Friday, March 23, 2018

Sticking my nose in other baseball collectors' business

I'm still trying to get adjusted to my new work schedule and it hasn't been that difficult, except when it comes to blogging. I'm doing weird things like writing three posts at once or forgetting to pull the cards I need before the whole house is asleep and then rummaging around and waking everyone up.

I need to get back on track because being "out of sorts" does not make for good blog posts.

I'll get there, but for now, I thought I'd address some "card news" that's come across the virtual ticker the last couple of weeks. None of this news affects my collecting at all, which would instantly cause some people to point their bony finger at me and exclaim "what business is it of yours????"

It's not my business, other than being a collector with an opinion. Which is kind of the lone prerequisite for having a blog, so I guess it actually is my business.

So let's get going with some outsider's viewpoints.

NEWS ITEM: Toys R Us is closing all of its stores, maybe, probably

Toys R Us announced earlier this week that it was closing all of its stores. Later, it suspended beginning its liquidation sales, but the crayon is on the wall.

It seems inevitable that Toys R Us as we know it is disappearing. But while several people have posted their online goodbyes and lamented losing part of their childhood, including buying cards at TRU, none of that means much to me.

Toys R Us has gone out of its way to avoid me for most of my life. When I was a kid, I'd see the "Toys R Us" commercials and wonder where I could find this paradise in my hometown. I think I asked an adult one time and I received a dismissive "that's in New York City." Later when I was old enough to know what stores were actually in my town, sure enough we had no Toys R Us. Around the time I graduated from high school, that's when a Toys R Us opened across from the mall. Nice timing, TRU. I suppose you don't sell "Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots" anymore, huh?

When I started blogging, I found out that Toys R Us sold cards and that those cards often offered exclusive purple parallels. Damn my luck, once again, I lived nowhere near a Toys R Us. The closest one was over an hour away. Instead, we had a Kaybee Toys (I am now informed by those with Internet Opinions that Kaybee Toys is FAR inferior to Toys R Us. I never knew people had such vigorous opinions about toy stores, but I'm so silly, because it's the internet. OF COURSE, there are people eager to insult your family over your opinion about a toy store).

I didn't like Kaybee Toys because I had to shop there when my daughter was little and the square footage of this store did not accommodate the number of toys, shelves or customers. At Christmas time, I became panicked that someone would light a match and tragedy would ensue because MY GOD THIS PLACE IS A FIRETRAP HOW COME NO ONE CAN SEE THIS? So I guess maybe the internet opinion people have a point.

Because I have a card addiction, I still needed to get to a Toys R Us to investigate those purple parallels. So one time I found myself in Syracuse and there were blister packs of cards hanging near the counter. I looked at the price and did a double take. They're charging WHAT for cards? I'd never seen such a mark-up on cards and still haven't.

So, yeah, it's no wonder Toys R Us is disappearing if that's what they're charging for cards.

But it doesn't affect me. (No more purple parallels I can never get anyway? Boo-hoo). I bought that one blister pack and that might be the only thing I've ever purchased from Toys R Us.

NEWS ITEM: Topps releases something called The Living Set

Am I the only one creeped out by this name? The Living Set? As in: It Comes To Life And Kills You? Or at least as in: Needs To Be Fed And Watered And Therefore Sucks Even More Money From You Than Spending $9.99 For A Single Card From This Set?

Am I the only one creeped out by the fact that every single card in this set that will never end is in the 1953 design? Topps, fully satisfied with killing off the '52 design is now going for '53's throat.

It was reported that more than 20,000 of the first three cards (they're featured in groups of three) have been sold after the first week.

That sounds like a lot to me. I don't know who those 20,000 people are. They either have much more money to play with than I do or are better than I am at suckering ... er, selling cards like this to other collectors.

I just know I'll be staying far away from these, probably even farther than Topps Now cards. I realize the '53-style Archives cards I've shown probably don't stack up to the hand-drawn Living Set cards, but it's still '53 and I'm still bored and it's STILL $9.99 per card!

