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.

Card Critic: 2012 Topps Heritage Review

Are those braces on Escobar's teeth?
I feel old.

This time four years ago I argued that Topps should've killed off the Heritage brand with the 2008 Heritage '59 set. I stand by that sentiment. I understand that you don't kill a cash cow, but collecting a Topps Classic 1963 set would weigh better with my definition of the word "heritage." That said, I like this year's set—with a few caveats.

One thing I have to mention right away: The Topps checklister had one final chance to honor Stan Musial. One more chance. He or she could've put a worthy Cardinal veteran like Lance Berkman in Musial's final checklist-number slot. But noooooo. You want to know who got #250? Jon Jay. No, not him. This guy. What Heritage used to get right was the practice of checklist-matching current stars to their team-themed original-set counterparts. Number 1 in the 1960 Topps set was Early Wynn of the Chicago White Sox. Number 1 of the 2009 Topps Heritage set? Mark Buerhle of the Chicago White Sox. Number 20 of the 1957 Topps set is Hank Aaron of the Milwaukee Braves. His checklist-matched counterpart in 2006 Heritage? Andruw Jones of the Atlanta Braves. I could go on, but you get the idea. There were very few heroes at the top of the Topps universe of the 1960s: Sandy Koufax, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Stan Musial. And I'm sorry, but though he may be a St. Louis Cardinal, Jon Jay is not even a cardboard stand-in for Stan Musial.

Which leads to a larger question: Did Topps abandon the checklist-matching system for 2012 Heritage? Answer: Not really. They just abandoned their standard hero-worship model. They're not matching based on ability, but by team and field position. For example, Jay Bruce is on number 400. In 1963, another Cincy outfielder had that spot—Frank Robinson. Number 348 is Miguel Cabrera, the Detroit Tigers' hard-hitting first (now third) baseman. His original-set counterpart? Vic Wertz. Pick a card at random ... number 364 Jose Tabata of the Pittsburgh Pirates. In the original set, #364 is Howie Goss of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Okay, another one, this time not from a team that was around in 1963: Desmond Jennings at #195. In 1963 that was Manny Jimenez, also an All-Star Rookie, from the KC Athletics. Milwaukee Brewers' outfielder Corey Hart is on #414. In 1963, that's Ty Cline, of the Milwaukee Braves. Very clever. It's a huge Topps checklist-history-matching in-joke.

Also, I love that players are in their new uniforms, simply because none of them appear to be blatantly Photoshopped (although most if not all have been blatantly Photoshopped). One of the few cards that looks off is Carlos Beltran's. It's not quite as bad as the old-school St. Louis airbrushings, but for some reason the Topps artists just haven't seemed to master the "STL" on a cap. But Mark Buerhle, Prince Fielder, CJ Wilson, Jed Lowrie, Michael Pineda, and others that I have seen look great. With the exception of a few cards, the maturation of airbrushing has been a boon to recent sets. It used to be that the Topps artists would try to obscure the old uniform, or break out the Cray-Pas and go to town (see the Airbrushing Invitational Rodeo I did a few years back). Now, with the sophistication of Adobe CS5, Prince Fielder on the Brewers easily transitions to Prince Fielder on the Tigers without too many hiccups.

I'm okay, for some reason, with there being variations up the wahzoo, though the specific types of variations seem lacking. Color swaps are alright, but image swaps? C'mon, that's kind of lazy. Also, super-short-printed error variations seem to taunt the average set builder, especially if it becomes generally accepted that they are part of the master set. I would've liked to see the incorporation of older players, original to the set. Maybe a Rookie Stars card featuring Bryce Harper, Jesus Montero, Nick Hagadone, and Pete Rose? That would be a variation worth chasing. 

And speaking of the Rookie Stars subset, why are the same players featured on different cards? And why do those players also warrant their own cards? Did I miss something? Is this 2003-04 Topps Basketball Rookie Matrix, or is it especially hard for a player to meet rookie status nowadays? There are so many great young players out there that it seems completely frivolous—and gives the impression that Topps doesn't really respect its customers—to showcase the same players in different permutations across multiple cards. I feel hoodwinked.

Also, I think the photography is worth a mention The original '63s have aged so well because the photography standards were higher. Kodachrome, or whatever the professional equivalent at the time, featured brilliant color and crisp images. For its Heritage line (since 2006's Heritage '57 set), Topps has tried to evoke an old-timey feel for its photography. I can't say that it's worked. Continuing with this year's set, some of the posed sideline images appear muddled, like the designers have been hitting the diffuse filter pretty hard in the color-correction process. 

