Back to the Archives

Here I sit, minutes after watching the U.S. have every opportunity to beat Belgium in the World Cup -- only to squander nearly every opportunity and, in the process, wasting the best game I have ever seen a goalkeeper have in Tim Howard's sixteen save performance.  For some reason, it seems just right to mention that I gave in to the siren's song that is Topps Archives.   

After wasting so much bandwidth, brain power, and energy complaining about the dadgum set, I ended up buying a hobby box anyway.  

So, appropriate to my depression both at the soccer game -- which, to be fair, I really didn't think we would do as well as we did -- and at buying Archives, here's a slow depressing song called "Slate" from about 23 years ago by seminal alt-country band Uncle Tupelo (out of which the bands Son Volt and Wilco emerged):

That version is Jay Farrar -- who broke away from Jeff Tweedy to form Son Volt -- in 2008.  It's a dodgy live version filmed in a bar, but isn't that the best way to see a show?  I think it is.

Anyway.

Archives.  Yup, I went there.  

I'll spare you a pack-by-pack breakdown of the box, mainly because I've already sorted them out and couldn't reconstruct that information with the help of the casts of all the CSI shows on CBS at this point.  So, instead, let me show you my inserts and high numbers.  

First, the high numbers.  When I posted my whiny diatribe a few weeks ago, one of the high numbered short prints I got in that pack was Manny Ramirez.  In my bad attitude toward the set, I decided to send that off to Mark Hoyle for his Red Sox collection.  When I decided to buy a box of the Archives, a thought went through my head that I should have waited until my disappointment subsided before sending cards away.  

I shouldn't have worried.  I recall this well -- in literally the first pack I opened was a Cubs Triple-A outfielder:

And, if you can see it on the bottom left corner, please forgive one of my cats (a boy named Molly...) for shedding on it.  

Molly is looking at you and wondering what YOUR problem is.

Without as much build up, then, here are the other five short prints I got.  

I haven't sorted all of the cards out completely and carefully, so it's possible that one or two got by me, but that's what I got for the high numbers.  Not bad, certainly.

Then, there were the gold and silver parallels that were inserted into the packs.  I got four gold (which are numbered to 199) and 2 silver (numbered to 99).  Here are the Gold:

SN115/199

SN170/199

SN56/199

SN103/199

Now, for the Silver ones:

SN55/99

SN89/99

Since these are parallels and are not Brewers, I sure would love to get Brewers parallels back in return for them.  Anyone help me there?  All you Yankee, Red Sox, Pirates (okay, Matt), Mariners (?), Giants, and Dodgers fans must have some Brewers parallels from this product, right???

I did like that Topps used the glossy All-Star insert design from the 1980s as an insert card this time around, though it would have been nice if these were glossy too.  But, I suppose they wanted to avoid confusion between the originals and these.  I received 6 of these All-Star inserts:

These are all available as trade bait as well, since I don't collect any of these guys.  

Same goes for these deckle edge inserts:

I also pulled one of those "Firebrand" wood cards.  Is there a Jose Canseco collector who would like this one?

Only three more inserts to go.  The first are the "Major League" inserts.  Now, I liked the movie back in 1989.  I really did.  In fact, I see people I knew from high school in the movie because all the baseball scenes were filmed in Milwaukee County Stadium in the summer before.  Yes, Cleveland was so bad in the 1980s that Milwaukee had to stand in for it.  

Let that sink in a bit.

Here's Roger Dorn and Rickie Vaughn to make you feel better about it:

I have much less bile and antipathy toward these cards in recent days than when I first saw them.  I really don't care if I have them or not, and I'd prefer to trade them to someone who really wants them and likes them.  They aren't for me, and I just have to stop being so obnoxious as to think only those items that I like should make sets.  

When I own a card company, then I get to make that call.  And that will happen when I win the lottery....which I don't play because I view it as a tax on people who do not understand probability.

Back to the inserts.  I have only the 1971 Hockey insert and the two autographs left.  Here's the hockey insert, numbered 71H-ED, a card number to make Viagra proud:

That's up for grabs too if I have anyone who reads this blog who wants to trade me something for it.

Finally, I have autographs.  First, I got one that made me realize that I don't hate all Yankees players -- just the ones that Topps and ESPN have shoved down our throats non-stop. Because I kind of like Mel Stottlemyre:

Finally, I thought I had just another run-of-the mill autograph.  When I was looking at the backs of the cards, though, I realized that this one is some sort of silver parallel.  Too bad it's just Rob Dibble, bro:

The Dibble is serial numbered 8 of 25.  Is there a bro collector in the house?

