Skip to main content

Deja, deja, deja, deja vu

I haven't bought a lot of Topps Series 2. Once I determine that I am indifferent about a Topps flagship set, the second series always suffers. I buy a few packs and that's about it.

But for some weird reason I grabbed a pack of it last week. Maybe I wanted to see how many more times I can knock over the growing stacks of baseball cards on my desk.

One of the cards that came out of the pack was this one:


Nothing terribly exciting, right? It's a card of Tampa Bay pitcher Wade Davis. Card number #578 of a player on a team that doesn't interest me all that much.

So I don't know how I made the connection. But it didn't take me long to find this card:


I know the foil lettering might throw you off, but that's WADE DAVIS, TOO!!!!

This card is from Series 1. It's card number #48.

There are two Wade Davis cards in 2012 Topps for reasons that I'm pretty sure no one -- not even Topps or Wade Davis' family -- can explain.

Now, I want to make the distinction here. This isn't a case where Topps created two cards of a player because one was the player's "rookie cup" card and one was the player's "regular" card. I know Topps likes to do that these days, but obviously this isn't the case.

And this isn't the case where Topps made more than one card of a player and made one of them a checklist, or wrote something different on the back of one of them. I know it likes to do that, too. But here are the backs of both cards:


The only difference between the two backs, besides the card number, is that one has an abbreviation of "S" for saves and one has an abbreviation of "SV."

Aside from that, they are identical.

What we basically have here are two Wade Davis cards -- a common card, essentially -- within the base set.

And the question I keep asking is:


Why does this keep happening?

Last year it was Jason Hammel:


That was even stranger because both of the cards were in the same series, Series 2.

In 2008, it was Willy Aybar:


Granted, one is in the flagship set and one is in the Updates & Highlights set. But he DIDN'T CHANGE TEAMS.

In 2007, it was this weird sighting:


One card of Elizardo Ramirez in Series 1, and a cropped version of Elizardo in Series 2.

And collectors have pointed out other cards with similar strange repetitions when I brought this subject up in previous posts.

In fact, it happens so regularly that I'm not convinced anymore that it is just Topps being sloppy. Could they really be that haphazard year after year? Wouldn't they -- after discovering two Jason Hammels in the same set -- crack down and say, "OK, we've got to make sure that we don't give some random player two cards this year."?

Wouldn't they?

Is there some weird reason why they're doing this on purpose? Does someone win a prize when they alert Topps to the error? "You've won the Super Secret Contest That We Never Announced!"


Topps can claim "Oops, they did it again" -- if that's something they want to claim -- but again and again and again and again?

Don't they have a checklist? A bunch of names on the big board? Computer files and fact checkers and copy editors? I mean I know all about errors and putting out product. It's an easy thing to do. There isn't a day that goes by where I don't worry whether something I've produced hits the streets with an error in it.

But if a mistake pops up periodically, the folks in the department work to make sure it doesn't happen again. Because the same mistake over and over and over again indicates that you just don't care ...

...

Oh ...

...

I think I may have figured it out.

Comments

hiflew said…
I know of a couple more instances with the Rockies not including Hammel.

2007 Ubaldo Jimenez was in both Series 1 and U&H.

AND the worst instance

2000 Mike Lansing appeared in both Series 1 and Series 2 of a less than 500 card set.

He wasn't even good that year. I probably don't need the phrase "that year" in that last sentence.

Dawgbones said…
Maybe it's Topps' version of Where's Waldo??
Andy said…
The Ramirez cards aren't a simple crop job, because he's in a different location relative to the background, and there are slight differences in the background (leaf patterns in the trees) so they are at least separate photos.
Zayden said…
Man I gotta start paying more attention. I didn't know that this happened all that often either!

Good looking out Night Owl : )
GCA said…
That will be the giveaway content in 2015. Collect all the redundant players. Insert theme will be Doubles, like two-base hits and twins. They'll try to quash the comments about bad collation and the other kind of doubles...
jacobmrley said…
Nope, they are doing it just to fuck with us. Maybe that indicates that they DO care, even if they are just trying to drive us crazy.
Anonymous said…
"Wouldn't they -- after discovering two Jason Hammels in the same set -- crack down"...

Are we sure they've even discovered this yet? They clearly don't have much quality control.

Popular posts from this blog

Greatest 100 cards of the '80s: progress report 3 ... and a date

  Big news! I have a date set for the Greatest 100 Cards of the '80s countdown! I didn't want to post a date until I had whittled my list of card candidates down to the final 100. But I just did that today and ... wow, was that tough to do. As is often the case when I do long-form countdowns like this -- the Greatest Cards of the '70s, the Best Dodger Cards Ever Made -- I feel a bit sorry for the cards that just missed the cut. There is nothing wrong with those cards. And on another day, maybe they would make the countdown. But this is the kind of ruthless examination that you've come to expect on this blog and, so, I will deliver.   Here are five cards that did not make the final 100 but if the ranking went to 105 places, they would be there. Also, I'm going to give you a chance to vote one in!   1980 Topps Frank White I have long loved this card and have mentioned it a few times on the blog. It's one of the best All-Star cards made since I started collecting c

The curse and gift of being an introvert

    I finished a week-long binge session of "The Queen's Gambit" Thanksgiving night.   Unlike many of my wife's Netflix interests, things like "The Crown" and various family comedy/dramas, I knew I'd be interested in "Gambit" while she was watching it. I'm a sucker for the "intelligent, pretty girl breaks up the boys club" story, and the fact that it featured chess was intriguing.   I haven't played chess since I was a teenager, but I used to play it regularly, not that I was any good. My uncle was. He would play in various local tournaments and come back with stories about the weird habits and tactics of his chess rivals. The gist of his stories was "this is something you don't want to do." But it sure sounded interesting. As Anya Taylor-Joy says, the mini-series isn't really about chess. The character she plays, Beth Harmon, has a lot of problems, a terrible family back story and substance abuse issues. She

Catch this!

I have long admired this card.   It's an Awesome Night Card from way back and it was one of the only 1986 Topps cards that I owned in 1986. I don't remember at all buying packs of cards in '86 and I had so few that year, but I must have bought some because I've known about that Bo Diaz card for 35 years.   I've known about it for so long that it seemed a given for the upcoming Greatest 100 Cards of the '80s countdown. A tag at the plate was relatively rare on cards in the '80s and to get the entire scene in the frame, and also knowing who is being tagged out , was an achievement. It is an achievement. (Also, they're somehow playing while it's snowing). But after reviewing eligible candidates for the countdown, I began to have my doubts. Oh, that's not taking anything away from the Diaz card. It's still great. But have you noticed how terrific the catcher cards are in 1986 Topps? We'll start from the beginning. At card No. 88 is Tom Niet