Night Owl Cards

(Welcome to the finale of "The Most Defective Sets I Know." Speaking of defects, I was so concerned that Blogger wouldn't advance-publish my posts that I didn't pay attention to the fact that I scheduled two posts to publish within 15 minutes of each other. Tsk, tsk. We stupid humans. And now, here's the No. 1 defect presenting the No. 1 defective set he knows). 1. TMDSIK: 2010 TOPPS CHROME There is only one set in this whole wide world, in this whole history of cards, that actually makes me angry. Yup. It's 2010 Topps Chrome. Good god, this set pisses me off. As you might know, I am not one of those collectors who doesn't see the point of chrome sets. I love chrome sets for what they are, beautiful, unnecessary cardboard baubles of inconsequence. Chrome cards' purpose is to be shiny and beautiful. To sit there and look pretty. That's all. That's all they have to be, because when I look at them, like a pretty girl or an awesome s...

(Most years Allen & Ginter would have been released by now. Yes, I'm still bitter. But at least that doesn't qualify A&G as a defective set. And now, here is one of The Most Defective Sets That I Know). 2. TMDSIK: 1991-93 TOPPS MICRO I am a known lover of minis. I love 1975 Topps minis. I love Allen & Ginter minis. I'll tolerate Gypsy Queen minis. I'll accept 1980s minis. What I don't like at all are micros. Micro works for a kid that's 7 years old. Miniature is a big deal when you're little. Matchbox cars. My Little Pony. When my daughter was that age, we had tiny, easy-to-lose toys embedded in every carpet in the house. The vacuum suffered the most. So why would anyone make cards that small, especially for a demographic that was a lot older than 7? Here is how small they are: Regulation-size card on the left. That is one gigantic difference. When I scanned these two cards together. I opened the lid to pull the cards bac...

(The days are all blending into each other. That can mean only one thing. I'm spending my summer like a teacher! Only problem is with my job it lasts for only one week. Speaking of defective jobs, here is another one of The Most Defective Sets I Know). 3. TMDSIK: 1996 TOPPS LASER There is a down side to being innovative. Sometimes it doesn't work. The '90s were filled with innovative sets -- some succeeded, some didn't. Topps decided to take the diecut phenomenon of the '90s and take it to the extreme. The Laser set was filled with intricate cuts that were meant to illustrate flames and light fixtures. There were two problems with this. First, the cards were ugly. The flamethrower cards are pretty nice, but that's as far as I'll go. The rest is awful. The primary problem, though, is storing these cards in pages. It is dangerous work. Every time you slide one in or out of a pocket, you're risking damaging the card. And it doesn't mat...

(Happy 4th to all! I hope you're having as nice a time as I am. ... OK, I wouldn't want to wish that on anyone. I hope you're having a NICER time than I am. Even if means reading about The Most Defective Sets I Know). 4. TMDSIK: 1965 TOPPS EMBOSSED I am virtually positive that these cards were very cool when they arrived in 1965. They were inserted into packs of '65 Topps and it was something new for collectors. But there's a reason that they are pretty cheap in comparison to all other cards that hit the market during the mid-1960s. The card image isn't terribly clear, unless you hold it under a light. And the deal-breaker, for me, is that a lot of the facial features either don't resemble the player displayed or it's too difficult to tell whether they do or not. This Ron Fairly COULD look like Ron Fairly. I just can't tell without finding a card of Ron Fairly, holding the two of them together, comparing, and doing a whole lot of squi...

(Welcome to part 2 of The Most Defective Sets That I Know. Read, reflect, be grateful that you're not as defective as these sets are. Or at least I hope you're not). 5. TMDSIK: 1989 BOWMAN I have a box of 1989 Bowman. In the original box issued that year. I bought it at a department store for super cheap. The return of Bowman was a big deal in 1989, which is probably why it was such a disappointment. We expected so much more. But the look is only part of the problem. The problem is THAT  look on THAT card size. 1989 Bowman is too ugly to be featured that large. I was so frustrated when I found out that '89 Bowman wasn't 2 1/2-by-3 1/2 that I have left most of the cards from that set in the very box that I purchased. The vast majority of my completed sets are in binders. But I didn't bother with '89 Bowman. In fact, I cared so little for it, that I broke up the set. I have only about half of it now and I'd have even less of it if I could find...

(This is a little countdown show I've prepared in advance. Given Blogger's moodiness, who knows if it will see the light of day this week. But I must press onward). In the history of collecting there have been certain sets that haven't quite hit the mark. In a word, I would call them "defective." Now, let's define "defective." I am not using "defective" to describe a concept. There are plenty of sets with flawed concepts. 2008 Documentary, 1997-98 Pinnacle Inside (cards in a can), 2009 Yankee Stadium Legacy. There are also plenty of sets with flawed marketing strategies. 1982 Kmart, for example. But those don't describe the actual card. There are some sets in which the cards in the set simply don't work. They don't operate properly. They're dysfunctional. It's possible that some of these sets have flawed concepts or marketing strategies, too, but the majority of frustration comes when the collector handles th...