I'm sure there are out-of-their-minds people who are going to try to get every card in this set for as long as it lasts. I kind of admire them. You've got to have goals, even if you have to sell your house and car to achieve them.

NEWS ITEM: Gypsy Queen is being stupid again

Gypsy Queen and I have not been on speaking terms for five years.

That's how long it's been since I've purchased a pack of GQ. 2013 was the last time. And I didn't like it very much then.

I almost always give a card set a chance every year, even if I'm not crazy about it. If Bowman's on the shelf, sure, I'll try a pack, and I don't care about Bowman at all. I'll buy Opening Day, even if it looks exactly like flagship. I'll give it a shot.

But not GQ. I know what I'll get and I know I won't like it. The first year of the GQ reboot was in 2011 (the card above) and it was the best that it ever was. 2012 GQ I think scarred me for life. 2013 was all about solitary confinement colors and that finished it off for me. No thanks, forever. Aside from Dodgers, the Georgia Peach and a select few 2011s are the only GQ cards I own.

It seems that I got out while the getting was good, because they're doing some ridiculous stuff with that set now.

Last year, or maybe two years ago, I heard that there were "missing black plate" and "missing name" variations. The gist was Topps was acting like they forgot the black ink, so the card featured a faded look for the missing plate cards, and the cards with the missing name featured -- duh -- a missing name.

But these were intentional "mistakes," nobody actually forgot anything. So we have a faulty card for no reason. This is stupid.

But not stupid enough apparently.

This year, there are cards that show Aaron Judge in his Yankee uniform, but list him as playing for the Red Sox. Another one shows Kris Bryant wearing his Cubs uniform but being listed as a Cardinal. Worst of all, there's a Dodger Corey Seager card listing him as a Giant.

Isn't that cute? Isn't that fun?


If it was cute or fun it would include some creativity. There's no creativity in this. This is the most mindless, soul-less variation possible. You could carry this out for infinite possibilities. List Judge as a second baseman. Now list him as a catcher. List him as a bat boy (OK, that's a little creative). "Forget" to put the GQ emblem on the card. Misspell Yankees. Print the team name upside down. And on and on and on.

It takes no thought, no creativity, and as far as team collectors go, the whole Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-Cardinals, Dodgers-Giants swap is downright mean.

But this is not my problem. Because these cards are so rare that only case breakers will see them. And, I guess, case breakers are amused by stuff like this, which makes them from an entirely different planet than me. Dopey me, I want my card to be an accurate representation of the player on the card.

My dog in this fight is I collect cards because they are baseball, sure, but I also collect them because they are creative. It is the creative voice for my favorite sport. Why do I collect baseball cards? Because I like the designs, I like the colors, I like the stats. I like the colorful and the facts. I like how they all come together. I like to see how they're going to be displayed each year.

This is art. Baseball cards are art. Thought and creativity and art.

Intentionally printing "Red Sox" where "Yankees" is supposed to go?

That's just bullshit.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Will he be the best Dodger pitcher ever?

A few days ago, Tony L. from Off-Hiatus Baseball Cards dug up a Baseball Digest from 1977 and displayed an article that asked: "Don Sutton: Will he be the best Dodger pitcher ever?"

This was the time period when Baseball Digest was coming to my home and I'm fairly certain that I read that article when I was 11 years old. I knew about Koufax and Drysdale then, but I was probably nodding my head in agreement: yeah, Sutton could become the best Dodger pitcher ever.

You all know what happened next after that Baseball Digest article.

Sutton pitched the Dodgers to back-to-back World Series appearances. He got into a well-publicized fight with teammate Steve Garvey. He sought big free-agency bucks after the '79 season and became a Houston Astro.

After that, he pitched for the Brewers and the Angels and the A's and it was never the same. Forget about the "Best Dodger Pitcher Ever" stuff, that's for sure. Koufax's title was safe as far as I was concerned. Free agency is great for the players, but for fans, it's kind of a pain. We like the good players on our team to stay around for a long time. When they don't, then stuff like this can happen:

Yeah, OK, that's what happens when you don't stick with one team. Someone associates you with your broadcasting career.

