[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Showing posts with label Smiling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smiling. Show all posts

Thursday, August 27, 2020

Old people cards

As the magnitude of the incredible shrinking supply of baseball cards slowly sank in this summer, I knew there would be one product I expected no problems finding: Archives.

This was because some 2019 Archives, which I enjoyed very much, was still on my local shelves well into July 2020. However even those blasters would tend to disappear, one by one, week by week.

So last Friday I was going to take no chances and hit up the baseball card stores once I got clear of all possible work tasks for the day, in the early evening, as at least one somewhat local Big Box store gets stocked on that day.

Fortunately, I instead lucked into some Topps Chrome at last, on my 4th Friday attempt. And also fortunately, finding some fresh 2020 Archives was not a problem either and I picked up a blaster to try it out for this year. I 'collected' parts of the set last year, as I have done some years, but haven't really thought about for this year. I never really make that call with Archives until I get some packs to rip.

Let's take a look:
First out of the pack is the oldest set featured, 1955. I only know the originals from images in beloved baseball card books, and in the digital era of course via seeing them on-screen. I haven't had anywhere close to a desire to own some originals because I would much rather acquire my very first 1956 &/or 1953 Topps card, followed by many many more from those sets. If I could, I would.

This card if well executed and the research department here at Base Set Calling has a hunch this is actually the very same primary photo as used on Irvin's original 1955 card, though appearing on-card now with much improved printing technology. The back of the card is nice and colorfully authentic, too, and perhaps a bit more easily readable than a '55 original, which is a plus to modern efforts at these, though something Topps only sometimes gets right.

I am going to guess that most online commentary on this latest take on the '55 set will note that the original didn't use the cap logo up there in the upper left. I am fine with that because after lo these many years of collecting baseball cards and absorbing baseball history in various ways — I had never noticed the historical connection of the interlocking NY logo the Mets use to the cap logo used by the NY Giants. Until this baseball card reached my hands. Thanks, Topps.

Naturally for a release like this, Topps instantly ditches any kind of consistency on what to do with the required graphic up there in the upper left corner in my very next card in the pack:
Here we see two logo decisions on Reds caps and Topps goes with a different logo altogether on their part of the card. Though repeating the basic "C" a third time in that image would look a little odd, it definitely doesn't match the decision made on the previous card; nor the decision Topps made back in late 1954.

But I do always like pulling Neon Deion cards, and I am 2-for-2 on pulling cheerful baseball cards of cheerful baseball players with a nice smile on their face. Could I maintain this hot streak?
Nope. This makes me wonder - how many 21st Century rookies end up flashing a smile on their Rookie Card cards? Not many, I expect, but thanks to Deion and Monte, I think I will start watching for those.

Here we do see triple logo action, thought not all that dramatically given the smaller size of the action image. For the Blue Jays though, there is no other real choice anyway.

This card does remind me of my usual reaction to 21st century takes on 1950s (and 1960s) baseball cards: too sterile. I think this might flow from the digital photography used today, even though this particular card is not the worst example of the dry, but glossy, cold I see on many Heritage and Archives cards. Topps &/or the digital photographer can change that if they try, and it does look like an effort was made here in that regard, though this is still the least warm of my first three 1955 2020 cards. 

I guess it is cool to pull a Rookie Card card so desirable that it is even featured on the box of cards I just bought. Archives Rookie Card cards are somewhere in the double digits on any average list of desirable Rookie Card cards from everything I have seen over the life of the product. That's not why I buy these cards of course, but that desirability factor (read: $$) is probably why I expect no problem finding this product on my shelves this year.

Personally I do like the Archives Rookie Card cards I have pulled over the years, like this one:
So I occasionally look through my Rookie Card box and check in on what is happening with such cards; this basic 2018 Archives Acuña card is currently selling in the random teens on the ole eBay.

Why are Archives Rookie Card cards so far down the list of preferred cards to own? I suspect several reasons. One is a lack of an autographed version in Archives, a distinct difference from essentially the same idea in Heritage sets. Another is where Archives sits on the release calendar: middle-towards-end of baseball card "season." If somehow Archives was released earlier in the year, the Rookie Card cards therein would be much "hotter" in the marketplace. Also, exactly zero Chrome in Archives, though a future change to that would surprise exactly no one. And now I need to walk outside, forget why, and start yelling at a cloud. Because I also suspect that the vast majority of people following Bo Bichette on an At-Bat-by-At-Bat basis along with a refresh on the current price of his 2020 Series One PSA 10 Rookie Card card, well, few of them care about what he might look like on a 1955 style baseball card. And that's just the way she goes.

