Thursday, February 14, 2013

Junk wax doesn't seem so junky to me anymore

I learn more and more about the hobby, and myself, as I continue to blog about cards.  Last weekend was a prime example of this.

I spent a good portion of my free time this weekend going through the piles of Blue Jays cards that hadn't been sorted/cataloged, a pile which had grown to about 400 cards.  In order to try and expedite the process somewhat, I've split the sorting into three "eras".  77-89, 90-99, and 2000 to present.  Most of the Blue Jays that I sorted on the weekend were from the first two eras.

While sorting, I started putting my Jays cards into sheets/binders, because I wanted my Jays cards to be a little more accessible than just sitting in a 3 row card box.

As I was doing this, and the Blue Jays team sets of '88 Donruss, '89 Topps, and '91 Fleer started to come together, I thought to myself  "I really like these cards".

While a lot of you out there probably think I'm mad for saying this, but this page of '91 Fleer Blue Jays really works for me:


'91 Fleer may be a very bright yellow that a lot of people believe should never have been used on a baseball card.  But now I have 2 pages + of Blue Jays from '91 Fleer.  To me, they look great.


Here's another example, '89 Topps


Again, for a lot of people it's probably not the most visually appealing set.  Nor will '89 Topps earn you that vacation house in the Hamptons.  In this context, '89 Topps works for me.  The time I took sorting through these Blue Jays team sets helped me realize one thing.

Junk wax doesn't seem so junky to me anymore.

Thanks for reading, Robert

11 comments:

  1. I've always been a big fan of '91 Fleer. One of the more underrated sets in hobby history, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree 125%. The Bumblebee set is most maligned and I have NO idea why!

      Delete
  2. I agree with Nick. If you can look past the yellow, there are some really excellent photographs in that set. 89 Topps is probably my least favorite Topps set from the overproduction era (I don't use the term JW), but it still has some good cards as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 100% agree... I recently busted a box of 1986 Topps, which is a design I disliked for many, many years. But now it has sort of grown on me. Much like the 1989 Topps cards you showed off.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 91 Fleer was the first pack of cards I ever opened. Love the set for nostalgia and for the yellow. It was weird to me when Fleer went to the green borders the next year. I've been surprised how much the 89 Topps set has grown on me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. '89 Topps means quite a bit to me for what was going on in my life at the time.

    I've grown to like '88 Donruss, too.

    1991 Fleer?

    "If you can get past the yellow ..."

    How can I get past it??? This giant YELLOW wall is in the way!

    ReplyDelete
  6. What do you mean my '89 Topps won't get me a house in the Hamptons!? What have I been saving them for!??!! Ok, back to reality. As a team collector, I can appreciate those years for the simplicity of collecting. I don't have to think about 15 variations of each card. That's not a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cleaning out my storage space I found a big stack of late 80's baseball card magazines. To read them now is quite hilarious. $3.50 for an 87 Topps Mike Greenwell? Ah, the memories.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Funny thing is I agree too....at least when it comes to hockey! There are a few sets I am loving more and more lately and I actually have grown to love the 90-91 Pro Set hockey!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Pro Set you mention is one that I bought a ton of back in the day. The set was riddled with errors, but it was actually fun and cheap to collect.

      Hmmmm.....

      Delete
  9. The difference of thinking at junk wax era cards: Person 1: spent tens of thousands of dollars for cards worth maybe $100...HATEs Junk Wax Cards Person 2: Collected junk wax era cards for fun, today sees the cards more as art and understands they have no value, but still loves them anyways!

    ReplyDelete