These are all the fears that I have with Clayton Kershaw.

Baseball Digest, if it was doing what it was doing back in 1977, could feature the exact same story about Kershaw at this point and I'd be nodding my head again. Except I'm even more convinced. Kershaw is definitely the best Dodger pitcher ever if he signs a new deal and puts up a few more seasons like the ones he already has in his back pocket.

The last thing I want is for someone in the future to say, "Clayton Kershaw is a National as far as I'm concerned."


Let's turn to more happy thoughts.

The above Sutton card from the 2013 Panini Hometown Heroes set came from Doug at Sportscards From The Dollar Store.

And speaking of Kershaw, I received this card of the Dodgers' ace that I've been seeking for a few weeks:

Good night, I like that one a lot.

Here are a couple others that fill slots in my collection:

I've been quite delinquent about picking up the Archives Snapshot Dodgers from last year. The gold-bordered X diecut is my first of that kind of parallel. And the Piazza SPx diecut from '97 completes the Dodgers from that set!

SCFTDS also sent along some Heritage Minor League Dodgers from last year's set. More power to him for knowing which ones were Dodgers. I'm happy I knew two-thirds of these (that Lux card must be super-popular or much-reviled with the fam).

Kind of embarrassed to say that one of the ones I didn't know was Keibert Ruiz, and he was a league leader! (A brief glance at the internet tells me I should know who Keibert Ruiz is, he'll be the Dodgers' starting catcher like next year and for heaven's sake, get your life in order and focus on prospects!)

The rest of the cards in the package were Buffalo Bills.

Although I don't collect football anywhere near as enthusiastically as baseball, I really should have more Shady cards than I do. This grouping helps a bit. Panini's football offerings makes me wonder if all of Panini's baseball products are put out by the 5-year-old children of Panini employees. Grown-up NFL Panini actually can do good work, although I don't know what Boss Hogg is outside of the Dukes of Hazzard.

I received these Tyrod Taylor cards the day before he was shipped the Browns. I sure hope Angus enjoys his team's new QB -- if in fact he gets to start -- because as much as I liked Taylor, I ended up merely hoping he got out of games alive.

A shiny Kyle Williams card. I'm not a Prizm guy, but it looks a lot better on the scan.

And there you go, several more Buffalo Bills that are going to push me kicking and screaming into finally dedicated a full binder to my Bills cards.

I really don't need to be buying more binders.

But at least my binder worries got my mind off of Clayton Kershaw pitching for another team.

Let Don Sutton serve as an example to you, Clayton. And, whatever you do, don't take up a post-career broadcasting gig with a team that batted .228 in 67 games against you.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Assume the position ... means nothing

When 2018 Heritage came out a few weeks back, I was right in the middle of the collecting mob contrasting and comparing. That's what baseball card lovers with a taste for vintage do, each and every year.

I spotted the difference in position designations right away and pointed those out. But I knew this wasn't a first-time occurrence and mentioned that I didn't know why Topps keeps doing this. Is there some sort of unspoken, top-secret reason for these changes?

This is what I mean. Position designations in the 1969 Topps set provided the player's position: outfield.

But 2018 Heritage, for whatever reason, chooses to use the position designation to provide the player's job title: outfielder.

It gets very awkward with infielders. The '69 set sensibly abbreviated infield positions by using numbers, because Topps knew there was only so much territory in that colored circle.

2018 Heritage, though, doesn't care about limited territory because it can dial up the kerning on its computer program to whatever fits. Squeeze that baby to to minus 30! Does it fit? Can you sort of read it? OK, then! Print it!

Of course, very little kerning would be needed if the position wasn't spelled out, even if Topps still wanted to go with "job title" over "position name." Just call it "2nd Baseman."

Whatever the reasoning for changing things up, it is definitely a "thing" this year.

More evidence:

The 1983-themed inserts in Topps flagship are not only different in the fact that they're printed on slick, glossy "paper" and now feature a stamp, but the position designation also lists the player's job description instead of merely the position.