Ahh well, let's see what else Topps has for me this year:
1974! Woot! I like 1974 Topps.

I began collecting baseball cards the very next year, so 1974 Topps holds a fair bit of mystery for me to this day. I have never delved into picking up a small stack of such cards just to absorb and probably launch even a small set collecting effort, like I have with 1973. But I do like a certain 1974 Topps Baseball card enough to have purchased the "Wall Art" version to some day hang on a wall - the '74 Garvey.

On this Trey Mancini card, I at first like the harmonious use of orange for the image border, and black for those flowing city and team name pennants I have always admired. But....why can't those be printed in orange, too? I don't get it.

There is something I do like about this basically routine Mancini card very much however - it is an action shot. Early on in the Archives product, Topps would routinely create the cards of the current players using their Photo Day mug-shot from early in Spring Training. On card after card after card year after year after year. The historical players mixed in to the checklists would often have photos taken from a live action game, which made the repetitive Photo Day cards that much more noticeably boring. Now, a current player is shown playing baseball on these historical designs. A definite improvement here.

Though the back of the card helpfully fills me in that Mancini was the 2019 team MVP for the O's, we all know that isn't a whole lot to write a card back about. It is a bit of an ironic card to pull here in the summer of Covid-19, as Mancini is both unable to play as he recovers from colon cancer treatment, and has a compromised immune system requiring him to be extra careful around other people right now. Colon cancer - here I am pondering a baseball card and remembering I need to check in with a doctor somehow, somewhere, just in case, as I am almost old enough to have purchased a 1974 baseball card whereas Trey Mancini was born 8 years after those were for sale. Not the thoughts I expected to have when I ripped open this pack of baseball cards featuring the Boys of Summer. This still earns a Thanks, Topps, though not a happiest of such. Maybe I will get one of those eternally happy Rookie Card cards next -
More 2020 irony as Buster Posey elected to opt out of the season this year, and a small bit of charity here from Topps as I strongly doubt Posey would have played anywhere close to the amount of games wearing that nifty orange&black catcher gear this year as he would have at First Base. It's time, Topps. Sooner or later, we all get told. 

And on this card - why do the Giants get nice harmonious team color orange ink in the black pennant, but the Orioles don't? Solidly inconsistent on my first two cards, again.

Now in every 8 card pack from inside a blaster, 2 of the 3 sets featured has to lose a card to the insert in each pack; in my first pack '74 had to volunteer, bummer. That yielded this card:
Alright, a nice smiling Rookie. Almost. The one thing people like the most after Rookie Card cards is Topps Rookie Cup cards the next year (sometimes; sometimes the Cup appears on the actual Rookie Card card).

Topps has re-run this idea before, on the 50th Anniversary of the 1959 season for the players really selected by the youth of America to make the inaugural edition of this checklist. The backs of these cards feature an authentic take on the original 1960 card back.

Two sets, one insert so far, that leaves our final set to re-issue:
Ahh a set I never collected after the annual sample pack. I like the flowing pennants, again, and the again harmonious choice of team colors for them, which go perfectly with a Braves alternate uniform here. And a team color bat, too?

But, Brown? Sure, baseball gloves are brown (usually). But every kid knows brown is the color of a whole 'nother sport, not baseball.

Just never could get into that set and never tried. The top of this card reveals instantly why it was selected in the year 2020, for perhaps the only Topps Baseball set to list the year of production right on the front of the card, though I might have fallen asleep on noticing that in the mid-90s somewhere.

Now it might take me a minute or 29 to find my few original 2002 Topps cards, but I doubt they had a traditional card stock like these 2020 Archives versions do. 2001 Topps used a modern thin stock; I collected that one. However all of the cards in the blaster, from the 3 sets and all the insert sets, use the same cardboard card stock - another change from last year, and a good one. Part of the allure of Heritage and Archives is that old-timey card stock us old-timers like as we paw through a stock of old-timey baseball cards, even if we are looking at a design from the 21st century.

So now we can get a brand new baseball card of an old baseball player on old-time cardboard. Like this one:
This is just one of the most unfortunate baseball cards I have ever pulled. It surely has to be from Morgan's 2nd stint with the Astros to help explain the definite lack of youth here, but is just a terrible picture to choose for a baseball card. Let's flip it over.
Whew, that's better. But I can't think of another set where I like the color of the back more than the color of the front, that's for sure. At least these 2020 2002 cards I own now will have complete career stats for the old guys on them. I like that.