Finally, the card stock feels leathery on the back. If you put a card under a microscope and magnified the back so that you got down to the very fiber, would it be thatched? It feels as if this would be true.

Overall, I'm excited for this set. It suffers a little out of the gate with the needless carousel of rookies and the muddy photos, but it gets points for the clever checklisting nods and for the (generally) clean airbrushing.

Oh, and one more thing: These cards don't stink like Sex Panther cologne, like the 2012 Topps flagship product does. They smell like baseball cards should smell, despite the lack of gum in the pack.

(RIP indestructible, disgusting Topps gum)

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.

I Want to See Topps Heritage Push the Envelope

I haven't purchased a pack or any single cards from a Topps Heritage product in over two years (the last one I collected was Heritage '59, in 2008). I did this for a variety of reasons, most notably because I just didn't have the income to justify collecting another new set. I also stood (and continue to stand) firmly in the belief that the Heritage brand should've ended with the Heritage '59 (2008) set, and that Topps should've rechristened the subsequent sets as "Topps Classic." In any event, I've been thinking about this year's Heritage ('61), and I think I've hit upon a way to make the brand more appealing.

The Heritage checklister has done an admirable job "updating" checklists from the original sets and filling in each spot with its twenty-first century player equivalent. They haven't gotten everything right (as an homage to 1960's card #1, Cy Young-winner Early Wynn of the White Sox, 2009's card #1 was Mark Buerhle of the White Sox; it should have been one of the reigning Cy Young winners, Cliff Lee or Tim Lincecum), but 100% accuracy is not something any card company should be expected to achieve.

But a sly wink and an inside joke to an original checklist is no longer enough to buoy a set. The company has to continue to push the envelope or else they'll begin to lose the audience, or make them cynical about the checklisting tactics used ("Thom" Glavine, anyone? How about those annoying black backs versus green backs from the Heritage '59 set?).

The next logical step is the photo homage. Not just one or two photos sprinkled over the checklist, either. If they made every photograph on every card an homage to its checklist buddy from the original set, that would be something to write home about, something that would elevate the Heritage brand out of the retro-design doldrums.

Of course, to accomplish this, the Topps photographers would have to actually study the original set and pose their subjects down to the minutest detail. They'd also have to shoot their photos with an idea of recreating the photographic standards of the 1960s. Presumably, color-correcting of this caliber is something that Adobe Photoshop could assist in accomplishing.

I've never been a huge fan of the 1961 set. I think the design is one of Topps' weakest of the decade and the era, and the photos fairly unimaginative. Really, the only great part of the set are the subsets (the Brady Bunch-esque League Leaders, the MVPs, the All-Stars, the combo cards — "Lindy Shows Larry", anyone? — the World Series cards, and the Historical Highlights), an idea that exploded in 1961 and came to dominate the Topps Sixties.

It would be great to get "Josh Shows Daisuke" in my pack of Heritage '61 and not have it be two silhouetted shots of the individuals placed near each other. I'd appreciate the homage much more if Josh Beckett was smiling awkwardly while showing Daisuke Matsuzaka how to throw a curve.

Errors in My Heritage

It's funny really. For all their bluster about special Smoltz and Santana variations, 2008 Topps Heritage has its share of actual errors. Take Edwin Encarnacion and his identical twin, Juan Encarnacion.


Or the two Jerry Owenses. To quote the newest inane Bud Lite ad: Dude. I mean, c'mon Topps, this is pathetic. You want give me two different cards of a player? Then give me two completely different Jacoby Ellsburys or Pedro Martinezes. Not two Jerry Owenses. (And yes, the Owens backs are almost entirely different.)

Card Critic Review: 2008 Topps Heritage

Before I get into how much I like 1959 Topps (it’s by far the most brilliant Topps design of the early years, embracing jazz, beat, and a post-modernist pop culture sensibility within the staid, confines of baseball; plus it’s one of the few American card designs that was blatantly copied for a Japanese card set (1967 Kabaya Leaf, image shown from Rob's Japanese Cards)), I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: if it were up to me, this would be the last edition of Topps Heritage.