And it spells out the infield names, too. At least there's more space to work with this time.

2018 appears to be an exception, because with past Heritage sets, there was no position tinkering.

You can see that with last year's Heritage, "3rd Base" stayed "3rd Base." (Get me the head of Kendall Graveman).

Three years ago, "2nd base" was still "2nd base" in 2015 Heritage.

Same deal in 2014 Heritage. No "outfielder," just "outfield".

Yet, I knew I had witnessed the awkward spelling out of the positions in other retro sets. And I found it.

The 2011 Topps Lineage mini inserts, which pay tribute to the 1975 Topps minis, scraps the economy-sized "3rd Base" to cram in "Third Baseman" into that tiny baseball.


Before I looked through these cards I thought there had to be a reason.

Now I'm not so sure.

Take a look at a random Archives set, this one from 2014.

Archives changes "Outfield" to "Outfielder".

But it also matches "3rd Base" with "3rd Base," yet unnecessarily capitalizes the "R" and "D" in "3rd"!

The most faithful matching when it comes to position designation seems to be the old All-Time Fan Favorites sets.

I didn't put a lot of time into examining various retro sets and how they handled the position designations. But this brief review makes me think that there's really no intent behind any of the changes.

I think with the sudden across-the-board difference in 2018 Topps, all it might illustrate is basic confusion among those putting the cards together over whether the designation is supposed to list the position or the player's job description. Maybe with turnover in the company, this gets re-addressed every few years.

If that's the case, a nice side-by-side comparison with cards from the set that you're using as your template, might be a good idea.

Kind of like what I did here.

Monday, March 19, 2018

A cutting crisis

A few posts ago, I wrote a Blog Bat-Around on all of the various items I collect and in the process exposed what has been an ongoing crisis in my collection.

One of the things I collect is 1970s oddballs, specifically Hostess cards. And I showed some Hostess panels, which I picked up at the most recent area card show (way back in October).

Back on that post, I mentioned that those Hostess panels, as great as they are, would soon be cut into the more typical cards, as the dotted lines suggest. Whenever I obtain sheets or panels or what have you, the mission always is to reduce it down to its purest card form. I'm about the pure card, not the panel or sheet or box.

Or so I thought.

It's now been five months since I purchased those Hostess panels. And none of them are cut.

I can't do it. I just can't.

Something about these are simply too cool to alter.

It's not that I fear I'd make a mess of them. I'm sure I'd cut them straight and true. Yeah, I'd be a tad nervous, but I think I could get them all approximately the same size. I'm not some sugar-spaz 9-year-old kid anymore.

But I still can't do it.

They seem much more special in their untrimmed state.

Then I was reading someone else's blog bat-around. The Fleer Sticker Project mentioned that he owns a complete run (1975-79) of Hostess panels. Man, so jealous of that, and they look, so, so, so, so, so, so, awesome.

Maybe I should be trying to complete the '76 Hostess panel set instead of merely the '76 Hostess set.

That would kick serious oddball ass.

So I'm a bit stuck.

I already have these. A bunch of previously-trimmed 1976 Hostess cards.

Do I collect a trimmed set AND a panel set because I don't have the guts to cut the panels?

And what about these?

Do I maybe cut all the '76 Hostess panels because I have so many already-cut '76 Hostess cards and then keep the '79 panels intact?

What to do? What to do?

Yeah, I know, do what I want.

I just don't know what I want yet.

I'll let you know when I figure it out.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

C.A.: 1957 Topps Clem Labine

(Good evening. How's your bracket doing? OK, now TELL IT TO SOMEONE WHO CARES. It's time for Cardboard Appreciation. This is the 269th in a series):

An important anniversary in the trading card world came and went last year without a mention.

Last year was the 60th anniversary of Topps first issuing trading cards in what is now the standard 2.5-by-3.5-inch format.

