest rookies of the year (Frank Thomas) and 1991’s design can best be described as ‘eye-gougingly painful,’ the expectations for 1992’s set were very low. Obviously, Upper Deck learned from the previous two years’ mistakes and had a few tricks up their sleeves, but if anything the set’s goal seemed to have some fun out there. And it passed with flying colors (not to mention with a stash of three-photo motion cards).

I should probably also mention something about the ill-advised Comic Ball 3 set, as it featured much of the same design as 1992 Upper Deck. All I can say is that the Upper Deck writers must’ve been on something more potent than junior high-strength whippets in order to come up with coherent dialogue between Jim Abbott and the Tasmanian Devil. I mean, writing for Reggie Jackson and Daffy Duck is easy: they’re both obsessed with themselves. But Jim Abbott and Taz? First, I thought Taz could only shriek nonsense, and second, I didn’t realize Jim Abbott had enough personality to carry a conversation, much less one with a cartoon character.