Lots of pictures today.

If you want good stories, though, read the 1982 Topps Blog today, where I talk about the Anastacio Somoza regime in Nicaragua in the 1970s and close by e-mailing a missionary.

Fixing Archives

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you might have come across my incredibly vitriolic, angst-filled rant over the weekend regarding the 2014 Topps Archives set.  I know -- it was pretty harsh.  Perhaps I should not blog on days when I'm feeling hung over.  That might be better for everyone.

That said, anyone who is in customer service will tell you that writing angrily to a company with all your problems with their product or service and closing by saying, "I'm never going to buy anything from you again" is a sure way to get ignored.

The reason is pretty obvious: most companies are not going to waste time begging someone who is ticked off to come back so that they can be annoyed and write more angry letters.  They would rather focus on doing the things that retain customers that are happy or at least are not completely annoyed by them and, further, to grow their customer base.  The smart company will read the ugly letters to see what set off Mildred in Milford to make sure that those issues are not being repeated across the company, but Mildred won't be getting any $1 off coupons in the mail for her complaint generally speaking.

So, having dumped all over the 2014 version of Topps Archives previously, it is now time to turn the spotlight on my thoughts -- feeble though they may be -- for improving the set.  The improvements will fall into similar categories as my complaints:  short prints (and their design), player selection both for the base set and for the short prints, card designs in the set, and inserts.  While I did not have a problem with the inserts that I received, there is still room for improvement.

Short Prints and Player Selection
I think Archives lost its way this year most clearly in the short print series.  I don't have that big of a problem with increasing the number of short prints to 50, though it gets frustrating to anyone who wants to put the full 250-card set together that literally 20% of the set is now short printed.  To me, the real problem was the fact that the short prints include way too many active players and, in addition, too many good retired players.

I've circled the active players in red and the guys I call "too good" in green above.

The problem I have is not that these active players are active nor do I have a problem with "good" players being in Archives.  No, the real issue to me is that what made archives kind of special and different was the fact that we were getting cards of players from the past who weren't appearing in Tribute/Museum Collection/Five Star and also were not appearing in the multiple inserts accompanying the Topps Base Set. Now, though, all we have are just another card of Puig, Ryu, Abreu, and Babe Ruth rather than, as we had last year, cards of Sid Fernandez, Fred Lynn, and Juan Samuel or, as we had in 2012, cards of Brett Butler, Bake McBride, and Cecil Cooper.

So, how do we fix this?

It's pretty straight forward, though it may not be easy: simply don't put active players in the short prints.  That sounds easy, right?

It probably isn't as easy as I'd like it to be.  Thinking through the legalities for a moment, the real reason we are getting this hodgepodge of active players and superstar Hall of Famers in the short prints -- and the reason we get the same guys over and over and over -- is a simple legal issue.  These players -- or their estates or trusts that are operated for the benefit of the former players' heirs -- all own the rights to the individual player's image.

Let's talk about the retired players first.  To use any image, Topps must have a contractual ability to do so. To find players and compensate them in a way that makes business sense, Topps has to employ a bunch of lawyers to negotiate the agreements in question.  Even though Topps has a monopoly in terms of licensed products, its not the only card maker so even the retired players and their estates have some leverage in the situation.

As a result, Topps likely obtains the ability to include each player in however many card sets Topps chooses to issue for a particular period of time.  To make enough money off each contract, many of these players have to be included in a bunch of sets.

Alternatively, as many of us know, it is relatively easy to find the actual image Topps uses on each card.  We just use Google Image Search and, generally, we can find the card on Getty Images.  That's because Topps must have a licensing/contractual relationship with Getty for images that Getty owns.  Those images are ones for which the player photographed likely has provided a waiver to Getty for Getty to profit off the image.

Alternatively, the image might be owned by Getty from one of its photographers taking the photo in a public location.  Then, it's back to Topps to make sure that it has the right to use the player depicted on its cards.

Now, getting back to Archives, the reason that current players will feature more and more prominently is simply because Topps has contracts with nearly all of the current players -- Matt Wieters is a notable exception -- to print baseball cards with the players' image on it in exchange for a licensing fee.

In short, current players and those retired players with whom Topps already has a contract require no additional work on Topps's part to use their images on cards.  Lesser players and guys who have not been on cards in a long time require more work, make less money for Topps, and provide less marketability in other sets that Topps makes.

