teamconfusion4u.com

All right, I'm already regretting the title to this post, and I'm still not happy that I'm going through with writing this at all.

But my job on this blog is to document my collecting journey, and this is a part of that. Just know that this is a small, small, small inconvenience in what is a wonderful asset to the hobby.

Teamsets4u.com made my want lists what they are today. I haven't even accessed the site fully -- I know there are many other sets listed there that I need to add to my want lists. But if you scroll through the entire page of my want lists, it will take you a little while anyway. I owe that to teamsets4u.

It is an invaluable resource for team collectors. Every set painstakingly separated by team.

It's an amazing undertaking. All that patience, all that time.

I find periodic errors, which are perfectly understandable given the massive number of sets issued through the years, especially since the early 1990s. There is no way you couldn't screw up with all the ways sets confused collectors throughout the last two decades.

While going through teamsets4u, I've come across Expos listed as Dodgers and other obvious mistakes that haven't been an issue. I know that Steve Rogers never pitched for the Dodgers.

But there's one error that has tripped me up periodically. It's when a player is listed with the Dodgers, but he actually had recently left the Dodgers and appears in the set with another team. A couple days ago I was looking through last year's Heritage team set on teamsets4u and saw that Russell Martin was listed under the Dodgers. But he's obviously featured with the Yankees on his card.

I've often taken teamsets4u's word for it, listed the card as one that I needed on my want list, then much later realized that it was not a Dodger card and quickly erased it thinking "phew, glad no one sent me that card."

This time I wasn't so lucky.

This wasn't a case of a player recently leaving the Dodgers and being listed incorrectly with the Dodgers. This was the case of a player with the same name as a well-known Dodger.

Quite some time ago, I acquired the Ramon Martinez card that you see at the top of the post to complete my 1993 Topps Stadium Club Dodger set. Or so I thought.

Several months ago, I realized that there was a second Ramon Martinez listed under '93 Stadium Club in teamsets4u. This one was numbered 322. The one that I had was numbered 71.

"Crap," I thought. "There are two Ramon Martinezes in this set."

I assumed that's what it must be. In '93, we were well into the era of players receiving multiple cards in one set. I didn't necessarily like it and think it adds to confusion like this, but I shrugged it off as the game that I have to play if I want to collect modern era cards. Besides, Stadium Club had those Member's Choice cards. Probably one of those.

I dutifully listed "1993 Stadium Club Ramon Martinez (#322)" on my Nebulous 9 because I wanted to be done with the set once and for all.

Then months of blissful ignorance went by until a package from Johngy's Beat arrived and one of the cards to fall out was this:

Wha? Ramon Martinez -- a MARLIN?

I flipped over the card and, sure enough, it was card No. 322.

I'd been duped by teamsets4u.

This particular Ramon Martinez never made it to the major leagues. He never even made it above Double A. Shame on Stadium Club for creating a card for him in its set.

I'm sure Johngy was wondering why I had posted a Marlins card on my Nebulous 9 list.

Fortunately, another Nebulous 9 need was met in the same package:

This is 2006 Upper Deck J.D. Drew #243. There are two J.D. Drew cards in '06 Upper Deck. But I knew for a fact that both featured him as a Dodger, so there was no surprise here.

See? I get these things right some of the time.

Also, Johngy sent every last remaining 1993 Topps gold Dodger card that I needed:

I think this is the first gold team set that I've ever completed. Cool!

I'm still reserving the '75 minis that Johngy sent for another post.

Meanwhile, I'll remain firmly dedicated to teamsets4u. And if you're a team collector, I recommend that you use it, too. You'll come across a few glitches, but really they're minor. So what if you end up with a Marlins card from the early '90s? Small price to pay.

There is a contact email on the site for questions, and I've considered emailing to point out these small issues. But for some reason I've hesitated. I guess I just don't want to be THAT GUY who says, "Hey great site. You've got mistakes here and here and here."

Of course, maybe that's what I just did.

The opposite of going to a card show

I was supposed to be at a card show today. But for this show the weather likes to play tricks on me. Throw in a cash shortage, and I'm home instead with nothing exciting going on at all.

