I liked the concept of the set a lot. One card from each Topps set; 1952 - 2016. Since it was only a 65 card set I put it in sheets and hoped I would find the rest in dime boxes. No such luck However; back in late January one of the guys I follow on Twitter came across a ton of the cards from this set in a box he got at Goodwill and I sent him my list.
He was able to knock off every card on my list except for one; the 1989 Ken Griffey Jr. I found that card I needed on eBay for $1 with $1 shipping and it arrived a few days later to complete my set.
As you can tell, the front of the card is the same as the original card, but the backs are different. The numbering on the back of the cards corresponds with the name of the player. For example, the number for this Ken Griffey Jr. card is A65-KG. So the checklist list the cards alphabetically which is how I initially had them in the sheets.
Personally, I like how they have some more obscure cards, so it's not just cards that have been reprinted 100 times already
ReplyDeleteGood point. Variety is a good thing!
DeleteI don't see the appeal of this set at all. I just don't like reprints, but I can understand why someone would want reprints of vintage cards they'll never be able to actually own. But who wants a reprint of a junk wax Teddy Higuera or Andy Benes? Or a recent Fernando Tatis (this before his son became a star) or AJ Pollack?
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to pick out the weird choices if you're assuming they wanted iconic cards: 1975 Randy Jones over George Brett or Robin Yount, 1992 Sandy Alomar Jr. over Manny Ramirez or Jim Thome, 2000 José Cruz Jr. over Miguel Cabrera. But that assumes that that's what they're going for, which they don't seem to be. Clearly they wanted to have some less prominent players in there--maybe they thought it would become an annual thing and they wanted to hold some back?
I understand that this set isn't for everyone. I like it though, but I like that it is clear (with the back) that it is a reprint. I think Fuji is right and it had to do with getting autographs for the product.
DeleteSeveral of them stick out like a sore thumb, but congrats on the complete set! Goodwill find FTW!
ReplyDeleteThanks! When I saw him post these cards I got really excited because I hadn't come across any in the wild in the last 5 years.
DeletePutting them in chronological order seems like it would be the only way to page these.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it just didn't feel right alphabetically.
DeleteChronological order is definitely the way to go, set looks great!
ReplyDeleteThanks! I like seeing the progression from year to year.
DeleteSuch a weird set, and almost indistinguishable from some of the many other reprint sets from Topps over the years, such as Cards Your Mom Threw Out, etc. I do like the back choice though!
ReplyDeleteI thought you might be a fan of the backs!
DeleteSome very interesting choices when it came to the checklist, but I think some of it had to do with who they were able to get to sign cards. Guess it's more cost-effective to have Dent sign cards than Rickey.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right about the autographs! If they were all the very best players the autographs would be super expensive and the cost of the box would have been through the roof. No wonder I got Jeff Conine as my auto.
DeleteThat is quite an interesting set, and is defintely something I would consider for my collection if I ever came across it. I do have to say that putting the set in chronological order would be the best way to showcase it. I tend to like some of the obscure player cards because it shows that baseball is more than the superstars.
ReplyDeleteGood point about baseball being more than just superstars. The non superstar players they chose were still really good players, but give that variety.
Delete