What a weird first pack that was. One Rookie Card card, one smiling Rookie Cup winner, and a whole lot of old. Let's see what else I can find in this blaster -
Ahh, one of those Rookies that will be following me around this year. When Topps like a Rookie, they make a lot of checklists. My first knowledge of Sean Murphy was tuning in a west coast game to hear him come to the plate in the top of the 9th with the A's down a half-dozen or so runs, in one of their recent late inning demolitions of their cross bay rivals. Murphy calmly hit a Home Run and the rally was on. John Miller could hardly believe what he was seeing.

A nice cheerful-ish, ain't-no-sunshine-in-the-winter Rookie Card card but it again asks - cap logo, or team logo? I will never understand how Topps makes those calls.

But I do like Oakland A's cards:
A nice candid, just like on old timey Topps Baseball card sets, of a player watching some baseball action from the bat rack area. This Archives set is getting some things together, it appears.
Though now we head back to Spring Training Photo Day.

But that's, OK. I don't mind Spring Training baseball cards at all. I just don't like such images to appear on card after card after card as I paw through my cardboard.

One thing I have noticed about Photo Day images is no team ever seems to wear any of their Alternate uniforms that day. Some probably actually wear their Spring Training uniforms, which are a bit of an alternate to the home whites. Or, their newest-of-new uniform issue, as we see here.

But overall, I am really starting to like baseball cards with those Alternate uniforms:
Blue & red uniform and accoutrements, blue & red team logo, blue & red baseball card pennants. But, Brown?

I also like the slowly-sneaking-up-on-us return of the Powder Blues, complete with 'racing stripe' -
But, Brown?

Time to paw our way to another insert:
Looks like 1960 is a bit of a 4th set to be re-issued here. That would be a neat trick in this product - re-run every insert from a certain set, all at once. Perhaps, though, 1960 Topps had only 2 subsets, so...just don't ask me what happened to Mike & Shohei's faces here. Stayed too long at the Wax Museum?

I like the sky background, but this card makes me a bit depressed. I really wanted to see Ohtani become a potent weapon in the late innings for Joe Maddon, as a shut-down reliever that also wouldn't waste a crucial plate appearance when the Pitcher was due up. Now he is finally playing for Maddon, but in the wrong League for my dream, and the all powerful bad news that is the year 2020 might also finally make an NL DH a permanent thing, anyway. Meanwhile, Mike Trout seems farther away from playing some October baseball than he ever has been, and I am thus farther away from seeing the player of a generation playing baseball on a TV, particularly since the regional divisions won't play each other at all this year. 

That card will have to go, somewhere. And I will have to go back to 1955
Solemn. Now there is a word you don't connect to a baseball card very often.

Maybe the key to a good Photo Day baseball card in the digital era is a good base tan. Because Photo Day, the 3rd week of February or so, features a spring-time bright Florida sun, a bit different than regular season sunshine, right Anthony?
You can't get more Spring Training than that and I doubt Rizzo would smile bigly if you asked him to sign this entry in his baseball card oeuvre.

But I like that card anyway because I never thought about the idea of 1974 Topps Baseball including some pink baseball cards, or close enough, and I like pink baseball cards, though I have no idea how pink became selected in this set, or the original. Or, for that matter, the color red:
Now we're cooking with gas. Promise me a new Willie Stargell baseball card and I will buy a pack, every time.

I guess I will have to hope to see a lot of 1974 Topps on a blog somewhere to divine the mysteries of the colors selected then & now, but that odd choice can't take me away from enjoying this card, which also taught me a fun bit of Stargell/Pirates trivia on the back:
And unlike many a quick-draw Topps cartoon, I am not instantly thinking "seen it" with that one, though I wouldn't wager that basic idea hasn't been used on another card or three.


This card back does illustrate a point where Topps had to display a bit of finesse to create a 2020 version of the 1974 card backs. The originals featured the player's 'facsimile' signature on the top right. These days, signatures are just some version of a scrawl for the vast majority of players, and those just wouldn't work here, at all. So Topps just picked an elegant-ish font and re-printed the player name with it. Which looks kinda, weird. Whaddayagonnado?

