Skip to main content

My biggest card show blunder

I think we can all admit that we've screwed up at a card show.

There was the time when we brought home a semi-high-priced need only to realize it was a duplicate. From eureka to shame in a matter of hours.

There was the time when we walked out of the building, into our car, up the highway, and 20 minutes later realized we didn't look for the card we specifically set out to find. Facepalms all the way home.

Or there was the time when we saw a card we wanted, left it because we wanted to check out another table, and then came back only to find it gone. If the dealer blew on you, he could've knocked you over.

I know all these well.

But the one blunder that I always remember and probably will never forget is one I've mentioned in passing on a few blog posts over the years. It was my opportunity to get that 1954 Bowman Billy Loes card that you see there (well, not THAT exact card -- it's in far too nice a shape for my budget).

Isn't it beautiful? That might be the greatest '54 Bowman card I've ever seen.

But I held that Billy Loes card in my hand, along with another '54 Bowman Dodger, and these actual words came out of my mouth: "No thanks."

"No thanks." To 1954 Bowman. To Billy Loes. I looked into those dreamy blue eyes (of Loes, not the dealer) and said, "No thanks."

My past is filled with stupid.

This happened probably around 2007 or 2008. It was at a summer card show. The dealer with the cards I have dealt with a number of times. He's the man who sold me the 1956 Topps Duke Snider. And I've obtained other cards from him, too.

But back then I probably had seen him only one other time. He found out I was interested in Dodgers and I thought maybe he'd have some '56s for me to review. Instead he handed me Loes and his '54 Bowman companion and told me how beautiful they were.

I didn't see it.

I was in a different place then. I knew what I liked and it wasn't Bowman. No kind of Bowman. Current stuff. Stuff from the '50s. Wasn't interested. I was even more of a Topps guy then than I am now.

So I saw nothing in those cards that I wanted, even though now I see everything in those cards that I want.

"No thanks," I said. And I think I just bought a handful of 1971 Topps from him instead (not a frivolous purchase, but not cards from the '50s either).

At the time, I owned just one other 1954 Bowman. That card meant a lot to me, and maybe it overshadowed any other '54 Bowman. Or maybe I didn't like the watercolor look at the time.

Whatever ...

Tastes change.

A few weeks ago, a 1954 Bowman popped up on The Sandlot blog. Joe was looking to start a trade. Was anyone interested?

Is that a '54 Bowman? Of one of the greatest pitchers of the 1950s?

Hell, yeah, I'm interested.

And now 1954 Bowman Don Newcombe is mine. Where I can read the back and great prose such as this:

"Dodger fans will be glad to welcome him home but opposing batters are not looking forward to the prospect of again having to face his slants."

A) That's a lot of extra words there. We're not writing an essay for English class here.
B) "Slants" is a wonderful archaic baseball word.

I guess you could say I've come around on '54 Bowman because I now own maybe 6 or 7 of them, mostly Dodgers.

Still don't have the Loes yet.

The Newcombe eases the pain quite a bit. But until I get that Loes, it'll be my biggest card show blunder.


petethan said…
Loes looks like he's being asked to part with a ball given to him by his dear long-lost grandfather, or something...
AdamE said…
You know how I told you that I had a Bowman Preacher for you? It took awhile but I finally got it to you. Same thing goes with the 54 Billy Loes. Consider it your, eventually.
BobWalkthePlank said…
It is rough thinking about all the cards I passed up in my day. No I don't think that Peyton Manning guy is that good. Give me all your Ryan Leaf's please.....
Commishbob said…
Card show blunders? Heh, the line forms behind me.
Mark Hoyle said…
And I would be right behind you
Tony L. said…
So, I have that Loes in kinda bad shape. Does that matter to you?

Popular posts from this blog

Stuck in traffic with Series 2

In the whirlwind that has been my life this month, I found myself going absolutely nowhere for a portion of Thursday afternoon. I was in the middle of yet another road trip, the third one this week. This one was for work, and because it was job-related, it became quickly apparent that it would be a waste of time. The only thing that could save it was a side visit to the nearby Walmart to see if I could spot some Topps Series 2. I found it right away, which was shocking as I was pretty much in the middle of the country, where SUVs share the road with tractors and buggies. Who knew that the Amish wanted Series 2, too? The problem was getting back into civilization to open the contents of the 72-card hanger box I bought. The neighboring village is undergoing a summer construction project smack in the middle of downtown. It's not much of a downtown, but the main road happens to be the main artery in the entire county. Everyone -- and by everyone I mean every tractor trailer ha

Heading upstate

  Back in 1999, Sports Illustrated published an edition at the end of the year rating the top 50 athletes of the century for every state.   As a lifelong Upstate New Yorker, I braced for a list of New York State athletes that consisted almost entirely of downstate natives, that is, folks from the greater NYC area and Long Island.   We Upstaters are used to New York City trampling all over the rest of the state. They have the most people, the loudest voices. It happens all the time. It's a phenomenon unique to this state. Heck, there are still people out there who, when you tell them you're from New York, automatically think you're from NYC. They don't think of cows and chickens when they think of New York. But trust me, there are a lot of cows and chickens in New York State. Especially cows.   So, anyway, when I counted up the baseball players that SI listed as the greatest from New York State, six of the nine were from New York City or Long Island. I was surprised all

G.O.A.T, the '80s: 30-21

  I often call this current period of the television sports calendar the black hole of sports programming. The time between the end of the Super Bowl and the beginning of televised Spring Training baseball games is an empty void when I'm looking for something to watch on traditional television. I don't watch the NBA and I find the NHL on TV holds my interest for maybe a period. College basketball I can't watch until the tournament. This didn't used to be as much of a problem back when I could turn instead to my favorite sitcoms in February. Do you remember when February was "sweeps month"? (Maybe it still is, I don't know). Networks would make sure that every top show aired original episodes that month, no reruns. So you'd always have something to view during the week even when the sports scene was boring. (I know, people have multiple streaming viewing options now. But I find myself going weeks sometimes before I see something I want to view on Netfli