Prior to 1957, Topps' main set each year was 2-5/8 by 3-3/4. And there were all kinds of other measurements from other card publishers. Bowman came to match Topps' 2-5/8-by-3-3/4 model by 1953 but prior to that, it was issuing 2-by-just-a-shade-over-3-inch jobbies. And before that, Bowman cards were 2-by-2 1/2. Play Ball made 2-1/2-by-3-1/8 cards.

But when Topps downsized its set to 2 1/2-by-3 1/2, the whole hobby fell into line.

It leads me to conclude that it's the perfect size.

How could I not think that? For 60 years, nothing has changed. The flagship set and just about every other set is issued in the same 2 1/2-by-3 1/2 format each and every year. Oh sure, there are minis and some odd-shaped cards that are often one-off tributes to some distant pre-1957 set. But the vast majority of card sets, no matter the sport, no matter the company, are issued 2.5 inches wide and 3.5 inches long.

In this age of constant tinkering -- move back the 3-point line, start a pitch clock, put runners on second base in extra innings, make 200 more rules for what determines an NFL catch -- it is astonishing that the size of your basic trading card has not changed in 60 years.

Much of that is because we've all become accustomed to thinking that's what the size of card should be. Nine-pocket pages are that size. Most top-loaders and penny sleeves are that size.

But beyond that, I think that size card fits perfectly in one's hand, no matter how large or small the collector's mitts are.

I was thinking about this very topic this afternoon.

I've been trying to get my cards in order from the massive 1990 Target Dodgers set, which totals nearly 1,100 cards. It's taken me a long time, due to the sheer size of the set, but also because I have full 15-card panels of the set and also a bunch of cards that have been de-perforated from the panels. There's been a whole bunch of cross-referencing and double-backing. The final stage was shuffling all the cards into alphabetical order.

Do you know difficult it is to shuffle these flimsy, irregulars into alphabetical order?

They are 2-by-3-inches and printed on index-card-like stock. I spent the entire exercise (while flipping between spring training baseball and the Syracuse-Michigan State game) wishing that those cards were regulation size!!!!

Topps really touched off a revolution 61 years ago.

A tinker-proof card size.

In this tinker-happy world.

It makes me look at the 1957 Topps set in a whole new light.

Friday, March 16, 2018

Moved up in the rotation

My card desk may not show it, but I have a systematic way of showing off cards I receive.

It's basically first come, first serve.

The only times I make an exception is when I get a little too excited about a card and I just have to babble about it right away.

This is one of those times. Somebody is getting moved up in the rotation.

Yesterday, I received a two-card envelope from R.C., who's sent me a few special cards over the years.

The first card is pretty fantastic. It's one of the best-looking cards from the 1976 Hostess set, a set that I am collecting.

I really like the restraint on the cutting of this card. I do a little celebration when the collector has the forethought to cut around the dotted lines. Nice work, previous collector.

One drawback to this card, though.

I own it already.

I found it at a card show a couple of years ago. It was really a triumphant find, the best surprise of that show.

So I have an extra Stars & Stripe Reggie to spare. I would like to trade it for another '76 Hostess card that I don't have, preferably something in decent shape, but it can be anybody, a scrub compared to Mr. October, just as long as I don't have it already.

So, get at me, and all that stuff.

But the Reggie card, even as great as it is, even if I didn't already have one, is definitely not why I moved this envelope up in the rotation.

The reason involves a card in not nearly as nice a shape as the Jackson Hostess card. Nobody showed any restraint with this card. But I don't care:

Yikes, it's a 1952 Bowman Roy Campanella.

Do you know how many times I look for 1950s Roy Campanella cards?

The answer is: I never do.

What's the point? I'm going to have to pay an arm and a leg. There's no way I'm going to do that. The card seller is going to have to get in line behind the mortgage lender, the college lender, the hospital biller, the auto mechanic. I'm not doing it. I'm not even looking.

But now I can not look without a thought about what I'm missing. What a glorious card.

Campy will go next to my '52 Bowman cards of Reese, Hodges, Furrillo and Branca. Shockingly I already have most of the big names from this team set.