Why continue on backwards in time, of course, to 1955 again:
Though Topps sometimes creates "Bowman Heritage" sets, it hasn't yet done "Bowman Archives" unless I missed some online-only-on-3rd-Tuesday version of such, which I frequently do. (I recently discovered that there was an online only repro of 1975 Topps World Series cards that I now absolutely have to have. Thanks, Topps. Kinda.)

Though I have strong doubts the 1955 originals of these had anything to do with purposely showcasing "Rookies" (such players could barely make a baseball card checklist back then), this go-round of '55 Bowman is a 30 card checklist, each with the classic Rookie Logo Man there in the bottom right. Because, Rookies. That's what we all need in our packs of baseball cards - moar Rookie Card cards.

The player on that card is another Topps-beloved Rookie this year, that is also following me around in my 2020 limited baseball card purchases - but only on insert cards, not base cards. Each time I pull one of his cards I giggle at the weird spot the White Sox are in this year, as Collins is trying to break in for them at Catcher. Topps probably green-lighted his appearance on so many checklists before the Sox signed Yasmani Grandal to a four year deal. Meanwhile, the career of James McCann is really blossoming both behind the plate and standing at the plate; it is whispered that the Sox pitching staff greatly prefers throwing to him over Grandal and McCann caught Lucas Giolito's almost perfect first-of-2020 No Hitter the other night. Also meanwhile, the Sox have Edwin Encarnacion on the roster to slug Designated Home Runs and a number of hot hitting positional players (and so-so fielders) that can always use a one day break from fielding so the Utility guy to get his butt off the pine for a day, while the Sox would want their bat to stay in the line-up. Such are the problems of a heavily loaded line-up, something my team hasn't had to worry about for such a very long time now. I can already tell I will be pulling a Zack Collins insert in 2020 Stadium Club.

That almost does it for my first-blaster inserts in 2020 Archives; I did not pull a 1980s Glossy Rookie (maybe Hobby Box only?), nor another take on '76 Tradeds, nor a super duper rare 1989 Cornfield parallel (?) that I don't understand. Must be some sort of anniversary of that weird Build It And They Will Come movie I have never wanted to watch, &/or Topps must have just straight ran out of baseball movies to somehow integrate on to some Archives cards this year. But Topps always keeps you hanging on with their steady supply of "Hits," like this one:
A /175 parallel, ooooooh. Looking at this uniform makes me think the Rays 'secondary team color' might be yellow. Might. Back in 2002, it probably wasn't; at one point their team colors were actually two shades of green. 

Now I always like a Rays card with the actual Ray sailing in to the frame there on the left sleeve patch, but here with my one chance to escape from but, brown, I get but, purple on a "blue" card. I also do like the faux Turkey Red background the Topps photographer managed to discover back there last February at least, but this one is just not a keeper.

There is one final type of card-from-the-past in this product - a 1964 'Giant'. I quite liked those ten years ago in the Lineage release, though I have only acquired 2 of those as they were 'box topper' cards and I can't run around buying boxes and boxes of baseball cards, just packs and sometimes a blaster. One of the Lineage versions sits on my bookshelf to this day:
(Complete with 1964 like centering - well done, Topps).

This year a new take on the cards are included one per blaster, and those I can run around buying every so often, just as long as 2020 doesn't intervene I guess. I was quite looking forward to this portion of the brand new baseball card ripping experience:
And here my weirdly incredible 2020 baseball card mojo came through for me again as I held this 'pack' in my hand it felt kind of, too thick, somehow:
Bank error in your favor, collect $200!

Or, at least, a simple extra '64 Giant baseball card. Thanks, faulty Topps packaging robot!

These cards are so nice:
The backs are re-executed perfectly, as well:

And I am always down for a bonus pull -


If you are a Team or Player collector for a card in this checklist, I can highly recommend owning one of these.

The only bad news for me on them is - no Tigers this time. Not surprising when you live in a cellar, but this blaster of Archives marks my second sequential baseball card purchase with no Tigers cards of any kind in the packs. Maybe if I want some exciting new Tigers cards, I should collect Bowman cards.

Instead, I stick with Topps. At least I get Mike Trout cards that way:
Photo Day scruff? Pass. Least favorite Trout card ever? Yup. Maybe back in February, Mike already knew how things would go this year, though at least he is having a good year off the field with a new baby at home.

I also know I will get plenty of cards of all the other exciting Center Fielders in the game -
More nice baseball red & blue and I am now positive: I want all future Atlanta Braves cards to be delivered to me with photos using their Alternate uni.

