Night Owl Cards

Although monster-sized portions have been around for decades, probably spurred on by the Big Gulp's arrival in 7-Elevens in 1980, the term "biggie size" or "super size" was invented in the early 1990s. And out-of-control portion sizes began in the '90s. As much as people like to blame the '80s for crass consumerism -- "Greed is good," etc. -- the '90s did its share of damage on our wastelines and wallets as people overate, overextended and overcollected their way through the decade. There were more card sets than ever before during the '90s and a lot of collectors bailed because who could possibly collect them all? It took years for us hobby dinosaurs from the '60s, '70s and '80s to realize you didn't really have to collect them all, just collect what you liked. And while I still have problems wrapping my head around that concept, it's getting easier every year. My bank account decides it for me. But I still...

There seems to be this misconception that I don't "do" '90s cards. That I have a dismissive attitude about '90s cards. That I can't be bothered with the card excess that was the '90s. But would someone who doesn't appreciate '90s cards have the above Hideo Nomo "Smoke 'n Heat" insert card from 1996 Fleer in his collection? Would that same '90s critic say that he's always liked this card? Would he say that while '90s base cards weren't exactly his style in many cases, some of the inserts from that decade are some of the most glorious-looking, inventive items ever to be UV coated? Would this same critic enjoy 1995 Topps? Would he say 1994 Fleer might be one of the best base sets ever to exist? Would he confess that he actually likes Circa? Would he be considering a 1993 Upper Deck blog? Would he have paid homage to 1992 Pinnacle? Would he have more than 400 Mike Piazza cards in his collection? And would he b...

If you collected cards in the 1970s, you know this card. It is an example of a cameo -- gone wrong. It is a hyper-cameo, if you will. Wes Parker is hogging all the screen time, obscuring the subject of the card. This is almost more Parker's card than Steve Garvey's card. But it's a popular and often-cited card because of how it's presented and how different it is. And people can interpret it as a "passing of the torch" kind of card as Garvey eventually succeeded Parker as the Dodgers' first baseman. This card is also a precursor to what we're experiencing today. I'll get to that. The Garvey card, obviously, wasn't the only example of a cameo on a 1970s baseball card. There are several others, including several in the same 1973 Topps set, perhaps one of the most cameo-heavy sets of all-time. Here is another often-cited one: But cameo pictures have appeared on baseball cards probably since the beginning of cards. Here is one from ...

Tonight is the 29th anniversary of the famed Game 6 of the 1986 World Series (yes, I know the card refers to Game 7, trust me, Game 6 is mentioned on the back). I just happen to be in the middle of determining which World Series feature night cards. Obviously, not all World Series were played at night, so I can eliminate anything prior to 1972. And for the next five or so years that followed, it's still an easy task. Topps featured World Series cards in its base sets every year in the '70s up until 1979. (You can find my tired rant about what happened afterward). And there's a night card involved each of those years. After 1978, it gets tricky. The '79 and '80 sets don't recognize the World Series. Any night World Series card I find from the 1978 or 1979 Series will have to come from some retro set that pays homage to a photo from that Series. I'm thinking of the Willie Stargell card in this year's Stadium Club, for example, which I believe is...

I went back out yesterday and got that light bulb. And I stopped by the card aisle and grabbed what I thought were more sensible purchases for my 2015 set-collecting needs. So I bought the bulb, a hanger box of Series 2, a hanger of Stadium Club and one pack of Update. And when I got through opening them, I had the distinct feeling that my card knowledge was being tested. First the highlights of the Stadium Club pack. Nothing really notable, just the presentation of every base card as an EVENT, which I will always applaud. (Sorry, Edwin, I was rooting for the Royals). The pack helped me cross a few more cards off the want list. I think this set will disappear off store shelves before I come close to completing it because it's so darn pricey. I'll have to reapply myself and hunt for cards online. Next, the Update pack. It was just as useful, presenting me with one more Dodger who probably won't be with the team next year. And just so the card gods can...

Lately I've gotten the feeling that I'm boring readers. Oh, not the diehard regulars, the ones who comment all the time. I'm still connecting with them and very appreciative. I'm referring to the casual readers -- the ones who appear in January, when the new baseball cards pop up and the buzz is in the air and then disappear at this time of year, when they've completely lost interest. It happens every year. I've been around the block a few times now and I notice the readership numbers taking a dive every fall. It's that ADD epidemic, you know. So I press on, because readers aren't the only reason I do this, and write about what interests me. That usually involves cards of the past, and the last few posts have been related to that. I actually think they were semi-interesting posts, examining the best of the 1983 Topps set, and how Dennis Eckersley's cards should get more play than they do. I devoted quite a bit of time that I really don...