If it looks like a double and quacks like a double ...

As much as we card bloggers each put our own spin on things -- I truly believe every card blog out there has its own distinctive voice -- you can definitely fit the blogs into one of three categories.

There are the blogs that exclusively feature vintage cards, vintage topics, and rarely stray into modern day cards or issues. There are more modern blogs that address the up-to-the-second goings on in the hobby, but rarely address anything before 1987.

Then there are a number of blogs that travel through both worlds, and some do it effortlessly. My blog fits into this third category -- sort of. I travel through both the vintage and modern worlds, but I certainly don't do it effortlessly. I stumble, fall, learn, screw up, get corrected, learn again, stumble again, and on and on. The modern card world is a confusing place to someone who first began collecting cardboard when it actually was cardboard.

Take, for example, this card that I received from Rob of the crusading Voice of the Collector: The Anti-Beckett, a blog that speak the truth about our hobby.

It's a super-shiny refractory Topps Co-Signers card of Chin-Lung Hu. Because I'm not very familiar with Co-Signers (and frankly wish the brand would go away), I looked at the card and automatically thought: "I have this card already."

Then I looked at the back and saw it was numbered 72/75, and thought, "well the one I have must be another one of the 75 cards with a different number." And my next thought was, "Well, that's stupid. That's just a double with a different number on the back. What if they numbered all of the 1988 Donruss cards? If you had the '88 Donruss Jose Canseco card numbered 414,386 and the '88 Donruss Jose Canseco card numbered 698,481, wouldn't you still consider them doubles?"

Then, I thought, "If it looks like a double and quacks like a double, then it must be a double."

Well, as clever as I thought my thought process was, it was dead wrong. The modern card world is a mine field for guys like me. We grew up thinking stickers inserted in packs of 1981 Fleer was a mind-blowing concept.

It turns out the card I already had was this one:

Note that it's red instead of gold (strike one). It's not a refractor (strike two). And it also features Emilio Bonifacio on the card (strike three). You're out, night owl.

Also, on the back it is numbered to 400, not 75. Strike four.

Now, I don't have the foggiest idea what this means in the world of Co-Signers. And I really don't care to tell you the truth. I just know it involves much too much for me to focus on and is not why I got into collecting.

So, there I am, wrong again. But that's OK. I'm still learning. And I'm learning that if it looks like a double and quacks like a double, maybe I should just get some stronger glasses, because it's probably a different-colored, different-numbered, non-refractory parallel thingy card.

Meanwhile, I received a few other cards from Rob, which was quite nice of him, considering I only sent off a couple of those 20th anniversary Upper Deck cards to him. One was this Co-Signers card of Jason Schmidt, who had a semi-respectable exhibition start the other day.

Schmidt makes me nervous, and he seems to make everyone on the Dodgers nervous, too. They treat him like he's dynamite. He has one decent inning, and everyone's like, "OK, that's enough. That was great Jason. Well done. Don't want to tire out the arm." I hope he can get through more than four innings a start this year.

Here's one of those Sweet Spot cards. I fully appreciate getting this card, but I'm glad I never got suckered into buying the $29.99 tins of this stuff that I see in Target. It's just not worth it.

Here's a Donruss Throwback Threads Fans of the Game card featuring Jonathan Silverman, who I know nothing about except he was on that awful "The Single Guy" TV show back in the '90s. I think he was in "Weekend at Bernie's," too. But I left Hollywood behind a long time ago.

One of the drawbacks to being a Dodger fan is you get all kinds of Hollywood people glomming onto the Dodgers. Speaking as a guy, it's cool if the Hollywood person is Alyssa Milano. Not so cool if it's Larry King.

Lastly, Rob sent a couple of those Big Stix, which are "Fathead"-like items, just not as large. If I was in sixth grade I'd stick these on my textbook (I'd cover it first, of course). But I don't know what to do with it now. I wonder how the folks at the office would feel if I stuck it to my computer?

Still, they're cool, and remind me of when I used to have posters up on my bedroom wall. Kids still do that, right? Put posters up? I don't know. I'm still learning as I go.