The Year is 3 MGCE (Modern Gimmick Card Era)

I've been thinking about gimmick cards the last few days and about a comment left on a previous post. The comment asked how I could label something both 'tiresome and predictable' and 'fun.' Here's what I meant.

Gimmick cards, when handled individually, are fun. Whether a dopey parody, a card written in Japanese or an obviously doctored photo, it's fun to get a card that's different from the rest of the set.

But then step back and look at the Gimmick Card Era our hobby has fallen into. It's an idea that's now central to the livelihood of the hobby. Every year there's a new handful of cards that don't really have anything to do with the rest of their sets. Their presence feels a little cheap to me. Like maybe the hobby's hit hard times.

It makes me think that maybe companies have lost their focus and are a little too in love with generating publicity. That maybe instead of (or most likely in addition to) resorting to gimmicks a company should invest more in making their product(s) better. By 'better' I really mean 'less sloppy': cutting out unintentional errors, using higher quality photography and greenlighting a more cohesive card design.

By elevating the overall strength of the set, gimmick cards don't have to do too much of the heavy lifting and collectors don't feel as disappointed if/when they don't find one in their pack or box.

To summarize: Gimmick cards: Fun (individually). The Gimmick Era: a tiresome and predictable skein of publicity stunts that hides the true sloppiness of the products involved.



The title of this post refers to the current year in the Gimmick Card Era. I'm torn as to when the era starts, so I've slapped 'Modern' on the front and had it start in 2006.

Here's a Gimmick: Make Your Base Set Better

I'm on the road this week in the Pacific Northwest. So without complete and steady access to a computer, the first thing I did in my brief Internet session today was check out Stale Gum to see what's been on Chris Harris' mind about cards lately. After reading his complete rundown on Topps gimmick cards, I agreed with his assessment: these cards are bullshit.

Sometime last year after Topps rolled out their Derek Jeter "error" card, I warned that Topps should watch out or people would start to wonder about their motive surrounding the sudden appearance of other high-profile "error" cards. Well, patterns have developed. In 2006 we had Alex Gordon. 2007 brought us Jeter. And now for 2008 we're awash in a veritable tidal wave of errors, variations and gimmicks. It's that last word (gimmicks) that's really a slap in the face of the collector.

Maybe the card companies see the gimmick cards as public relations efforts within the base set, or loss leaders (like relic and autographed cards) to help sell packs. I don't know. What I do know is that their presence is tiresome, relentless and completely predictable. But are they fun? Sure, they're fun, but shouldn't the fun be in the base set? Shouldn't every card be fun?

I'm going to re-issue my warning: Card companies Topps and Upper Deck should know better, by now, of falling into the gimmick trap. You need to sell more cards? Make the core of your base set better.

Idea for the Next Topps Gimmick Card

We all know it's coming, and I'm probably not too far off base to assume there's a room of monkeys with typewriters at One Whitehall coming up with ideas. I'm speaking, of course, about the next Topps gimmick card. Let's see, in the last three years they've sprung Guiliani and the Sox, the Bizarro Jeter, Poley Walnuts and the deftly geo-targeted whoopsie of Alex Gordon in Kansas-area Wal-Marts.

So what's next? I have an idea. Get someone like Manny Ramirez (a popular player who also seems a bit eccentric) to take out his braids and cut his hair like this:





My Photoshop skills used to be a lot better, but I think it would look something like this:




And you know, Manny doesn't even really have to do it. Presumably, Topps' graphic artists could just fake it. God knows they've had the practice. And if it's as big a hit as I think it will be, I think we'll be looking at a full blown insert set for Topps 2010.

Will You Ride The 2008 Giuliani/Topps Ticket?

I know other blogs have beaten me to the punch (as per usual), but frankly this is a little too inane to render analysis (even by Topps's ever-diminishing standards). This being a slow Wednesday morning, let's do so anyway.

If you've read the advertorial, excuse me, story on the AP wire or in yesterday's New York Post, you already know that Topps's gimmick this year has to do with the Red Sox team card: the Topps photo doctors have inserted Rudy Guiliani into the World Series celebration scrum. Clay Luraschi at Topps has already announced the odds of getting one of these cards in a pack (1:70), and didn't correct the Post when it called the card 'gimmicky.' This is an about-face from this time last year, when Topps's official line on 2007's flagship Jeter/Bush/Mantle gimmick card was that it was an 'error in production.'

Last year I heard stories from friends who rushed out to get a copy of the Jeter card, a) because it worth something (I'll get into this regarding the Guiliani card in a moment), b) because it was fun, and c) because it was the biggest (perceived) fluke in Topps's history.

But knowing that Topps is allowing the Guiliani to be called a gimmick and not an error, and already establishing odds of receiving it in a pack, is it setting itself up for a fall? Or worse--indifference from collectors? Sure, it's an SP (short print), but so what? There are a ton of SPs included in sets every year. And if it's a true error card that you want, well, just wait until the product is actually released. Topps and sloppy, uncorrected errors go hand in hand.

The thing about this is that Topps couldn't openly call it an error. That would make it three straight years with a high-profile 'error' (Alex Gordon, 2006; Jeter, 2007; Guiliani, 2008), which some might call a pattern of 'enterprising showmanship' and others (presumably at Upper Deck) might call 'a desperate cry for help.'

Another thing to keep in mind: If memory serves correct, the Jeter card's existence was made known after the 2007 product was released. What makes it interesting is that Topps timed this year's press release, sorry, story--why do I keep confusing the two?--not only to run a day before the official release day for Topps 2008, but to run on Super Tuesday. What makes it unintentionally funny is that it was probably the most publicity Guiliani received yesterday.

The real question in all of this is not if collectors will eat it up (surely they will, as its presence, and high-dollar command on eBay already suggests), but what the card's existence says about the state of Topps. Fake error cards? I would've thought that Eisner would want to distance his new company from that old practice. Apparently he saw the dollars rolling in and that was enough to let it continue. (At least long enough to help finance his Bazooka Joe aspirations.)



From The Baseball Card Blog Archive:

The Trouble with Topps
2007 Topps Review