Thursday, February 3, 2011

The Round-Up for 2/3/11: MOAR '11 TOPPS PLZ Edition!


Let's tackle the important stuff first. See that guy to the left of Adam Jones? That's ORIOLE REGGIE, son! Awesome whenever he sneaks into a product. I'm hoping they do a proper "The Lost Cards" card of his '77 issue, not that Yankee one or that bunk proof card Olbermann's got with the Oriole picture and the Yankee team name. A real Oriole Reggie '77 Topps with a pic of him on the Orioles, and an "ORIOLES" written above his head in big block letters. Would it be too much to ask Topps to print it on old-style card stock? I don't care if it would! Topps, please print this card on old-style card stock! In the meantime, though, bask in the Orioleness of Reggie for a second, then we'll move on, and I'll talk about 2011 stuff and non-2011 stuff while showing you 2011 cards.


As we look at Aroldis getting annoyed throwback-style (have I mentioned that I dig Kimball yet?), I thought I'd kvetch about one of the biggest pains about this hobby. It feels sometimes like I spend more money on storage and display stuff for my cards than I do for my cards. In addition, in plenty of cases, if you want to have a nice album filled with a set that you can look through and enjoy instead of just seeing it as the Cardboard Mystery Log on the top shelf of your closet, it's going to set you back more than the set's worth. I'm looking at you, '87 Topps! This is, of course, really petty concern in a world where people starve, get murdered, have no homes, can't read and so forth, but as someone who's fortunate enough to be able to collect cards in relative safety, I have to say that I'd like to figure out some middle ground here. I've talked a little bit about storage and display on the site before, but it's bugging me right now, so I'll mention it again, and open the floor to your suggestions on the matter!


I know I shouldn't encourage the mini craze any more than I already do, but I'm probably collecting this here Kimball set. 4 down, 46 to go! Sounds easy, right? Probably a lot easier than collecting all the diamond cards or the "sparkle" variations that've shown up in the past couple days. Gotta say this about those Photoshopped sparkly deals: it was really nice of Topps to hire the guy who used to airbrush stuff at Swank Magazine! It probably stands as a testament to my diminished morals, but the first thing I thought when I saw one of those uber-SP sparkle deals was "Hey, Swank Magazine!"


Speaking of diminished morals, look at my Dickey! 

Something else I've been thinking about again (no, not my Dickey) as I've been sorting the new cards and moving last year's cards to my star card boxes: I have way too many cards, even if they're singles, of stars I don't collect, and it's time that some of them go somewhere. I think any more than 5 cards of a guy I don't collect is excessive, and in plenty of cases, 5 is probably 6 too many, but the completist in me won't budge (yet). The problem with getting them into good hands is that just adding these cards to the vast wasteland of my trade list would be a lot of typing, and it wouldn't be as well-targeted toward those of you with player collections as I'd like. 


(Sweet card, isn't it?)

I may have to come up with something like the Anti-Player Of The Month (but probably more frequent), where I post the name of a player, and work out a trading partner-friendly deal (kind of like the Player Of The Month thing where I do two for one or somesuch) with the first person who comments that they're interested. A little like designating them for assignment like Armando just was, or putting them on waivers. I think I'll probably call it "Designated For Assignment", actually. That's kinda cool, and it's not as negative as "Anti-Player Of The Month". There, I just came up with a plan by thinking out loud in a text box. Look for the first player to be posted tomorrow!


While we watch Seth Smith and an ump play Dance Central on top of (I think) poor Yadier Molina, I'll also mention that I may get way more realistic about set-building in the near future. There's some stuff that I'm just NEVER going to end up building. I'm not talking about recent stuff (I'm more than 2/3 through 2011 Series 1 base already), or insane stuff like '56, '71-'72, etc. where the thrill of the chase more than makes up for the fact that it's very unlikely I'll finish the set. I'm more talking about sets like older Heritage that I barely have any of, rarely run into decent lots of and don't want to pay out the wazoo for. I'm still deluding myself about Ginter for now (the non-ballplayer cards make it hard not to), but that may end up on the same chopping block because aside from this past year, I really don't have a ton of any of those sets. I'm also pretty torn on whether to build the few post-'91 Topps sets that I like. As those of you who've been trading with me know, I've been trading that stuff with no problem, even with some of it being singles, because building something like an '01 set just doesn't seem sensible given my other wants. If I really want something like that, I can treat myself to a factory set around one of the holidays (and make hoarders cringe by OPENING IT). I don't need to have everything (I've been through that in other collections), and I want to focus my time, energy and resources on stuff I'll really have fun with, even if it's a million player collections.


Hey, look, Braves fans! It's the future!

I did definitely decide something tonight. No more 2010 Topps (or Bowman) Chrome ANYTHING, EVER! Whatever I do have (thankfully not that much) is going in pages (I may eventually unload it, but for now, I'm going to hang onto it since I do have almost exclusively cards of my favorites), which seem to be the only things capable of containing them without dorking up the works. I am officially in the "those cards are an abomination" camp, and if you folks ever see me backpedalling on this, please remind me of this post. It's such a shame, too, because Chrome worked really well with that design.


These guys look like they're having a great time.

So, on the subject of the experiment I Bogarted from Johnny at Cards from the Quarry, I'm 2 days in, no cards yet. I've already laid waste to the 15 minute rule, and I'm thinking that's OK. Mostly, that was to get a feel for things tonight. There's a limited amount of desirable product that shows up within the constraints of a challenge like this one, so it's not like I'm scouring unique listings for 8 hours, but 15 minutes is insanely tight, especially for someone who's a notorious multitasker. I've got my eye on a few things. I'll keep you all posted!

That's all I've got for tonight. Need to get going if I'm gonna find Rockies in my trade box like I was supposed to a day and a half ago! Be good, people!

6 comments:

  1. I love the Seth Smith card...but I'm biased toward those play at the plate cards!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Definitely one of the weirdest play at the plate camera angles I've ever seen. Fun card, though. Totally looks like he's having a dance-off with the ump.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am definitely nominating the Seth Smith card as best photo of Series 1. Its already my favorite Rockie card photo of the last few years.

    Couple of quick thoughts

    I like the designated for assignment idea.

    I too am breaking up some sets that I have no real interest in finishing like 2007 Goudey for example.

    ReplyDelete
  4. yes! big scans! I love big scans! Thanks for posting them :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comments, comments, comments!

    hiflew: Since we're mid-trade anyway, if you've got high numbers/autos/relics/inserts/etc. on those '07 Goudeys, let me know. I've got both base sets done, but I'm still working on the hard stuff.

    Nathan: I toy with having them all be ginormous on my main page from time to time but I haven't gotten enough feedback as to whether it'd be oppressive or not to take the plunge. Good to have one in the plus column for it, though, as part of the appeal of cards for me is that they're art, and art's supposed to be as visible as possible, in my mind.

    Derek: I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that the guy has the same name as Captain Marvel Jr., personally, but yes, the future!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.