I have a few reasons. First, what does the word heritage mean? My cheap-ass dictionary has its meaning as valued objects and qualities such as cultural traditions, unspoiled countryside, and historic buildings that have been passed down from previous generations. So then by this definition, when exactly does the ‘unspoiled countryside’ era for Topps end? I think it has to end with 1959 (that’s when Fleer came on the market and stole Ted Williams). You could make a case that Fleer showing up in ’59 meant the same thing to Topps as the Bowman competition from 1951 to the buyout in 1955, but Topps/Fleer didn’t end the way Topps/Bowman ended and besides, Fleer is now owned by Upper Deck. You could also make the case that Fleer showing up really didn’t (and shouldn’t) mean very much when we’re talking about Topps Heritage, but I think that simply because there was competition (and that Topps doesn’t now own that competitor), no matter how hard Topps tried, their countryside was no longer unspoiled.

Second reason: If Heritage doesn’t end with the Fifties, it’ll end up being a runaway train. I’m a big fan of Topps design from the Sixties all the way up to 1978, but will collectors really want to go for Heritage ’78 in 2027? Maybe I’m in the minority, but I want Topps to be more original than Heritage by then. As a rejoinder to this point, there was an oft-maligned brand a few years ago called Upper Deck Vintage. These sets came out right when Heritage debuted, with Upper Deck pilfering the Topps design vault for three years worth of sets: 1963, 1965 and 1971 (and there was a fourth set, in 2004, but now I can’t remember what that set was supposed to emulate). The point of adding this is that you’ll get no argument from me that Heritage sets featuring these three designs wouldn’t be gorgeous, but Upper Deck’s beaten them to the punch. If anything, Topps should retire the name ‘Topps Heritage’ and call the remaining sets ‘Topps Classic.’

Third reason: A set like Heritage has to toe the line like other sets in today's variation-crazed environment. The intentional misprint and variation are enjoying renewed popularity these days at One Whitehall Street. No brand or set is safe, and Heritage is no exception. Black backs, misspelled names, alternate team uniforms—it’s a lot to pay attention to, especially in addition to the requisite Chrome, Refractors and black-bordered Chrome parallels, plus all the other inserts. And the short-printed cards, mustn’t forget about those… In the end it’s all so tiresome, you know? It almost feels like you have to peel away all these layers just to get to the set.

And that’s the rub: Heritage should first and foremost be about the set, but because it’s Topps (which is almost approaching a mid-Nineties-Fleer level in terms of number of different inserts competing for attention), and because it’s been created and released in the company’s current bells-and-whistles-and-hidden-shit environment, it’s not about the set.

Out of the four shrink-wrapped boxes sent over from Dave and Adam’s Card World (part of the D & A agreement with The Blog), I’ve opened three. Do I have a set? No. Should I? You’re goddamned right I should. 72 packs in and I’m missing at least 50 cards, plus God knows how many untold variations. And that’s just the base set. What’s the deal with that? For set builders, getting an insert in a pack means getting one less card towards completing the set. Add in a healthy amount of doubles and triples—anybody need a Russell Martin?—and very soon you’re in my position. In any case, even if this isn’t the last set we see out of Topps Heritage, it’s definitely the last new set I’ll collect.

It’s good to end on a high note, you know? For all the crap I just spewed about the inserts, the base Heritage ’59 set holds high notes in spades: The classic design; the checklist homage; the team card checklists; the titles of the combo cards; the color spectrum on the fronts; the return of the facsimile autograph; the stealth airbrushing; the rookie parade; the modern green on red (and even black on red) of the backs; the cartoons; the curves and e.e. cummings sans serif Helveltica typography in the spotlight on the front; the squares and straight lines dominating the backs. Even the photographs (usually a Heritage low point) are consistently sharp. The only noticeable drawback for me is the Heritage logo on the front. It seems larger within this design than it has in years past. It’s too bad they couldn’t have relegated it to the back or done it as a watermark.

I also like that the Topps photo editors didn’t shy away from going with photos that show just how pissed off, high or completely out of it a given player is, which rings true to the original photo choices made in 1959. A large number of players squinted their eyes and contemplated the universe in the original, while today's players all seem to be thinking You want me to stand look/stand where? It's great.

Tonight I re-read my review of 2006 Heritage, and while I had high hopes going in for that set and came away disappointed, it thrills me all the more that this year’s set is a winner. It’s a perfect way to retire a brand.

Some Notes

Some things I'm looking forward to for the coming year:

Topps Heritage '59
I've seen the sell sheets and I've watched the documentary Helvetica about the rise of the now-ubiquitous typeface (and prominent feature of the 1959 design) in preparation. But mostly I've been pining for this set for almost five years (since the release of Heritage '54 in 2003). I will go for the master set (as in 2003), and this time next year will make every argument against Topps Heritage continuing in 2009 and beyond, ransacking its cache of Sixties designs.

