Skip to main content

Cards of legends from a not-so-legendary time

 
Almost 15 years ago, Topps started doing something to its flagship set that was reviled by set-collectors at the time.

In the 2009 flagship set, it inserted short-prints of legendary players throughout the base set. Those short-printed cards shared a card number with a regular non-short-printed card of a current player. For example, at card No. 320, Miguel Cabrera shares a card number with the short-printed Johnny Mize.

Topps had tinkered with SPs in the base set in preceding years and it was all quite controversial. Set collectors at the time -- myself included -- thought adding exclusive cards to the set pursuit was unfair and making the quest to "collect them all" too difficult or plain impossible.

Years later, Topps has continued the practice in almost every flagship set since (although have you noticed there aren't any SPs listed in 2023 flagship so far on TCDB?). They are so common now that even people who fumed over those short-prints, like me, don't even pay attention anymore. It's Topps being Topps and that's worth a simple shrug.

I even pick up an SP here-and-there when I feel like it. It's almost always a Dodger and always in my budget, which means it doesn't happen very often. Topps started including 4 SPs per player in some cases and it hasn't been about the base set in a long time. This is for player collectors, good luck to ya.
 
For example, I consider my 2009 Topps flagship set complete without the short-prints. I haven't even owned hardly any of those cards of legends, except for a couple Dodgers.
 
Until now.
 

I received an unexpected envelope in the mail from Cubs fan and fellow collecting bud, R.C. He's sent me all kinds of cool cards in the past.
 
The package contained 10 legends short-prints, eight of them from the 2009 set!
 
The Jackie Robinson one is the coolest, of course, and it completes the three-card Brooklyn Dodgers 2009 SPs for me as I've held Roy Campanella and Pee Wee Reese for quite awhile.
 
Here are the other 2009s that R.C. sent:
 

1 - Babe Ruth (shares number with Alex Rodriguez)
 
 

 60 - Cy Young (shares number with Mariano Rivera)



66 - Ty Cobb (shares number with Dustin Pedroia)



195 - Christy Mathewson (shares number with Tim Lincecum)
 



205 - Honus Wagner (shares number with Miguel Tejada)
 
 
 

287 - Walter Johnson (shares number with Greg Maddux)
 



290 - Lou Gehrig (shares number with Albert Pujols)
 
Those are all pretty nifty even if they're colorized into submission (and you can't read the foil names). That's not close to all of them, there are plenty others.
 
But this will not make me think of completing all the SPs. I am only hanging onto these because I have some nostalgia for the 2009 set, it is the first flagship set I completed as a card blogger and therefore traded for a lot of these cards with fellow bloggers, back when blog trading was at its peak.
 
R.C. -- who said he's working on an "ultimate 1984 Topps set" using Archives and 35th anniversary tributes -- sent me two other legends short-prints from a different Topps flagship set. I'm saving those to distribute to fellow traders. One is already on its way.
 
I'm also not against trading the above cards (except Robinson) for the right kind of offer. 
 
2009 marked a change in how Topps marketed flagship, as legend players became much more prominent in the set, via SPs and inserts, etc. It's cut back on that in recent years, I imagine licensing is a lot to handle. That's a good thing, for me, I've always been weirded out by retired players sharing space with current players in a current set (the same goes for football, why do I have to keep collecting Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas?)
 
But the days of consternation and angst are over. I'll collect what I want to collect and I alone will decide when a set is complete. Once I came to that realization, Topps' games had no effect on me.

Comments

Nick Vossbrink said…
Yeah I'm happy to ignore these. I wish I could get clean team checklists out of TCDB without them. Nothing worse than looking up how many Giants are on the CL and having to count anyway.
Nick said…
I have a begrudging love for these legend SPs - they have no reason to exist, but I find myself salivating over them anyways. Which, of course, makes me super jealous of this lot R.C. sent you! Especially since I have a way harder time tracking down cheap '09s than any of the other legend variations out there.
jacobmrley said…
This year, rather than sprinkle in SPs and SSPs, each card in the set has an SSP and none of them are "legends" so, yeah, whatever.
Zippy Zappy said…
Back in 2011 (my first year in this hobby) I thought these were the coolest things ever. I still hold a soft spot for the ones from 2011 and only 2011.
COUNT ME IN A FOR A TRADE FOR THOSE LEGENDS. I'M SURE I CAN WHIP SOMETHING UP.
I've liked a lot of the legends cards over the years, which makes the short printing even more unfortunate.
Jimetal7212 said…
You aren't seeing SPs in the checklist itself because Topps took it one step further this year. Now every card has its own VAR "Base Golden Mirror Image Variation SSP" so it's listed as a parallel set. Yep, every card got a SP version....
night owl said…
Ah, that's right. I put that out of my mind as soon as I heard about it.
Fuji said…
I think the only SP's I've actively sought was the Tony Gwynn and Rickey Henderson ones. But I'll pick them up here and there when I see them in dollar bins. I've also been gifted a few too.
Michael D said…
Great post! SPs are a beat down. Especially, when you go back like I'm doing to inventory my collection on TCDB. SPs errors and corrections wear me out when I'm trying to load everything. I will say it is kinda cool when you find one.
BillK21093 said…
I always enjoyed the Topps Short Prints when they were legend variations.

It was easy to distinguish Babe Ruth from Mike Trout.

Then as always Topps ruined the concept with Sparkles and stupid photo variations.

The Sparkles you needed a guide book to determine where or if there was a Sparkle.

The photo variations you needed a base card to determine if the photo was a variation.

Some were easy such a Goggles or celebration cards. Others not so much.
Benjamin said…
I still despise that practice. To me, it would make logical sense to include the classic guys in Heritage or Archive, and leave the base set alone. If the set is 660 cards, make it 660, not 725 with an additional bunch of SPs to collect. Or make the set 725. It's just greed and I'm glad they put a stop to it in 2023. (The SPs now are just parallel sets, but they always were, so whatever. I hate parallel sets too).
AdamE said…
I wrote off variations for team sets back at the very beginning of my team collecting. I limited myself to the gold parallels for years and eventually gave that up. I put the Legend variations on my want list but I consider the team set complete without them.
Matt said…
That Robinson is fantastic! That may be my favorite photo of him ever put onto cardboard.
Anonymous said…
The legends might be the only thing of interest from that set.
night owl said…
It's actually a great-looking set but the foil names kind of killed it.
Chris said…
I saw very few flagship in 2009, so I didn't see the Legends SPs at all. Some really neat ones here.

These kind of irked me at first but I grew to like them (even pulled a couple in packs) Problem is, Topps being Topps they went way overboard with the SPs, SSPs, etc. Why did I have a Tommy Pham card from 2016 that was worth like $40?!

Plus they used the same legends over and over. It's not "special" anymore if Ruth/Aaron/Mays are in flagship a dozen years in a row.

But yours were from the first wave of legends SPs, so they'll always be unique.
John Bateman said…
Wow those cards were really a prelude to 2011 Topps Lineage
1984 Tigers said…
Personally, I used money instead on the 1960 Fleer baseball ATG set (completed) and 1961 Fleer ATG (still need some big names). Those sets are cool.

Paul t
Jafronius said…
It's always a thrill to pull one of those SPs, but yes, no reason to have them considered to be part of the complete set.