So I thought it'd be appropriate to open a pack of 1991 Donruss Series 2, supplied by Padrographs. It's the opposite of going to a card show.

Well ... the real opposite of going to a card show is probably sitting in a dentist's chair, or getting mauled by a rabid possum. But staying within the hobby realm, I think opening an obscenely overproduced pack of unattractive cards is a long way from visiting table after table of vintage.

In terms of Donruss from the junk wax era, 1991 sits near the bottom for me. I've dubbed it the "Fisher Price set" more than once (although it hasn't officially received a Define the Design name yet). It just looks like something that would come with little kids' plastic/wooden toys. I can see one card of '91 Donruss encased in bubble plastic, along with one of those little people -- maybe the bald guy with the green body -- and a yellow tractor, hanging on a display in the toy department.

I hate it when I see cards in the toy department.

Anyway, before I get to the cards everyone has seen before, here is my ranking of junk wax Donruss. For posterity.

1. 1989 - Already confessed that I have a grudging admiration for this set. (No, I'm not collecting it)
2. 1988 - Growing to like the Tron set more and more (No, I'm not collecting this either)
3. 1993 - Merely meh. But during this era, that's a good thing.
4. 1987 - Don't get why people get so excited over this set. Rookies, probably. Whoopee.
5. 1990 - The red borders drown out the photos.
6. 1991 - I'm sure if I was 6, I'd love these cards.
7. 1992 - I have an irrational hatred for '92 Donruss. It almost makes me ill. One day I will explore this in-depth.

OK, on with the cards.

Willie Stargell puzzle piece. Already, I've been ripped off. Each pack is supposed to contain three puzzle pieces. I got one. Of Stargell's knees.

#634 - Jerry Willard, White Sox

Nice catcher photo. Willard gets a card despite all of 3 major league at-bats in the preceding three years.

#628 - Ron Oester, Reds

Key card a year after the Reds won the World Series.

#622 - Johnny Ray, Angels

Steve Sax is still better, Pirates fans.

#616 - Dave Clark, Cubs

#663 - Rance Mulliniks, Blue Jays

Real first name is Steve.

#657 - Dennis Cook, Dodgers

Dodger alert! Obviously, I have several of this card. It's also a future night card. Cook is quite zombie-esque.

#651 - Gene Harris, Mariners

#645 - Bob Welch, A's

Nice pull for '91, coming off his 27-6 Cy Young season. I'm still in denial about Welch doing so well after leaving the Dodgers.

#422 - Scott Aldred, Tigers

More evidence that Rated Rookies were often hype without substance. A little bit of Bowman inside Donruss.

#636 - Bob MacDonald, Blue Jays

#630 - Kevin Bass, Giants

I think Kevin Bass was the Carlos Lee of the junk wax era for me. A Bass in every other pack.

#624 - Joe Bitker, Rangers

#618 - Jack Clark, Padres

Second Clark in the pack. This one much more hated.

#400 - Roberto Kelly, Yankees, MVP

Yankees finished last in 1990. That sounds like the kind of team in which Kelly would be the best player.

#BC18 - Eddie Murray, Dodgers, Highlights

If this was 1991, I'd be very happy with this pack, as this was an insert and a Dodger. A much-loved Dodger at this particular time. But, alas, I probably have 5 or 6 of this card.

That's all 15 cards. Wasn't that .... uh ... funnish?

Did anyone ever pull a Ryne Sandberg autographed card that was advertised on the wrappers?

Anyway, if anyone needs any of these cards ... you are sad, sad, people.

Just kidding.

It's just that I missed a card show today.

Priceless

I go to the post office about once a week. It's a small office in an almost vacant business building that houses everything from a bridal store to an outpatient chemical dependency clinic.

I've mentioned before that, except for Christmas time, hardly anyone knows the post office is there. So, at most, there is a line of three, and I'm in and out.

