Saturday, January 7, 2012

When base cards drive me to drink


As of tonight, I finally have all of the Dodger base cards from 2011 Allen & Ginter.

My collecting self from about two years ago is absolutely in hysterics, laughing at my sorry ass right now. If you've been following my blog the last few years, you know that I have completed the entire Allen & Ginter set by November, or by early December at the latest, the last three years.

This year it's taken me to January to even finish off the Dodgers. And I'm still working on that full set.

The most antagonizing part of this uncompleted work are the base cards still on the want list. Forget the short-prints. I still need a couple dozen base cards to eliminate this thing.

This is the part that gets frustrating -- more frustrating than finding that rare card to finish off your player collection, or finding that elusive insert, or finding that short-print. Because these are BASE CARDS. They should be readily available.

I am convinced, that when I collect a set these days, that all base cards are not created equal.

I've already written about my theory of secret double-printing. I'm fairly convinced that Topps double-prints cards in a set and tells no one about it. I pulled another Chris Iannetta A&G card today. I've lost track how many that makes now. Eight? Nine?

Yet it's seven months since A&G arrived on my store shelves and I'm just now pulling card #226 of Andre Ethier.

It can't be chance. I'm not convinced. Not when endless cards of Austin Jackson and Aimee Mullins and Eric Jackson fall out of my packs of A&G.

In fact, I'm thinking that there are levels -- tiers -- for base cards in A&G and probably Heritage.

There are the cards that show up all the time. The Gregory Infantes of A&G.

Then there are cards that you see frequently, but not enough to find irritating.

Then there are the cards that you go months without seeing, even though you buy your fair share of packs and blasters. In many cases these cards seem to be less common than short-prints. I have duplicates and even triplicates of some A&G short-prints. But they all came before my first Ethier card.

I wish I could put a number or ratio on this. I don't even know for sure if Topps produces more of its base cards than others. But it sure as hell seems like it. The thrill of the chase? The chase is seeming less like a thrill and more like a confusing spin through a house of mirrors.

Just another reason not to collect 2012 cards.

You're finally doing it, Topps. You're finally killing the set-collector in me.

12 comments:

  1. Killing the set-collector in you but creating the alcoholic in you. It's the circle of life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You may be onto something. This is actually the first time that I am seeing this Ethier Ginter card. Ginter is one of the sets that I have bought the most. I have busted hobby packs, blasters and made a lot of trades.

    ReplyDelete
  3. did you see I had posted that Ethier card and the code card version on my blog last week. It happens. I never get Reds players in packs, if I do, they are Janish cards...boooo I actually have four of those Andre cards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is exactly why I try to buy completed sets on eBay.

    I know I don't get the joy of busting packs, sorting cards, and pulling big hits. But, I do save a ton of money, which I can use to buy singles I'll enjoy.

    Best of luck on building the rest of your set.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As someone who busted a case of last year's Ginter can say...well, yes, it sure does seem like some cards are much, much more common than others. I ended up with three full base sets (with a bit of trading) from the boxes I opened, but I also ended up with something like 9 or 10 of a few cards while only getting 2 of others. I'm sure there's some math lurking in there that would say if the pack contents are truly random that would be expected, but what fun is that? No matter, it's annoying when it happens...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Save your money and the headache. Buy complete sets (or team sets) on eBay.

    Buying wax is a waste of money and an exercise in frustration.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, that's not the solution for me.

    I'll still buy wax -- just less of it. I could never buy a complete set. That's not fun to me.

    I will continue to complete sets, just not the kind of sets that Topps puts out these days.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I lean towards the buying complete sets side though lately I'm just buying the singles I really like. What I find interesting in this is the clear distinction in collecting habits, packs vs. sets, sets vs. teams, teams vs. players, new vs. vintage etc.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do believe you are onto something! I couldn't buy an entire set either...just no fun it! Yes, it may cost more money and a lot more time to complete a set on your own, there is much more satisfaction when you do finally complete it!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have 11 that you need. I'll get them to you.

    21 78 91 95 156 247 302 317 328 332 333

    ReplyDelete
  11. WELCOME TO MY WORLD

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoxNyfdb_hE

    This is why I quit wax cold turkey. See you in AA buddy...

    ReplyDelete
  12. @nightowl, buying a set is no fun! If you do, it is no longer called collecting, its just how much money you can throw at something. Sounds like the yankees

    ReplyDelete