Card Trade Magazine
How did I get approved to receive this magazine? It's true, I applied to receive it. It's not that I'm complaining; far from it. I'm just a little shocked that I was approved. I'm also completely amazed that Kelnhofer and SCD give absolutely no mention of O'Keeffe and Thompson's The Card in any of their publications: Sports Collector's Digest, Tuff Stuff, or Card Trade. You'd think that dealers would like to know how an inflammatory text like that might affect their business. Guess not.

Eisner's Plans to Expand Topps' Footprint Overseas
In my review of Allen & Ginter earlier this year, I wrote that I thought Topps dropped the ball in not including David Beckham in the set, and proposed a Garfield Sobers World Champions card for A&G 2008. Well, it seems that Eisner kind of agreed (loosely). It looks like he wants to expand into Europe with cards for English Premier League football. Here's hoping they can get the license. Excuse me, licence. But why stop there? I think they should go for the world's largest sports audience and start sweet-talking the International Cricket Council.

Other Stuff
I plan on continuing (and finishing) the 1990s countdown. I also have a tentative plan to release a book in pdf form sometime this spring, not to mention the many other half-baked ideas on how to further expand The Baseball Card Blog empire.

2007 Bowman Heritage stuff

In case you haven't noticed, this year's Bowman Heritage set kicks ass. In fact, I'd have to say that Bowman Heritage has been consistently great. It's almost too bad that there weren't more designs from the Fifties that today's Topps designers could mooch off.

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure how I got on Clay Luraschi's public relations email list. But whatever, I'm not complaining. So I don't know if this has already been posted, but here's a release I just got from Topps HQ.


NEW BOWMAN HERITAGE SET FEATURES BACKGROUND TWISTS

Collectors ripping packs of the recently-released 2007 Bowman Heritage Baseball will find some very interesting and sometimes familiar backgrounds on certain cards (image attached). In addition to the backgrounds, a couple of players have added text to their photo including “Joba Rules” on Joba Chamberlain’s card. Following is a list of the cards with a description for each:

# 23 Carlos Delgado - Ebbets Field background
# 36 Paul Lo Duca - Ebbets Field background
# 40 Adam Dunn - Cornfield in background
# 50 Albert Pujols - Background from 1952 Bowman Stan Musial
# 51 Tom Glavine - New Citi Field Construction in background
# 68 Andy Pettitte - Old Yankee Stadium background
# 70 Roger Clemens - Yankee Stadium Monument Park background
# 75 David Ortiz - Background from 1952 Bowman Johnny Peske [sic; should be 'Pesky']
# 83 Greg Maddux – “4 CY” on glove
# 90 David Wright - Background from 1952 Bowman Gil Hodges
# 91 Ryan Garko – “Topps TV” on Microphone
# 100 Ryan Howard - Background from 1952 Bowman Richie Ashburn
# 110 Jose Reyes - Background from 1952 Bowman Pee Wee Reese
# 120 Jorge Posada - Old Yankee Stadium background
# 140 Carlos Beltran - Polo Grounds background
# 150 Derek Jeter - Background from 1952 Bowman Phil Rizzuto
# 155 Jimmy Rollins - Liberty Bell background
# 176 Johnny Damon - Old Yankee Stadium background
# 181 Ichiro - Background from 1952 Bowman Duke Snider
# 190 Alex Rodriguez - Background from 1952 Mickey Mantle Card
# 200 Barry Bonds - Background from 1952 Bowman Willie Mays Card
# 210 Joe Smith - Coney Island Ferris Wheel background
# 250 Daisuke Matsuzaka – Background from 1952 Bowman Maurice McDermott
# 251 Joba Chamberlain – “Joba Rules” written on baseball

Appreciation: 2006 Topps Heritage #50 Scott Rolen

To the reader who commented on the post about Topps’ 1972 In Action subset and the card companies’ recent betrayal of the traditional headshot/closeup for the greener pastures of action shots, this card’s for you. Not only would I not trade this awkward closeup of Rolen for an action shot, but I want to find out just what exactly was going on when this photo was taken.

My guess is one of three things:
1) The Topps photographer told a really bad joke
2) This is Scott Rolen’s Serious Face
3) Tony La Russa just told him he thought they should see other people and Scott Spiezio walked into the room in a towel at the exact same time (how awkward)