Friday, March 12, 2010

This post brought to you by someone who doesn't even like 2010 Heritage

I managed to find a few free moments yesterday and escape to Target. Who knows how long the rack packs of 2010 Heritage had been dangling there without my knowledge. It's been weeks since I checked out a card aisle. But I snagged a couple.

I don't collect this product. I don't like this product. The 2010 version anyway. But I truly believe that I should sample everything that is made available to me as a card consumer. As long as you're not stashing it in some out-of-the-way hobby shop with a $25-per-pack price tag, I will find it and buy it.

I like to see what I'm not buying. In fact, I also grabbed a pack of 2010 Topps Attax. ... And I'm done with that.

I won't show all the Heritage cards here as you've seen them before many, many times. However, you've seen them only from people who actually like the 2010 cards. You haven't seen them from someone who doesn't like them. So get ready to look at the cards as viewed by someone who isn't wearing rose-tinted glasses.

Most of the cards that came out of the packs were a lot of this:

And a lot of this:

Very boring photos. I realize those are the types of photos that were being placed on cards 50 years ago, but fortunately in many of those years the design really perked things up. But in 1961, the set 2010 Heritage is mimicking, they tried to come up with a design that resembled the chemical process in which paint dries. So you've got boring photos with a boring design, and suddenly it's a room full of narcoleptics.

I don't know who Michael Saunders is, but I don't think it matters because I believe I read that he was hypnotized by a ray eminating from a hovering UFO, levitated off the ground, and was never heard from again.

Then there is this:

I am glad I know what Andre Ethier looks like, or else I'd think they found some random dude in a Dodgers workout shirt and snapped his picture.

Out of the two rack packs of 27 total cards, four cards featured players without caps.

That Atkins card is horrific.

I went back to my 2008 Heritage binder, featuring my STILL INCOMPLETE 2008 Heritage set, and there was not one player without a cap.

Some of you may be saying, "Well, that's what they did back then. A lot of cards from the 1960s had photos of players without caps."

But the fantastic 1959 set, which Heritage copied in 2008, also featured lots of photos of players without caps. But '08 Heritage was kind enough to spare us the bald-headed, bad-haircut carnage.

I HATE cards of cap-less dudes. Cut it out. Now.

Here is another Heritage annoyance, although I respect Topps for staying true to the cards in this manner and I really wouldn't want it any other way:

I never liked the 1960s team cards. The bright backgrounds totally drown out the players. I like gaudy, but that is TOO gaudy. It looks like the Mets and Red Sox are in the midst of being pumped full of radiation. Also, the backs on the team cards are almost totally unreadable. A lot of tiny type squashed together.

And here, the Tigers pose in front of a wall plastered in tomato paste. At least I hope that's tomato paste.

One final complaint, and then I'll show you a card I like:

My words are worthless because Topps apparently is never going to stop printing Mickey Mantle cards despite the legions of collectors who want a cease-and-desist on the Mantles.

But cards with Mantle on it have now become as meaningless to me as that David Wright Stay in School ad that appeared in packs the previous few years. I am not exaggerating for effect. I really think that. The Mantle cards are on the same level. The only thing that keeps me from chucking this card in the garbage is there is a number on the back and that means someone might want it.

OK, here is the card I liked:

That's a very nice '60s-looking card, and it's a World Series card, which I enjoy. Thank goodness I didn't pull one of the Yankees victories from that Series. I like the write-up on the back where it tells you how each of the runs were scored in the game.

So, that's a very cranky look at Heritage. But keep in mind I'm still wondering when my next day off will be.

Will I buy anymore Heritage this year? I'd like to say, "no." But I have a feeling I might need it for trade material. And, you know, I had to go and be a team collector. I just hope the rest of the Dodgers are wearing caps.

8 comments:

  1. I just picked up a blaster of the stuff and pulled four Dodgers if you want to iron out a trade for them. Torre, Billigsley, Furcal, Martin, and yes they have caps on their heads. Send me an email if you want to work something out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ouch. They hurt my eyes. Well, except for the Indians card, of course. Not that one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Topps putting out cards with not hats bearing logos was just a slap in the face of Upper Deck.

    When the foremost collector of 75 Topps says a card is to Gaudy...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh great I just posted the exact opposite post. :(

    ReplyDelete
  5. I could use any team cards as well as any Mets and Yankees you got as I too am not building this set but do need cards for specific collections. Let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like the cards where the player actually posed for the pictures. To me the player is doing an act that he knows that is going to be on a card. It sort is like giving back to the collector. Not an autograph but his appreciation

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm still on the fence until I have some in-hand.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I pretty much agree.That was not one of my favorite designs to begin with.But,as always,I will search for every Tribe card I can find.I know he's way over done, but Mantle was my childhood hero and I collect any cards I run across with his mug on them.

    ReplyDelete