I may need to move '52 Bowman up on my list when I hit my next card show.

Yep, I think '52 Bowman just got moved up in the rotation.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

OK, now this is a blog bat around

Last week I wrote a post listing some of my various card collecting projects.

I didn't put a lot of thought into the post. I had received a package from a collector that happened to address a variety of my interests, so I thought I'd discuss how many collectors seem to collect more than one thing.

But the post seemed to speak to a few bloggers, which is why there have been posts about the variety of card interests for each collector on this blog and this one and this one and this one and this one.

OK, fine, I'm now making it a Blog Bat Around.

I think this is the first one of these I've started!

So, if you want to participate in this Blog Bat Around, all you have to do is write a post on your blog about your various card collecting projects. Once I determine that everyone who wants to participate has written their post, then I'll write a wrap-up post on my blog about everyone's various collections.

But first, I have to properly write about my various collections. I only covered half of it in that other post. You think that's all I collect???

Get a pencil and notepad so you can keep track.

Here we go:


At my collecting core, I am a set collector.

This was my mind-set almost from the first year I started collecting cards. The point to buying packs was to complete the set. "Collect Them All!" That's what it said on the wrapper. And that's what I do today, for that kid who had no money to collect them all.

I have completed dozens and dozens of sets, from 1976 SSPC to 2015 Stadium Club. Right now, I am trying to complete the 1973 Topps set. That's my main goal, because when that's done, I will have completed every Topps flagship set from 1971-91 and that's going to blow that little kid's mind.

But I'm also trying to complete 1981 Fleer, and finish off the last few cards of 1988 Fleer. Actually, I'm trying to complete 1982-87 Fleer, too. And I'd like to finish off that 2001 Upper Deck Decade '70s set someday. And 2008 Heritage someday, too. And there are the REAL Someday Projects like 1956 Topps and 1967 Topps. Also, don't forget the oddball completion tasks like 1976 Hostess and Kellogg's. And I've really got to get that 2003 Topps Fan Favorites set finished.

See? I'm a set collector.


That's a look at some recent Dodger dupes. Just a small cross-section there. There are plenty more in the box underneath and the boxes behind and in the boxes in the next room.

The Dodger collection is so expansive because that is what, I believe, is the easiest to collect and the easiest for others to send. People understand team collecting, maybe above all other kinds of collecting.

I am not restrictive in my Dodger collection at all. Most of my other collections have rules. My Dodger collection does not. I want them all. And I have a bunch. Around 20,000.

The variety is off the charts, from the Brooklyn Dodgers vintage of the 1950s to this space-age angular beauty that I recently received from Cardboard Catastrophes. Jeffrey dug it out of a dime box and it's a wild and crazy beauty.

The Dodger collection does not discriminate and does not restrict. Yeah, I have some autograph Dodgers but it's not the focus of my team collection (I don't know if there really is). Yeah, there are six Duke Snider autograph cards in my collection. But there are also two Ross Striplings. And a Cory Snyder.


I mentioned this already in "set-collecting," but when it comes to certain oddballs, I'm not limiting it to year.

I want every Hostess card from the 1970s. I want every Kellogg's card from 1970-83. I want any Drake's card. Any TCMA card. Any SSPC card.

Unlike the Dodger collection, I do discriminate a bit. Many 1980s or 1990s oddballs are acceptable but I don't see myself every trying complete sets of them. My heart lies with Kellogg's and Hostess and TCMA. I can actually see myself knocking people down to get to some Hostess uncut sheets. That's not an attractive visual image, but I'm illustrating a point.


This falls under the set collecting family. It has a finite goal. Although I could always be on the hunt for a '75 buyback Robin Yount that may never exist, in my mind I know that this pursuit will end someday, probably in disappointment.

But, right now, it's the biggest collecting hoot that I know. With one-third of the 1975 set in buyback form now in my collection, I'm interested in seeing how far I can go.


Right now, I am interested only in trying to complete the 1977 Topps football set.