But what else can Topps do for an exciting player now on his 3rd year cards, so far removed from those exciting Rookie Card cards that no one but old people like me even notice they pulled one? How about a re-run of the next best thing to a Rookie Card card, a Rookie Cup card:
This card kind of turned me off from the idea of collecting this run of inserts - Acuña was on the All-Star Rookie team in 2019, not 2020. Turns out, this little insert checklist is 18 cards long, all of players from 2019 & 2020. Though I suspect the checklist is not a complete set of either year's run of Rookie Cup players, I don't have the psychic energy to figure it out, given this weird break in how such things should go, here.

As for the way all the game's Center Fielders (except Tigers CFs) appear in my packs of Topps baseball cards, not all of them are welcome sights:
One of the 2020 losses to the game of Baseball is no chance for the fans to express their thoughts when the Astros come to town.

Eventually as I pondered this part of the checklist and whether I will find it 'binder worthy', I had a handy realization. It is of course a pain-in-the-neck to put a 100 card checklist into binder pages, which work in units of 9 cards each. 11 pages of 9 cards leaves one problem. But I think if I binder up these cards - problem solved.

I do like Astros cards just enough I guess, from the pre-cheating era at least:
Oh, wait. Rumors. Still, not a player I see in packs very often, and another nifty example of those pennants flowing their way around the card.

The nice thing about a checklist of old people is the way the cards in the pack will quickly return you to a better memory of whatever era of baseball you might be pondering, as with another player I haven't seen on-card in a while:
Is the official team logo selected by Topps here actually a premonition of future cards for the Cleveland Ball Club? It might be, it might. Will this be the last on-card appearance of Chief Wahoo? It might, but I think that might prove far too difficult for Topps to achieve in coming sets and years.

It is nice to pull a post-career Jim Thome card; though I know he has made some checklists since retirement I just haven't found any of those in a pack.

These Archives checklists do have an odd way of making one think about the passage of time. Before we know it, this guy's cards will be sitting in "vintage" boxes:
Which might be fitting, as even a 1990s photograph still has more basic humanity to it than so many of our current century's digital takes on life. I'm starting to warm up to these cards, too...
BOOM

Show me a baseball card collector who says they don't totally enjoy pulling a brand new Hank Aaron card from a pack and I'll show you a liar.

And in another Doh! I could've had a V-8 moment, I finally realized with this card that ALL of them are horizontal, which makes for a much nicer looking binder page. I suspect 9 of these 100 cards could make for a Nifty Nine page, 'specially since 99 of the '74 style cards would probably result in using 4.5 pages of double inserted cards. Sometimes it's not the amount of binder pages one can use that becomes important, but the amount of binders one can keep around, nomsayn?

There is one final baseball card archetype in this product to share with you - some Short Prints, I guess. Home-made by Topps, I think?
These are Topps Nickname Poster Cards and perhaps have no antecedent within the Topps baseball card multi-verse and rather are inspired by other baseball posters made a few decades ago.

Somewhat like last year, this run of cards includes card #s tacked on above 300 in the checklist of base cards but the pack odds (1:5) list these, somewhat making them an insert, but not. Or something. These also exist in true poster sizes, as 'box toppers' in the Hobby edition.

Another small set of cards I don't need to chase, particularly as no Tigers make the 15 card checklist (unsurprising), and probably something largely of interest for a dedicated player collection only.

Now a small thing I like in the latest editions of Archives is the late street date allows it to function as a bit of an 'Update' set on some cards:
No complaints about UPS trucks from me here - this could be the only possible baseball photo that actually calls for a brown border to sync up well with the image.

What I like about that card is that it absolutely does not look PhotoShopped. On all other such cards I have pulled this year, or seen on-line, I noticed Topps never adds the Nike Swoosh to the uniform. Which is actually accurate for a 2020 baseball card, as they weren't on the uniforms last year. So for better or worse (I choose the latter), this might well could be the first baseball card to feature the Swoosh just over the right lung. Though of course the Swoosh has been seen elsewhere on baseball cards for many many years.

Overall though, my little pile of set-asides from this one blaster of Archives largely featured the '74 cards...
...with their familiar players and even familiar images, though somehow Tom Seaver's delivery seems to make all of his cards look similar even when they are unique.
Soon, I think, even the greats of the 1990s will be set apart in a little more hallowed little piles of baseball cards that come along in mixed checklists like this one.

