Skip to main content

Cardboard appreciation: 1989 Bowman Bo Jackson

(The United States is the only advanced economy that does not guarantee its workers paid vacation or holidays. Facts like this just happen to pop into my brain when I'm entering my third straight 12-hour day of work. So, I'm appreciating the free moment I have right now, between work and sleep. This is Cardboard Appreciation. It's the 105th in a series):


I have mentioned many times that Russell Martin can not take a bad baseball card. He's been featured on numerous great ones and very few duds. I'm not the only one who has noticed it. A number of bloggers have said the same thing.

But here's the thing about Martin:


Almost anyone can look good on a card set like Masterpieces or Stadium Club. It's not even all that difficult in this year's 2011 Topps, which is a well-executed set.

And now that Martin's a traitor -- good luck appearing on another tremendous card while wearing those hideous pinstripes, Russell -- I need to find the real master of being at his finest on every baseball card in which he's ever appeared.

I think I've found my man.

Bo knows baseball cards.

As evidence, I submit to you Bo Jackson's 1989 Bowman card.

1989 Bowman is not like 2008 A&G or Masterpieces or any of the great sets that come up over and over. It's '89 Bowman. It's oversized. It's dull. It came out in the late '80s when a lot of people were at their dorkiest. And there are plenty of examples of goofy looking players in '89 Bowman. Many of them are practically anonymous, meaning collectors can make fun of them for the rest of time because the players never did anything else to distance themselves from that '89 Bowman card.

But not Bo.

He transcends 1989 Bowman.

I don't even know if I can list everything that is bad-ass about this photo. But I'll try:

1. The glancing stare on his face
2. The "gloves-off" stance
3. The black bat
4. The crazy good signature
5. The cap propped on his head in a way that almost seems threatening

Many, many collectors cite Jackson's rookie card or his 1990 Score football/baseball card when talking Jackson and collecting.

But those are obvious examples.

A true test of a player's on-card greatness is turning a card from a crap set like '89 Bowman into something I'd never give up.

I'm not a Royals collector. I've never been terribly interested in Bo Jackson. And I think it's fairly clear that I don't like '89 Bowman.

But I'll never get rid of that Jackson card.

Besides, he might come and get me.

Comments

Feather Chucker said…
I wonder if anyone has broken a bat with their neck since Bo.
Arno said…
Don't mess with Bo.
TJ said…
I love that card, but I hate how it sticks out a little when you have it in a binder . You can't put it in the top row.
thosebackpages said…
great read. i do like '89 Bowman, but im an odd person :)

Popular posts from this blog

The pop culture tax

This isn't really a complaint, just something interesting that I've been noticing.

I'm working on wrapping up a couple of '70s-centric sets right now, getting down to those last 10-20-30 cards, and the usual candidates are being evasive.

I wish I could pick up all the stars early in my set-building quests so the end of the build isn't quite so painful but it never ends up that way. The best of the best usually take the most effort. But I expect that.

What always surprises me is some of the other players that end up being the final few.

Take, for instance, the 1977 Kellogg's set that I'm now trying to complete. I picked up three more cards from that set from Sportlots. The Jose "Cheo" Cruz card was one of them.



The other two were Dodgers, already in my Dodger binders but that doesn't help me complete the set now, does it?

I would've liked to add more with this most recent order but most of the other wants simply weren't available. Here…

Binder, top loader or box?

I want to address two different card package arrivals that don't have much in common other than that one thing that every arriving card package has in common, which is:

How will I store these?

It comes down to three ways: binder, top loader or box.

These means of packaging, storing and presenting are not the same. Ideally, every last card in my collection would be living in a binder. That's my favorite storage method. They're accessible. The cards are presented nicely within. They're very good for categorizing and we card collectors sure do love to categorize. They look good visually when entering the room and when opening the binder.

But I don't have the room for a binder for every card. I can't even process what they would look like. Some edition of "Hoarders," I'm sure.

So the cards that are not deemed "worthy" of a binder -- and, yes, I hate that we're prioritizing like this -- go in a box.

Boxes are for sets that I'm not co…

Yaz, Doc and that other guy

I am not a dedicated player collector because it doesn't fit into how I view baseball and how my collection reflects the history of baseball. Set collecting and team collecting, I believe, do a better job of telling you what's going on in the sport in any given year. And that's important to me.

During my less kind moments, I consider player collecting "stalker-ish," but I do see the value in gathering cards of specific players. I do it myself, but it's a low-key pursuit. There is no drive behind it and no real goals.

The fact is, I do admire certain players instinctively or subconsciously, players who never played for my favorite team.

So, when Jeff of Wax Pack Wonders offered one of his latest giveaways, presented in a very player-collector friendly format, I actually took part, and I didn't pick exclusively Dodgers either.

(Confession time: I didn't pick exclusively Dodgers because my Dodgers collection is a bit, shall we say, "advanced" a…