I don't see myself trying to finish another set. If I do, it will be the 1979 Topps set, another set I collected as a youngster. In fact, I think I may have had more '79 football cards than from any other year.

But the '77 set with those wonderful sweeping banners is the primary goal.


This is Page 16 in my Allen & Ginter mini frankenset binder. It is one of only six completed pages in the 23-page binder.

I have a lot of work to do, which is why collecting minis and pulling minis from A&G continues to be such a joyous experience.

My interest in minis goes all the way back to buying 1975 Topps minis 43 years ago. It's a mini set I completed, and I've finished off other mini sets like the 2011 Lineage '75 tribute insert set. But as I've mentioned before, all minis aren't created equal in my collection. I don't have much interest in minis from the 1980s or Gypsy Queen minis or the flagship mini cards created by Topps between 2012-15.

As a mini-connoisseur, only I know when a mini is good and pure and worthy of collecting.


The collection that gave Night Owl Cards its name, made people take notice and actually read this thing.

These days, night cards are a bit of an afterthought, even though the Night Card Binder is still going strong. I just don't get the sense that people are as interested in them as they were when I first let people in on this great little collection.


Most of my non-baseball collections don't get much more than passing attention from me. But I do like having Buffalo Bills cards in my collection and I do want more.

One day I'll have a proper binder for such things, but right now they share a binder with my collection of ...


A sub-category of my Sabres collection are Dominik Hasek cards. I haven't made any kind of effort to specifically collect Hasek cards, but I'd like to get enough to put a few impressive pages together.


Tennis cards are treated like dirt. Almost no one makes them. No one wants to collect them. As someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s when tennis was a sport for rock stars, this makes me extraordinarily sad. People are more willing to watch golf than tennis??????? This will never make sense to me.

Tennis players always make excellent cards (just take a look at any Kournikova card). Unfortunately the cards aren't designed the greatest, which keeps me from making a real effort to collect them.

Also, there is one Simona Halep card on COMC right now. One. ONE!

That's an outrage.

11. 1991-92 NHL PRO SET CARDS

I am hopelessly attached to this ubiquitous set thanks to a connection I made to it when I was immersing myself in hockey in 1991. I expect this little confession to unleash a flood of 91-92 Pro Set cards my way. That's OK. I've got room. For now.


Here is a collecting area where I need to get some focus.

There is nothing that receives more of my recreation time than music. Not even baseball can compare.

So I should just buckle down and collect a music set -- any set -- and provide some proof that music really does reign supreme in my world.

The MusiCards sets from the early '90s would be an easy place to start as they're readily available. I actually have my eye on one particular card from that set right now.


I have a card of almost everyone I've interviewed who has a card.

But I've never sat down and figured out who I'm missing. This post is the perfect spark for me to make that list and then to dedicate a binder to those cards and then to show that binder on this blog.

So what am I waiting for? A blog post awaits!!!


Probably the most unconscious collection I have. I almost never intentionally seek out a card of a pretty girl. It just hits me in the face one day and I have to have it.

This is another collection that just sits in various boxes and binders around the house. I'm afraid if I ever put all of these cards in one place, I'd throw all of my other collections away because, my gosh, these cards are gorgeous and all the other cards are of --- what? dudes?????


I may not know what to do with random oddballs -- so many of them defy conventional page and binder set-ups.

But that's OK. They're oddballs. They're used to be stuffed wherever they'll fit. No order or reason to any of them. Which is the beauty of oddballs!!!


Someday -- hopefully sooner than later -- I will go to a card show and buy nothing except random oddballs and vintage.

I will have no list, no objectives, no need to get Dodgers or fill set holes.

It will be "see vintage, get vintage," "see oddballs, get oddballs."

That will be one hell of a show.

So, I believe -- for now -- those are all of my collections. It's possible I missed one or two, but I think any that I missed are probably actually sub-categories of something I mentioned here.

If you want to do this Blog Bat Around post of your own, feel free to leave a link in the comments on this post because I don't want to miss it when I do my review post.

Happy collecting!