As I absorbed these cards I started thinking about filing them in a totally new way for me, in yet another sign we all get told about, by age. Might give a display of these an interesting flow.
We have a Winner.

Sunday, March 1, 2020

Backs in the day


Well I have certainly been looking forward to ripping this particular 'pack' of cards, that is for sure.

1971 marked a bit of a turning point for baseball cards; most any one interested enough in baseball cards to be reading an obscure baseball card blog already knows all that. The Munson card, etc., etc.

This then begged a certain question - where would Topps put the 'historically correct' cards in the Heritage version of the set? Clearly there would be a take on the Munson card; the Lowell Palmer / Pat Neshek card in 1970 / 2019 Heritage made that plain enough.

But for some time now, Topps has been adding the "value" that the Lottery Ticket Scratchers, err, "collectors" demand in their boxes of baseball cards by including a certain totally a-historical card in Heritage sets: the super short printed / photo variation "Action" cards.

Would the historical styled cards just be issued as deliberately super short printed cards? Or might they be just issued as part of the 100 card "short print" portion of the checklist, which no longer has any correlation to the issue sequence &/or basic quantity made of the historical sets, only some of which had exceptionally scarce cards usually referred to as "high numbers."

So....let's rip the pack.



First card, best card? Well, this was the first bit of baseball card I could see as I opened the pack. Given the current news in MLB, I thought it was pretty cool to see this particular card, first, sorta. And this was quite surprising to me, because although I own very few 1971 Topps Baseball cards, the relatively sparse info backs weren't ones that particularly made me think - yeah, I'm gonna buy some 2020 Heritage and read all those dark card backs.

And what's that I see down in the left corner? A fleck of white? My uber-valuable baseball card is already ruint, before I even get to take it to the bank. Thanks, Topps.

This particular card back is a bit of a classic effort by Topps - talk up something that can be seen in a picture of a baseball player, and then no way, no how, use such a picture on a baseball picture card that might match the text. Oh, well.

But this was a nice surprise, and an initial answer to my key question: this certainly appears to be a picture from a Major League Baseball game. You won't see a back wall like that on a spring training field. There is no way to be sure on all that, but this is a nice portrait card that is probably also a live action shot, and this is not from the Short Print portion of the checklist, nor is this a special value added 'Action' card; those have a printed text notation of that word right on the back of the card now. Topps 1, Card Cynic 0.

But let's move on to the card that was on the 'top' of the stack of baseball cards, i.e. the one facing right-side up:

These particular cards make me so mad I want to fling them away from me like a frisbee, which is why I will hold that Fiers card in my thoughts of First Card in this product. I think we are up to about 5 years of seeing Red Sox players standing on this exact same spot on so many of their baseball cards. We all know that 1960s sets, and large portions of 1970s sets, were created with photos taken at Spring Training. But those original sets didn't feature entire teams of players all standing on the same spot to have their picture taken, and definitively did not feature that photo composition strategy for years on end. The Red Sox + the bushes has been running for some time now; I actually preferred the run of years when their players stood by a chain link fence, which made for a more menacing card. But some other teams, such as the Tigers, have had repeat backdrops running on for quite a few more years than these (in)famous Red Sox shrubs. And don't even get me started on the summation of the 2019 Eddie Rosario card and the 2020 Eddie Rosario card, which I have seen elsewhere already. Topps 1, Card Cynic -1.

This card creates an instant baseball question: how good will the White Sox be this year? This is what I want from a pack of baseball cards. I particularly like the back of this card:

Now that is how to do a Leaders card. Don't mess around, just give me the top 50 players for that stat. Simple, to the point, very, very informative. I would very much like to see this straight up copied in a Topps Baseball set in the 2020s; Top 10 is nice, but Top 50 is nicer. Topps 2, Card Cynic -1.


You can always tell, in a Topps Baseball set, which teams are down in the cellars of the Leagues. Simply by how many of their cards you pull featuring players you have never heard of. It seems like just yesterday I was adding yet another Chance Cisco card to my pile of "should I save this?" baseball cards. I think, for those Cisco cards, Topps just answered the question for me. Plus, I like a good old fashioned blurry empty seats card, an image that can pretty much only be seen on Topps baseball cards, and is also one that I don't associate with 59 other Orioles Heritage/Archives cards from the last oh so many years. This card also makes me look forward to finding a Giants, O's, Marlins, or Pirates player wearing their Home Alternate uniform. Topps 3, Card Cynic -1.


