Though it's been off primetime network TV for a few years now, Law & Order can still be felt in pop culture. A great example is the hype and trickery surrounding 2014 Topps Heritage. A lot of noise has been made about the many hard-to-find variations in this set—found in three tiers: action, logo, and the mega-rare "throwback" uniform—so much so that collectors have become attuned to looking for them. To make things more difficult, Topps threw a handful of red herrings into the base set.

Like the slumlord who shows up at the courthouse in minute 35 can't possibly be the murderer (there are 25 minutes left in the episode, for crying out loud), these red herrings look like the variations we've all been chasing, but in fact are just these players' regular base cards.

Below are five red herrings, with a little explanation.

Derek Norris, Oakland Athletics - There are two throwback uniform variations featuring A's players—and both are shown wearing yellow jerseys—but neither of them is named Derek Norris.

Marcell Ozuna, Miami Marlins - Cards with logo variations are a bit harder to notice, but again, they feature just top stars of the game. Guys like Buster Posey, Joe Mauer, Robinson Cano, Andrew McCutchen, and Giancarlo Stanton. But it's the fact that Stanton is included as a logo variation that makes the logos on the other Marlins in the base set interesting. Some are shown with a white M with "Miami" below, and some are shown, like Ozuna, with a black M and "Miami" below. Stanton's logo variation has just a white M, no "Miami."



Ryan Ludwick, Cincinnati Reds - If you're an avid Topps Heritage fan like me, you spent more than your fair share of time studying the sell sheets for this year's set. And if you did, you'll remember that the throwback uniform variation of Joey Votto was prominently featured. What make's it a throwback uniform? Votto's cap's logo is the same old-timey "Running Man" patch seen here on Ludwick's sleeve. Yes, the logo is featured on other Reds' players' base cards as well, but no other card has it featured front and center. Well, except for the mega, ultra rare throwback uniform variation of the team's biggest star.



Adam Eaton, Chicago White Sox - Eaton is not one of the game's brightest young stars. But his teammate Chris Sale is. So what gives? Well, although Eaton is definitely shown here in a throwback uniform, he's a red herring: it's his regular base card. This is important because it's a cue to collectors to be on the lookout for another player who is shown in the same throwback uni style (Sale).

So it's been reported that 2014 Topps Heritage will pay tribute to the various errors and uncorrected errors found in the 1965 Topps set. Perhaps the most well known uncorrected error is the misspelling of Jim Kaat's name on the front of his card (Jim Katt). 

I, for one, was fooled by this Christmas-themed rack pack—it was created by a third party in the late 1970s, not Topps, and not in 1956. Good thing I didn't shell out the $400 it's going for on eBay.

The real reason I'm posting this is because the third party unwittingly seeded the  Warren Giles/Rin-Tin-Tin variation, to commemorate the seven weeks the animal filmstar ran the National League—appointed by the owners so Giles could take a vacation—in the summer of 1955. It's a great card, and hard to find in decent shape.

(Click on the image to get the full effect.)

I've been collecting 1956 Topps, with the hopes that some day I'll be able to afford the Mantle (in any condition) and complete the set. But as I've been piecing it together — buying commons at my local shop, picking up random cards at shows, and looking for cheaper stars on eBay, I'm finding I really have my work cut out for me.

I like to go for a master set when possible, and my quest for 1956 will be no different. I have just over 300 or so of the regular checklist, including both checklists. But if I start differentiating between gray backs, white backs, dated teams, centered teams, bearded variations, and others, I begin to realize just how complicated the master set will be to put together.

For example, check out this auction I found tonight. I've been searching for the Hodges "incognito" variation for almost a year, and even though $47.75 is sort of out of my price range for a single card, I'm seriously  tempted. (The most I've paid for a single card is $50 for a Ted Williams with a large crease. Second most? $32 for a Willie Mays with a stealth miscut on the back.)

I've wanted to blog about this set for a while now. I really think it's one of the best of its era in terms of checklist and design. It's also, in the grand scheme of things, relatively easy to put together, as it's bountiful on eBay in all conditions. Sure, the master set will be a challenge. But that's half the fun, right?

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