Skip to main content

No substitute

 
I hadn't done much with the momentum that came with acquiring the 1954 Topps Tom Lasorda card months ago.

With Lasorda's arrival, I was down to two cards to finish the '54 Dodgers team set, but the Rube Walker card sat in my online cart for ages, just daring someone to snatch it. Fortunately, not many collectors appreciate an off-condition card of a backup Brooklyn catcher.

Their loss. I finally added it.

That allowed me to slip Walker into the 15th spot and that was so satisfying ...


Just wonderful. I've never been a big fan of the 1954 set but as often happens when you line them up all together in a display, you discover a set's appeal (once again, binders over boxes, folks).
 


There is the back for Albert Bluford Walker Jr. Interesting that the cartoon strip clearly references Roy Campanella but doesn't mention him by name. Campanella was under contract with rival Bowman in 1954.

So Walker is finally secured ... and, yes, I've been hearing the "yes-buts" in the background ever since I displayed those 15 cards.
 
There's the matter of a missing Jackie Robinson card.
 
The '54 Robinson is not cost-prohibitive, at least not yet. With a bit of saving and snooping, I could find one within my budget, especially since it needs to match only the condition of the '54 Dodgers I have already (Mid-1950s cards are a hearty bunch and a little wear-and-tear doesn't affect their appeal at all).

That doesn't mean I'm not wincing at prices though.

It has made me consider taking an alternative route. A fellow collector suggested the same thing.


My three 1954 Topps reprints have just entered the chat.

How about if I just throw in one of these with the '54s and call it a day? My wallet likes the sound of that.

The cards above are from the 1994 Topps Archive set, the 1995 Topps Archive set and the 2011 Topps "60 Years Of Topps" insert set, the original-back variation. There is virtually no difference between all three aside from type-setting changes and positioning of the signature.

Just for my amusement, let's take a look at the backs of all three.


I love comparing stuff like this. Check out the expanding legalese at the bottom as we travel from 1994 at the top to 2011 at the bottom right. Also, only the '94 card gets the coloring of the position and team name at the top of the card correct. It is green, not black, in the '54 set.

So, now, if I decided to add the reprint card to the mix, how would that look?


That J-Robby card looks very shiny and sharp, it probably helps that it lands next to the Preacher Roe card, which is the most damaged one in my collection (and the only one I think about upgrading).
 
However, the obvious issue of all the reprints is going with the standard 2.5-by-3.5 dimensions, which were not the norm in 1954. I knew that would be an issue and not even my wallet crying for mercy can overcome that particular kind of OCD. (Maybe I should put all my cards in boxes).
 
So, it's official. There is no substitute in this case. I will be chasing a real '54 Robinson at some point, definitely after the holidays. Sorry, wallet.

Comments

Another minus regarding the reprint would be the top white border. I believe it would help offset the size difference a tiny tiny bit if were yellow like the original.
Old Cards said…
Your 54-team set looks great. My 50s cards are condition challenged, but like you, I am happy with them. It is tempting to use the reprint, but I understand the size thing. I have my 60's Mantles lined up in a 9-card sleeve in a binder, but I must confess I only have 5 of them and I am using reprints for the other 4. Not sure if I will ever breakdown and pay the price to complete the run of 61 thru 69. Good news is that the size of the reprints matches the size of the originals.
kcjays said…
My son put together the ‘54 set.
He needed the Aaron rookie card for several years. I got him, I think it was the ‘94 Archive card to use until he could afford the actual card. He refused to put it in the notebook. As I recall, he said it would be cheating.
Happy to report, after several years of saving, he was able to purchase one and has it in his notebook.
You’re right, no substitute.
Chris said…
Those '54 Dodgers look fantastic together. Can't wait to see an authentic original Jackie join them. Good luck with the pursuit.
Jon said…
Sounds like you need to do a few more Beckett articles :)
Fuji said…
Best of luck with tracking down that Jackie. Not sure if I'm just starting to appreciate everything vintage... but I'm really starting to like the 1954 design. They look really cool all laid out together. I'm with you on binders over boxes... but my available space disagrees. That's pretty cool that Campy makes an appearance on the card back... even if he's not mentioned by name.
Nick Vossbrink said…
It *does* weird me out how the 54 reprints all have the top border (but keep the messed up back orientations caused by the 1954 print sheet). And yeah the reprint will never be a substitute for the real card. But I'd much rather have a decent reprint than an empty slot.

That said, I absolutely have standards for the way the reprints look. I'd rather not have glossy reprints (a problem with both the 53 and 54 Archives reprints sets) though those aren't deal breakers. Some of the Willie Mays reprints have APPALLING typesetting though and I cannot for the life of me bear to slide those into the album.
AdamE said…
I have only substituted a card once. My 1948 Leaf boxing set has a color printed Rocky Graziano card in it. For those that don't know this is the Honus Wagner of Boxing cards because of some kind of contract dispute at printing time. A complete set is normally considered complete with 49 cards instead of 50 because there are less than 10 of them in existence. I hate the gap in my binder so I printed my own rather than dropping six figures on a card. (as if I had an extra six figures I could spend on a card)