Meh. But, actually, not really. This card will help me quite a bit in considering the Houston Astros, going forward - none of these players could have been involved in the recent cheating, for one, so they will give me some tiny bit of bright spot to look forward to in Astros box scores. I also had a good friend named Rogelio, once upon a time, though he was from Mexico. That makes me always root for the Mexican players in MLB, so it is a bit of bummer that Señor Armenteros there is from Cuba. But I will root for him anyway. Also of note on this card is the home of that imposing looking young third baseman there, but I will leave that for you to discover on the back of your own baseball card. Maybe, he will end up on your team soon enough, considering that a Rookie has little chance of taking a spot from a young almost-MVP, even a young, now hated almost-MVP. Topps 4, Card Cynic -1.

I have pretty much already pulled this card in a previous pack of Topps Baseball cards, and that made me mad.

This is where the laziness of the Topps Photo Day shots really wear out collectors - when you also collect Archives. Which is unfortunate, because players with a big smile always make for good baseball cards, so I like this particular player for that reason and I do want to collect his baseball cards. This particular back drop for Braves cards goes back a solid ten years or so. Topps 4, Card Cynic -3.


Plenty of Giants cards from their "spot." Topps 4, Card Cynic -4. I am going to quit posting these cards. Note that is just a white team name, not a deliberate artificial scarcity value added card, which feature team names printed in silver, for you to chase and give away your money for not much, really.


Now we are starting to cook with some gas. A nice bright live action baseball card, with some really strong lines to the image, too, though only the best we can get for a rare Ball Boy cameo in the ever blurrier 21st century. And my first Tigers, card, sort of, though Cron only has a one year deal with the Tigers, who are fielding 5 such veterans this year all on one year deals, which makes rooting for their results about completely pointless.

On the Cron card I don't quite understand the off-set placement of the facsimile signature; one of the historical-set-mimic-deliberate-errors this year features a poorly placed sig like this one, on the Yordan Alvarez Rookie Cup card. But there is no magic word 'error' in the official spot just above the player picture on the back of the card, so this card is worth essentially 0¢. But, this is the kind of card I was hoping to pull from this pack, and indeed, will be keeping in a binder page prison for all eternity, just to look at some contemporary players on a vintage design.

I will update the score methodology in the pack now - Pose 4, Action 2 (recall Fiers card).


mmmm, so thirsty. I bought this pack of baseball cards instead of a six pack, but I do like King of Beers cards, even though I hardly ever drink that beer, or even buy beer any more, as currently I would have to choose between beer and baseball cards in life due to a # of swings and misses at work, so I am starting to have a love/hate relationship going with this card. But it will have a binder page slot some day too, though not with other 2020 Heritage cards. Pose 4, Action 3.


I think this card is probably a night card. What is also nice about this card is that Allard was traded to Texas last summer. But Topps didn't mess around with simply photoshopping Kolby into a T-for-Texas ball cap and a road grey uni. Or maybe they have updated their PhotoShop license and are now much, much better at such efforts. Still, another type of card I am looking for in my Topps Baseball sets. New team, new uniform (Road Alternate, no less - very nice on vintage designs), new bit of player bio on the back. +1 in the Topps score above. That Greek symbology on the bottom of the card though - what's up with that? Pose 4, Action 4.


I like this posed card quite a bit. A good smile makes a good baseball card. It has a familiar Spring Training vibe to it, but I haven't seen this photo spot 592 times before, neither. And I like those nice perfectly landscaped small trees showing off their Spring colors, too - a perfect card to pull this time of year, writing a blog post and listening to a Spring Training broadcast (I recommend absorbing a bunch of those this week, just in case). I also particularly like that Topps oh so carefully placed the signature reproduction; maybe that is a good sign for other cards in other sets, going forward, as otherwise Topps semi-routinely has players sign their names on cards right over dark uniform, etc., spots in the image, and they didn't exactly ace this detail on that C.J. Cron card. On this card, someone deep in the Topps baseball card mines showed they still care about the final result, on-card. So another +1 for Topps vs. Cynic, though I skipped over 3 other posed cards. Pose 8, Action 4.


Normally, a cap-less baseball card indicates a 1960s Topps Baseball card and they are a bit on the rare side outside of that decade, 'cepting of course their Heritage repros. But also normally, a cap-less baseball card indicates a posed card. Not so here. Also probably a night card - night cards and 1971 Topps Baseball - an interesting combo. I will be watching (my baseball cards).