It's a familiar routine. I know the two guys that work there. One, Charles,  is an older, pleasant type of few words. He walks with a bit of limp and usually prefers sweat shirts and sweat pants. The other, Dave, is flashier. He wears open Hawaiian shirts and lifts weights. Sometimes the portable radio blares behind him with a strange mix of AC/DC, Lady Gaga and Britney Spears (it's a bit uncomfortable waiting in a longer line when Britney is moaning "Gimme More," let me tell ya).

But both are efficient and friendly. I put my envelopes on the counter, and they plop it on the scale, and the amount pops up on the electronic screen to the right of me.

For the smaller packages, I have the price memorized. $1.71. Always. $1.71. Makes it easy to budget.

That was the routine earlier this week when, after a long bout of sickness, I returned to the post office. I placed my stack of envelopes, all of the small variety, on the counter. Charles put the first one on the scale. And the screen flashed the price ...

One-seventy ...

Wait, what?

$1.95?

"Everything's gone up. Everything," Charles says. He proceeds to tell me the CDs that he sends out cost more, too. But I'm too busy calculating what that's going to do to my budget.

Eventually, I shrug it off. Twenty-four cents more per package isn't going to kill me. No big deal. In fact, I bundle up a few more packages and am back at the post office for a rare second time in a week. This time Dave is there. No music though.

He puts my first package on the scale. It's going to Canada. I brace for the $1.95 to flash on the screen, although I should know better.

$3.15

"Overseas packages have almost doubled," Dave says cheerily but in an understanding tone.

I wanted to crack that there is no sea between here and Canada, but I'm sure he's heard this one before. Even though I was ready to make a joke, I was pretty shaken by the news. It hasn't been an easy month monetarily.

When I got home, I clicked on the weather forecast. I was supposed to go to a card show this weekend. But the weather was looking iffy. I didn't have a lot of money for the show either. Then the weather guy said the dreaded words "heavy accumulation in persistent snow bands." I would be driving through a persistent snow band to get to the show.

I checked the weather a few more times. Same reports. I took the money set aside for the card show and put it in the bank. We needed groceries.

This was on Friday, and I was beginning to wonder whether I could send packages out with the same frequency that I've done in the past. I'm not one to focus on the money aspect of things in almost anything. I budget stuff, but I'm not super vigilant about it. It's too much worry. But this? This kind of got me.

Then today, I received a big package from Rod at Padrographs.

I looked at the postage on the front.

$8.68.

"Not bothering Rod," I thought.

Inside were some cards, and an unopened junk wax pack, and some cool Dodger figurines that I have to identify later.

And there was this:

It's a children's book called "You Never Heard of Sandy Koufax?!" It features a holographic front and some absolutely terrific illustrations by Andre Carrilho.

On each inside cover is Carrilho's rendering of a famous Topps Koufax card:

Over lunch, I leafed through the book -- which is the story of Koufax's career -- mesmerized. What a terrific item, combining my favorite things, the Dodgers, Koufax, baseball, books, writing and illustrations. How thoughtful of Rod.

And all that for just $8.68.

Then I thought back a couple weeks ago to another large package that I received. It arrived in the middle of my sickness and I could barely look through it. I knew it was wonderful, but I just couldn't focus on anything.

The box came from Smed. He's sent me generous packages before. I don't remember how much it cost to ship this box, but I know some of his other boxes have hit double figures.

The box contained a few Dodger cards, like the Bowman purple refractor of Dee Gordon at the top. But the major part of the package was a whole mess of 1977 Topps:

Isn't that something?

I really need to get a list of wants for '77 Topps after I catalog these cards.

This is the last of the sets from the major Childhood Nostalgia Era that I need to complete. 1974, 75, 76 and 78 are already done. Once I finish with '77, I'll decide whether I want to tackle '79, which is kind of on the edge of the whole kiddie era.

But how much did it cost to send that package of nostalgia to me? Six bucks? Seven bucks? Ten?

Whatever it was, it was incidental (at least I hope it was for Smed). The enjoyment I received from these packages can not be measured in cash.

So, I'll continue to send out packages as often as I can. When the money runs out, it runs out.

