Topps really did their homework on this card

For all the bashing that we do of Topps and the errors on cards and things of that nature, I found a card this past weekend while perusing through my many boxes of hockey cards, and was ready to pounce.  I take you back to the 2002-03 Topps Heritage hockey set, specifically card # 81 of Stu Barnes.

The TV set design will always be a classic

As you can plainly see on the card, he played on the Buffalo Sabres at the time.  If you look at the jersey however, you can see "N E W Y", the start of New York of course.

I was ready to jump on this one.  New York?  Yes, Buffalo is in New York, but they don't wear New York on the front of their jersey.

As has been proven many times, I was wrong.  Doing a little research of Google images, I came upon a post over at Third String Goalie which documents a game that was played between the Sabres and the New York Rangers in honor of the victims of the 9/11 attack.  It seems the Sabres wore these jerseys for that particular game, and both teams auctioned off their jersey for charity. 

Just when I thought I had something....

Thanks for reading, Robert

Size matters

A quick bit of humor for your Thursday afternoon.  Ever notice that on the Opening Day cards, the size of the Rookie Cup is small??

Notice how you need a magnifying glass to read the words "Topps All Star Rookie".

Now take a look at the Topps Heritage version of the Rookie Cup.

Even a person that needs glasses like me has no problem reading that...it's huge!!

Interesting how there is a positive correlation with the amount you pay per pack for the cards and the size of the Rookie Cup. 

Just thought I'd throw that out there, I'm sure one or 3 of you has noticed this before.

Thanks for reading, Robert

On the road, and an apology

Just a heads up to you all that I am on the road for a couple of days for business, which is why there was no post last night, and any post that happens this evening will be void of any scans.

I also want to apologize to those of you who emailed me on my "gmail account" over the past few weeks offering trades.

To make a long story short, I rarely use that account for anything, and while having a few minutes this morning, I checked the account and discovered several emails.

Again, my apologies if you've sent me email on that account, I believe I've responded to them by now (if I haven't, please email me at rmitchell6700 at yahoo)

Thanks, Robert

Random Jay Monday: '92 UD Mike Timlin

I crave structure.  It kind of defines me.  I like looking forward to certain days and knowing what I have to do, and by what time I have to do it.   Call it a weakness.

I've been trying for quite a while to get a similar kind of structure in my blog writing.  Tried being the operative word.  I've started things, and then stopped them, because I either didn't think they were a good idea, or I just tired of them.

I've enjoyed writing on my blog so far over the first nearly nine months.  You've heard the stories, the fun, the rants (more so lately), and the general blather that I enjoy spitting out.  But for the past few weeks, I've struggled to get posts done.  The ideas just haven't flown, unless I've made purchases of new product, or made trades with my fellow bloggers.

Makes for a difficult ride after a while when you realize that you can only buy so much, and only so many trades are to be made as well.  I figure it's high time that I figure out other ways of posting with the existing myriad of cards I currently have.

You may have seen that I plan to make at least one hockey post a week, on Fridays.  I've already written this weeks, and I feel that with the crazy amount of hockey cards I have, I should have no problem coming up with ideas for a once a week post.

Mondays, I've decided I am going to do a random Jays card post.  I really liked the idea two weeks ago, and I'm going to continue with it.  It gives me a challenge to write about just one card, and it also will help to stretch my memory.

This week's random card comes from Row 1, card # 171 in the 3 row monster that my Jays are contained in.

1992 Upper Deck # 409, Mike Timlin.  This is a 2nd year card of Timlin, and the first thing that came to mind was, when in the world did Mike ever have a mustache?  Timlin was on the Jays for 7 seasons, and I never recalled him sporting the old cookie duster.  This type of photo as well shows the crazy strain that these guys put on their arms.

The back of his card shows him in a more relaxed pose on the mound.

Still the same mustache.  You can see from the stats he had a pretty decent rookie season with the Jays, making 63 appearances.  Naturally, I had to look up his career stats as well, and boy did this guy get around!

7 yrs in Toronto, 6 in Boston, 3 in St. Louis, Seattle and Baltimore 2 years apiece, and finally Philly for a year.  I bet you didn't know he had two 25+ save seasons in his career, and pitched until he was 42!

What a helluva card to start out for a random pick, because I had truly forgotten what an integral part he was of a lot of post season rosters.  11 years (!) of his 18 he made a post season appearance, which I found remarkable.  I'd always thought of Mike Timlin as a very reliable reliever, nothing flashy or spectacular;  could eat some innings in long relief, or as I discovered, his 143 career saves also meant that he could finish a game if need be.

Mike also has 3 World Series rings to his credit (92 & 93 in Toronto, 2004 in Boston), and he also led the league in appearances in 2005 with 81, at the age of 39.  