That particular image of the card amuses me a little; mine is far more well centered but I could not get it to scan straight without the instant cupping of brand new Topps Baseball cards making for crooked scans. Finally I gave up and borrowed someone else's scan from eBay. But that particular copy certainly has more authentic vintage appearance than mine does, though none of my vintage cards have ever curled up and refused to lay flat on a scanner bed the way so many of my brand new baseball cards do lately.

I don't know much about Josh VanMeter, but the Reds are expected to possibly 'make some noise,' as they say, in the NL Central this year, so seeing their new baseball players is why I buy baseball cards. One intriguing little factoid about VanMeter I did just learn is this: he has exactly zero Bowman baseball cards already created. Must be a walk-on. Perhaps, future baseball cards will enlighten me. Pose 8, Action 5.


I am thinking this might be the first baseball card that says "Mad Max" on it, so straight into my little Nifty Nine collection of Max Scherzer cards this will go; and I expect it might stay there over time as though I like Max, I don't really need more than 9 of his nifty baseball cards to keep for all-time.

I am guessing Topps is having one of their mis-adventures with filters here, trying to give a vintage feel for how early 1970s Topps was able to handle cards photographed at night, or something. So perhaps a newer, better, stronger 'Mad Max' card will some day displace this one. I pulled one other NLCS card in this pack and it looks just like this one; I think on balance I would rather just have an un-processed image, whether that matches up to the vintage set or not. Because the image processing is rather obvious, and deliberate here.

But what I really like about this card is once again on the back:


Again I like the simple, old school take on the results of a baseball game, although this almost-complete box score gives the Pitchers exactly bupkis here, outside of their At Bats at least. I was writing about a 2013 Postseason card on the Sea Turtle blog the other day; this vintage Topps approach is far superior. Given how many cards Topps makes these days, what I would like to see in a future Topps Baseball set for a post-season card is simply a nice, detailed box score, as they are created today. There is plenty of room on the back of a 2.5" x 3.5" baseball card for that, particularly with 21st century printing technology and an ability to handle any font at any size. Such an effort _could_ fit, and this card back does have a lot of wasted space. But overall, I will quite a bit look forward to pulling some World Series cards from 2020 Heritage and reading those, rather than the ones I have yet to see in 2020 Series One.

No score update for that card; I pulled 5 cards of the 20 that were either Leaders, multi-Rookies, or PostSeason cards which aren't relative to the pose/action mix. The actual final was Pose 10, Action 5, Tattoos 6 — a bit of a Tattoo hot pack, this one.

And I did not pull any Inserts or Short Prints or Super Short Print "Action" cards - just 20 base cards - when was the last time you purchased a Topps package of some sort and found Zero inserts?

So that basic mix of cards is some pretty good news for me, and I will kind of collect some 2020 Topps Heritage. The basic news on the product remains the same: 400 base cards, 100 short prints. Which is something created by Topps changing to 100 card sheets in about 2015; having 100 short prints probably makes production quite a bit easier than 425 base + 75 sp.

But that makes for one heckuva expensive set of baseball cards, for this decidedly non-professional collector. So I already know I just don't have an option to attempt to collect this entire set, really, given how much it would cost to track down 100 short prints. I would say Heritage is perhaps a "mid-end" baseball card product, rather than a "low end" product which I normally collect due to cost. Though I have always liked 1971 Topps Baseball cards, the actual result of the creation of the 2020 Topps Heritage set finds me just, kind of complacent, I guess.

Ultimately, the repetitive nature of a large portion of the cards kind of helps me out - I don't really need page after page of the same card, over and over again, so I am not particularly disappointed that I can't actually collect this set. But at the same time, the amount of action cards sprinkled through the checklist - (the Munson card is indeed recreated, though I have yet to see who has the Topps Rookie Cup for a Catcher this year) - well, I will have something to look forward to when I casually add a pack of this to my grocery cart over the next year or so. And perhaps as I look to collect a little more carefully in my future, prioritizing cards based on how many binders of baseball cards I really want to own, the crazy nature of 'added value' and manufactured scarcity and the way so many of my fellow hobbyists really collect $$ signs, not baseball cards, well perhaps in Heritage now that works to my advantage. I can take what I need from a few nice memory making cards, and leave the rest. Which should probably work fine for the Psychedelic Tombstones next year, too, particularly as all the live baseball action will be corralled in a subset.

But I only have four years to save up for the Heritage set I really, really want...