This hobby is too important.

Joy of an upgraded card, #5

Haven't done one of these for awhile.

1975 Topps mini Ken Reitz:

Obviously, I have held on to the rabidly creased Reitz for a long, long, long time. The card came into my possession the first year I started collecting, the very year the card was issued, in 1975.

I don't know how it came to be folded 10 times. I'm pretty certain that I didn't do the folding. I'm guessing I acquired the card from a friend in a desperate bid to accumulate every '75 mini that I could find.

Condition wasn't a deal-breaker then. If you had the card, you had the card. Appearance was incidental, for the most part.

But as the years went on, wrinkly Reitz began to stand out for all the wrong reasons. My other '75 minis from '75 were respectably worn. Rounded corners. Scuffed surfaces. Some minor writing on the back. But they weren't viciously worn like Kenneth.

Today, I received a Reitz more in keeping with my collection. It came with a bunch of other '75 minis from Johngy. Wow, what a cool package, which I will dissect in another post.

Meanwhile, obsessively creased Kenneth will remain, but be transferred to another binder -- the "I remember when I was 9" binder. I enjoy looking through that one quite a bit.

Thanks for the upgrade, Johngy.

But I'll never miss Bowman

A couple of days ago, I wrote about how my decision not to collect any 2012 set would be fairly easy if it wasn't for this summer and Allen & Ginter.

Today, with the help of some cards from madding at Cards on Cards, I am going in the opposite direction.

There is a card brand that I am positively giddy about avoiding. I can't wait to avoid it. I do a good job of avoiding it now. But now I get to COMPLETELY avoid it. Forever. Yeah, I think it might be forever. I may never buy another pack of Bowman ever again.

The only reason I've picked up packs of Bowman in the past was to see what the hysteria was about. Every year there was some prospect everyone was going bat-poo over. I figured I'd check it out. But with the exception of Strasmania, I always struck out.

Bowman packs left me cold. Card after card of players I had never heard of and probably would never hear of again. This was no way to collect.

The designs rarely impressed (yikes, I didn't know Sellers had all those tattoos), and a pack of Bowman seemed more like a waste of money than any other pack that I purchased.

But still I'd get the urge to pick up something new. And Bowman always had something new on the shelves. Bowman. Bowman Chrome. Bowman Draft Picks and Prospects. Bowman Platinum. Bowman Now With Players Who Haven't Even Been Born Yet.

The worst part of Bowman, for me, besides not knowing the players that I am looking at, is the complete confusion I feel when trying to separate their sets. For example, these cards -- which I totally appreciate and which feature players I actually know (this is my first card of Nathan Eovaldi) -- are a complete mystery to me. I don't know which set they're from. I have a guess. But I'm not confident enough in airing my guess here. A million prospect-junkies will descend upon the comments and tell my why I'm an idiot because I can't figure it out.

But I can't, and that's the reason why out of all the sets that I am avoiding this year, this is the one that has the best shot of me completely bypassing it. Not one single pack. I just don't need the hassle. Or the guilt. Or the feeling that I'm a dumb-ass.

I'm kind of surprised I received these cards from madding. I don't think he's the prospector type. But he does understand that team collectors need every card, even from sets that are a complete mystery.

These might be the most baffling of all. Apparently there are black-border Bowman prospect cards? They're not numbered at all. Please don't make me figure it out, there's already so much that makes my head hurt about Bowman.

Even when I read blog posts from good-hearted people who attempt to remedy the Bowman confusion with their marketing plans, I zone out like the dumb chick when the topic switches from purses. And those are from people who are trying to help me.

If you look at my want list, you may notice that I have Bowman cards listed. I confess, I have no idea if they are accurate. Anytime I update my want list, I dread when it's time to update the Bowman category. It's like muddling through calculus class again. Fortunately, no one is grading my want list.

As usual, I'll take all your Bowman Dodgers.

I'm going to need your help. Because I'm done with Bowman.

Now, if Fleer was still around?

Then, I'd be in trouble.


(P.S.: Another One-Card Challenge success story!)