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.


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.
Michael Chase 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

Cards I'll never buy

I started thinking about the topic of this post even before I saw this image today on the Twitter page of @halocline_gg.

I immediately breathed a sigh of relief upon seeing the photo. This hobby disaster had nothing to do with me.

To run into a sign like this -- if it involved baseball -- would be deflating. And that's why I was relieved that it was targeting a product -- and collectors -- that are so far removed from the way I collect.

Here are the things that I don't care about concerning 2019-2020 Optic Mega Boxes:

1. It's Panini
2. It's basketball
3. It's basketball players on Panini cards.

There are few cards that I know I will never buy, but current basketball cards are definitely in that category.

And here's the exercise: since I have a wide variety of card interests and lots of things that I would buy, I tried to think of cards I would never buy. Ever. Not on a whim. Not on a dare. Never.

I came up with a few. Let's start with the topic du jour:

1. Current b…

Where pages go to die

One thing that I fail to do when trading in this hobby is make the best use of my PWEs and my extra pages.

When sending out a PWE, I usually pack maybe 3 or 4 cards into penny sleeves and fold some paper around it so the cards don't move around and then ship it off.

Meanwhile, people are stuffing up to 12 cards into one-third of a nine-pocket page and shipping it in that same PWE. What's wrong with me?

I don't know, I guess I don't have a lot of extra pages around right now. But that's not the main reason. The main reason is I don't think of it. And when someone sends me one of those cut-up pages, I don't keep them so I can be just as efficient when I send out PWEs.

Yup, those cut-up pages just get chucked. I'm the place where pages go to die.

I've got to stop that. I have a card room and a card desk and a card drawers full of supplies. I love my card drawer full of supplies. All I need to do is add those cut-up pages to the drawers and I'll be…


I've been feeling a little guilty lately about neglecting my 1980s card needs.

All of my recent purchases have been related to vintage or Dodgers from the 1990s to the present. The poor '80s have been ignored.

I don't have anything against the '80s, not at all. It's pretty much my favorite decade. While I prefer the '70s for cards and the '90s for god awful situations, the '80s are the overall winner. I continue to live in them when it comes to music, recounting past girlfriends, and the best memories of all-time.

So why don't I gravitate toward the cards from the '80s?

Well, probably mostly because I have so many of them. All the Topps sets are complete. And most of the Dodgers team sets from that time were finished off long ago. My favorites from Donruss and Fleer are done, too.

That leaves the sets that aren't the greatest but do showcase the players that I grew up with, and that's why I'm still trying to complete some Fleer sets…