Skip to main content

Mmmmmmmiiiiiiiiiiiinn ..... eh, never mind


A couple of weeks ago, Nachos Grande held a break of 2012 Topps minis and I was conspicuously absent.

You'd think a guy like me -- as crazy for minis as I am, as dependent on retail as I am -- would jump at the chance of obtaining mini cards that are only available online.

Well, normally, yeah.

But I already knew that some of the Dodgers from that set were on their way to me. For free.

Reader R.C. busted a box of 2012 minis and wasn't all that enamored with them and offered up the Dodgers he pulled. Ever so grateful, I accepted, and now here I am to say ...

I'm not all that enamored with them either.

But I'll start with the good stuff first.

First of all, I appreciate Topps' effort -- whether it was intentional or not -- to make the 2012 set memorable. Not since 1975 has Topps had a mini parallel set of the base set (I don't count 1987 because it wasn't a parallel and, except for the cards you could cut off the box, didn't look like the '87 base cards).

The '75 mini set is a lasting memory of Topps' 1975 cards. Sure, there are lots of great reasons to remember the 1975 set, but one of those that stands out the most is the mini set.

Now 2012 has the same thing. And it desperately needs it, because the more I look at the 2012 base set, the blander it gets.

I encourage Topps to do the same for a future set -- years in the future, not next year.

So there's that.

The second thing is that Topps is finally approaching the "correct" size of mini.

Sure, Topps can make the minis any size they want, but I prefer the EXACT dimensions of the 1975 minis.


There's your glorious 1975 Topps mini.

I compared last year's Topps Lineage minis to the '75s and they came up short, literally.


The Lineage minis were not as tall nor as wide as the 1975 minis.

But 2012 is much, much closer.


The 2012 minis are exactly as wide as the '75 minis and only slightly shorter than the '75 minis. They are the exact same height as the Lineage minis.

So, getting closer is good. The size of a mini card is important -- why do you think I dismiss all of those mid-1980s minis? Too freakin' small.

So there's that, too.

Finally, it's just plain interesting to see a mini version of the base set. I wouldn't want to see it every year because that takes away from the novelty. But once every 37 years I can handle.

But if you think I'm going to go all MMMINNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII on you over these, it ain't gonna happen.


I mean there you are -- does that want you to run screaming with glee around the house? Usually I have to warn the dog before I prepare to view a mini. But there was no alarmed look on the dog's face this time. Because there was no gleefulness with these. Gratefulness, but not gleefulness.


They're OK. But there are two issues with them.

One is the design. The reason that I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE 1975 Topps minis is that it is a mini version of the most colorful set Topps ever made. It's a fantastic set and to make a miniature version of it just amps up the awesomeness of the set.


Even in horizontal format (there were some horizontal 1975 minis), it doesn't do a lot for me.


Ugh. Mini inserts. That's an ugly trend.

The other issue is a familiar one. It's the slick paper product that is used with cards today. 1975 minis had weight, they had heft. They didn't feel like a mild wind could pick them up and carry them away like today's cards do. And they don't sail across the scanner bed when you close the cover, like ... ahem, every post 1992 card.

The Lineage minis suffer from the same problem. But the reason I'm collecting them is because the design pays tribute to the 1975 set.


So, while I'm very happy that I have the Clayton Kershaw mini and now need to put the Matt Kemp, Chad Billingsley, Tim Federowicz, James Loney, Hong-Chih Kuo, Tony Gwynn Jr., Andre Ethier, Nathan Eovaldi, Juan Uribe, Mark Ellis and both Dee Gordon minis on my want list, the 2012 Topps minis are just not going to get a MMMIIINNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII out of me.

But R.C. did send a card off my 2011 Topps Lineage want list:


MMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks, R.C.!

I needed that.

Comments

  1. I didn't know they mini'd up the regular inserts. I thought they only had some inserts that were exclusive to this set or something. That's kind of annoying. Not as annoying as a set that is a Topps.com exclusive, but still annoying. Also not as annoying as getting to a group break for this set 7 minutes after it was posted only to be beaten to the Cardinals by someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As of right now, all three blogs are featuring Dodgers in the latest posts. 2012 minis here, Billy Grabarkewicz in the 1970, and Mike Marshall in the 1985.

    Coincidence?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Coincidence with the '71 and '85 blogs. But not much of a feat over here.

    Now, if I was a Mariners fan ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Diggin' the astronomical background.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did you know they are putting 1972 minis in the 2013 base set? Cool!

    Also, if you have time, would you read this post and consider a post to all us loyal blogging followers of yours? You're the card blog guru and we are following you in our robes and shaved heads.

    http://tomahawkchopping.blogspot.com/2012/08/disenchanted-have-you-been-there.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Addressing the elephant in the room

A few people have noticed: I changed the way the blog looked with zero fanfare earlier this week.

I've changed my blog appearance, I think, six times now, although one was just a header swap. Just about all of those came with a bit of a warning or explanation.

I didn't think that was necessary this time, mostly because I've been doing this for over a decade, am pretty established, and don't think I need to justify my decisions here.

But also I thought that people were familiar with the general changes in web sites over the last two, three, four years and wouldn't be that affected by it. For the most part that seems to be true -- or, no one cares and they're all looking at pretty instagram pictures.

I've received a couple of questions though and just because I hate the feeling that some readers are lost, I'll explain what I can.

The changes, like many web site changes, are related to mobile phone use.

I've been irked by the way my blog looks on my p…

Mind explosion: a different way to sort

This may have been one of the most tedious blog posts to put together in the history of this blog, but I think it's for a good cause.

The reason I'm not entirely sure is because I didn't have time to carry it out for a few more attempts, got to shovel that 7 inches of heavy wet snow plopped on my estate on Nov. 12th.

Anyway, a couple of days ago, Colbey from Cardboard Collections was sorting his Topps Holiday set by card number and asked a very common question that I've seen come up many times during my blogging career:


 This is always a satisfying question because this is how I organize my sets when I'm organizing by card number. At the top of the post I showed cards from the 2019 Topps flagship set being sorted in that manner -- stacks separated by hundreds first, then you create separate stacks by 10s within each hundreds stack, then finally order each of the 10s by card number.

I've done this since I was a kid and first knew the card numbers on the back me…

Looking at cards with Johnny B.

Over the weekend, I got a chance to express my inner Mike Oz and share some baseball cards with a former major league player.

I'm working on a story for my paper that involves ex-player Johnny Wockenfuss, who is almost a cult figure with fans of a certain age (I am one) and especially fans of the Detroit Tigers during the '70s and '80s.

I won't go into much detail -- at least not now -- because I'm still in the middle of working on it, have more gathering to go, and I get very protective of my stories while I'm in the middle of the process. Got to retain that exclusive, you know.

But I will say that I was able to sit in the home of Wockenfuss, give him the cards that I have of him in my collection, and ask his opinion on them.

Yeah, cool. Way cool.

I have 17 cards of Wockenfuss ("you have a lot of them," my wife said, and I thought "if that's a lot, what is my Hideo Nomo collection?"). Wockenfuss remembered the cards -- "every bit …