Skip to main content

The worst card of 2009, contestant #12

Here is another card that I have waited to obtain before making it a Worst Card of 2009 candidate.

The Upper Deck Retrospective card orgy is a terrific example of quantity over quality. More is better. Might makes right. All you can eat. Consume, consume, consume. It is Black Friday isn't it?

Some might ask: what's wrong with that? After all, we are throwing money down to buy something frivolous. Pieces of cardboard with pictures on them. And in many cases, the more cards a collector has, the happier he is. Upper Deck is giving you more cards, right?

Well, it's the kind of cards, we're getting.

Actually, I don't have that much of a problem with the restrospective set. I don't even have a problem with pulling retrospective cards in my packs, as long as they are baseball players. Because even if I'm not interested in that player, I probably can find someone who is.

Now, basketball, hockey or college football players present more of a challenge. I'm not interested in the cards and the group of people I know who are interested shrinks significantly.

But stuff like the "I Love You Virus" I'm guessing appeals to virtually no one. There is no connection to baseball or sports whatsoever. And it's even less appealing than pulling a political or historical figure, who might have some significance or is at least human.

To me, this card is a complete waste of everyone's time. I also don't subscribe to the idea that at least you're learning something from the card, and your brain might be the better for it.

I didn't sign up for a non-baseball history lesson when I bought the cards. The pack advertises baseball cards, not "great moments in computer hacking." I would not be happy if I went to the grocery store to get peanut butter and the woman behind the check-out unexpectedly threw in some brussel sprouts, charged me for them, and excused it by saying, "they're good for you." I DON'T CARE. I WANTED PEANUT BUTTER, NOT VEGETABLES THAT MAKE ME GAG.

And I wanted baseball cards, not a flippant review of cyber criminal behavior.

This is candidate #12 for the worst card of 2009. And I might dislike it most of all.

Comments

  1. My hobby box of Goodwin had 10 of the useless frickin' things. I was ready to fly to vegas to murder everyone at Upper Deck.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I could see the Heritage gimmick cards topping this one if you are a Red Sox or Yankees fan. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you've found the "winner" for the worst card of the year.

    This one would make me want to fire up the paper shredder.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the contest just ended. This is your "champion."

    ReplyDelete
  4. These were especially annoying when they popped up in Goudey, Goodwins and OPC. Enough already Upper Deck. Nobody cares!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Addressing the elephant in the room

A few people have noticed: I changed the way the blog looked with zero fanfare earlier this week.

I've changed my blog appearance, I think, six times now, although one was just a header swap. Just about all of those came with a bit of a warning or explanation.

I didn't think that was necessary this time, mostly because I've been doing this for over a decade, am pretty established, and don't think I need to justify my decisions here.

But also I thought that people were familiar with the general changes in web sites over the last two, three, four years and wouldn't be that affected by it. For the most part that seems to be true -- or, no one cares and they're all looking at pretty instagram pictures.

I've received a couple of questions though and just because I hate the feeling that some readers are lost, I'll explain what I can.

The changes, like many web site changes, are related to mobile phone use.

I've been irked by the way my blog looks on my p…

Not done with baseball but so done with 2019 baseball cards

I stayed true to my vow to avoid viewing most of the League Championship Series. After the NLDS debacle, my heart wasn't in another round of baseball.

I did sit down for a little bit of Game 4 of the Nats-Cards and, of course, I had to watch the highlights of Game 6 of the Astros-Yankees.

But that was about it, and I placed a "TBD" on the World Series, too. "We'll see how I feel," I said.

Well, the World Series starts tomorrow and I fully plan to watch it -- at least the portions that do not air when I am at work. I've decided that I'm just not done with baseball yet. The Astros-Nationals appeals to me a bit just because of all the fantastic starting pitching matchups. So, baseball, you're off the hook. I'll still watch you.

Your trading card sets, however ...

That's another matter.

I'm finished with buying 2019 cards. I knew that a few weeks ago, probably a few months ago. But it hit home when I was opening the five loose packs of …

Mind explosion: a different way to sort

This may have been one of the most tedious blog posts to put together in the history of this blog, but I think it's for a good cause.

The reason I'm not entirely sure is because I didn't have time to carry it out for a few more attempts, got to shovel that 7 inches of heavy wet snow plopped on my estate on Nov. 12th.

Anyway, a couple of days ago, Colbey from Cardboard Collections was sorting his Topps Holiday set by card number and asked a very common question that I've seen come up many times during my blogging career:


 This is always a satisfying question because this is how I organize my sets when I'm organizing by card number. At the top of the post I showed cards from the 2019 Topps flagship set being sorted in that manner -- stacks separated by hundreds first, then you create separate stacks by 10s within each hundreds stack, then finally order each of the 10s by card number.

I've done this since I was a kid and first knew the card numbers on the back me…