Just from looking at his career stats, this guy had one of the more understated careers that I probably will ever come across when looking at baseball cards.  I'm sure that there are many more like him out there that I haven't discovered, but for me, it's pretty cool that Timlin came across my desk today. 

Even better, he was a Blue Jay longer than he was anywhere else....

Thanks for reading, Robert

Focusing on the negative, another Gypsy Queen post

It's funny how ideas for a post just come to me.  I'm downstairs doing the laundry of all things, and yesterday's Gypsy Queen post and the negativity I spewed in yesterday's post just came flooding back to me.  I then had a thought...

I've done a lot of negative posts lately, and I'm not sure why.  I enjoy cards, always have, always will, and yet something has crept into my blogger DNA lately that feeds a little voice inside my head.  That voice then spews out these negative posts about cards, or teams, or experiences, whatever comes to mind at the time. 

I could even go on further about how my negativity goes back to the first full time career I had after I was done with college, in the casino industry.  I could regale you of tales I experienced during those 4 years of the gambling industry, and the inherent mistrust that is rampant in gaming.  I'm sure that many of you have had jobs that have colored your perception of a certain industry as well, but for me, the casino industry is one that I love and loathe at the same time. 

But I digress...

Gypsy Queen, for me, ranks below Heritage as far as products go this year, let me tell you why.

It's gray for one.  I like colors in my base sets.  I even prefer white for a card border's color.  Gray is miserable as a color for me.   Heritage has plenty of colors this year, no blandness to be found.

2nd, what is the fascination with minis?  I'm a cheap bastard, so what good is it to me when I'm paying full price on only 1/2 a card?

Of course, we've got variations on the minis as well.  The Strawberry on the right is the basic mini, the Stanton in the middle is the black version (of course), and on the left is the straight cut version of Aramis Ramirez's card.   Straight cut?  What's next, boot cut?  

Now I pulled a couple of cards that I did like...

The Glove Stories on the left has a nice bronze (?) border, and the blue on the Hallmark Heroes of Joe DiMaggio is actually quite eye catching.  Outside of certain sets though, I normally do not collect inserts (unless they are Jays).  If the base cards were either of these colors, I would be more inclined to try and collect the set.

I had originally intended this post to be more on the positive side about Gypsy Queen, but in the end I just couldn't do it.  For me, the cards are too costly, and there's too many inserts/minis that take away from the set building (at least for me).  I may buy a few more packs here and there, just for a pack rip "thrill", but in the end most of the cards will be traded away to help my fellow bloggers complete their sets.

BTW, anything you see on this page is up for trade, rmitchell6700 at yahoo is the email if you're interested.

Thanks for reading, Robert

Sign of the Gypsy Queen

Reading about these cards all week really didn't get me pumped up for the release of Gypsy Queen.  I may be one of the few people on the planet who didn't purchase one pack of Gypsy Queen in 2011.  While the cards that I have received via trades from fellow bloggers were cool to look at, they didn't spur me to want to collect the set.  I think that is largely due to the fact that I really didn't get back into serious collecting until a few months after GQ hit the shelves, thus the product was pretty much dried up by the time I would have gotten involved.

No matter.  This is a new year.  I bought my first pack today (rack), and what I wonder is this:

Why does Topps feel the need to increase the number of past legends that they include in sets like this?  Are today's players really that boring?  Out of the 12 base cards I pulled from the rack pack, I received an Andre Dawson, a Ralph Kiner and a Lou Brock.  Now I haven't looked at a checklist for the entire set yet, but if the current ratio of 1 retired player for every 4 players in the set holds true, then in my opinion it's overkill.  (Thanks to the Trading Card Database Checklist found here, I found by a rough count 53 retired players in the set, 17.7%)

Here's another case in point:  The rack pack comes with a cello pack of 3 'framed' cards, and all 3 were retired greats. 

Nice looking cards for sure.  I'd like to see more current players though.  Maybe my luck is just crappy.

Something else to confuse me as well:

Justin Upton, 2 cards, same card number, different images.  Which is the variation, and how do I know?  There is nothing on the card to identify the variation that I can see. 

Now I likely won't go cold turkey on buying packs like the Night Owl stated he would, but I can't for the life of me be excited about the Gypsy Queen set. 

Maybe it's the cheap bastard in me.  For a rack pack of Gypsy Queen, 3 packs plus the 3 framed cards cost $9.49 + tax.  Close to $10 for 21 cards, or almost 50 cents a card.  At that price, I'd rather have a president and a guy nicknamed "ducky"

The more I see of this years products, the more I am starting to fall in line with the 'older' bloggers in that I am preferring to purchase older stuff rather than 2012 products.  It's less confusing, historic, and obtaining them is more about the hunt than ripping packs. 

I've already stopped buying Heritage, and will not buy too much more Gypsy Queen, what else do you have for me to reject Topps??  (lol)

Oh, and by the way, if you didn't recognize the song name in the title of my post, shame on you

Thanks for reading, Robert