I mean, does anyone want a Bake McBride bat relic in their Museum Collection set? On the other hand, Ricky Nolasco is in Museum Collection this year.

To finish my point though, if we want Archives to be like it was last year in the short prints, either those short printed players will need to sign a multi-year deal (probably what Mookie Wilson did, since he was in last year's set too) or have additional marketability beyond Archives -- like Pedro, Canseco, McGwire, and Fernando, for example.

Being a lawyer and knowing these issues sucks sometimes.

Player Selection, Part II
There is one thing, though, that Topps can easily improve on with very little additional expense.  Archives does not need to be "ESPN: The Card Set" and be comprised of 85% Red Sox, Mets, Yankees, and Dodgers (or guys who played for those teams in other uniforms).  Nothing personal to all my blogger friends who like those teams, but those of us in the "flyover states" are baseball fans too.

Right, Georgia boy (and Bulldogs fan) Jason Aldean?

Card Design
The excellent Cubs blog Wrigley Wax gave a great run-down of the set designs that have been used for the Archives set over the past three years.  Using the Cubs cards for comparison, he ran down what Topps changed about each of the original designs when implementing them for use in Archives.  I don't mind the inconsistencies in designs that result from redoing the sets.

But there are a couple of problems this year.  First, we did not need to get the 1980 design back.  Look, I love the 1980 set design as much as anyone else who turned nine years old that year.  It's a clean, classic design.  It did not need to be back this soon.

Second, we did not need another set including the 1989 design -- in the same fashion as the die-cut minis from this year's base set.  It's as if Topps thought, "well, hell, we've got the graphics already put together for it from these die cuts, let's use the damn things again."  Actually, that's probably exactly what Topps thought. It's the laziness that has invaded Topps's business since it got the licensing monopoly back.

Third, the short prints need to be different designs from the base set.  Since we've gone to a full-on 50 short print cards like the other designs, why not just use one design for the short prints?  While you're at it, make it one of those awesome designs from 1974 through 1979, or 1981, or 1983 (like the framed minis from 2012), or use one of the old Heritage graphics designs and bring back 1960 again.  I mean, you used 1960 for relics last year, so you have the design graphics available....

Inserts
Finally, there are the inserts.  I know I'm a lone voice in the wilderness at times on this issue, but Topps just does way too many inserts in every set.  I know Topps wants people buying these packs and having some payback on the secondary market to drive additional demand.  I know that inserts drives that at times, and, in particular, autographs and low-serial-numbered cards of popular players drives that.

But you can still scale them back a bit. Do fewer of them.  Maybe do 3/4 of the number of inserts that you did last year.  It's okay.  There will still be plenty of inserts on eBay with ridiculous pricing in the first two weeks after release as there always are, so your "investor" types can take their profits off us "collector" types.  I don't mind that.  Just a couple fewer.  That's all.

CONCLUSION

I know this post is long on reading and short on pretty pictures. My apologies to those of you who slogged through all of this hoping for some happy payoff.

I had a law school professor who drove all of us in his class nuts with how lacking in substance his class seemed to be.  It lacked direction, and he lacked an ability to stay on point.  He somehow got the nickname behind his back of "Mr. NASA" for his space cadet-like nature.  But he had one really good line that I recall every time I start ranting and fail to reign myself in:

Remember, nothing is so impeccable that it can't be pecked at.

Everyone can come up with problems, and every solution has its shortcomings.

But Topps, really, you can do better with Archives than you did this year.  And collectors like me would really appreciate it if you would try.

Everyone Else is Doing It, so Why Not Me?

I'm not entirely sure what it is about the 2014 Topps Archives set that makes me think of an Irish alternative band from 1993.  But, here I am with a post title that references The Cranberries debut album name (Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?) and their second biggest hit, "Linger."

Let me think about this for a second and look to the lyrics from Linger....hmmm...the lyrics to Linger were written by Dolores O'Riordan as part of her audition to join the band.  The song, according to her, was about her "first serious kiss."  Or, if you look at the lyrics, it sure sounds like a person who feels trapped in a relationship but who cannot seem to break free from the relationship.

It might be a bit of a stretch, but I sort of feel that way about the Archives sets.

I loved the 2012 Archives when I got a couple of them off Amazon using some store credit I had there. Then, I admitted my inability to keep myself from buying two hobby boxes of the 2013 Archives when I went to my local card store in March.  So, I knew that I would want the 2014 version.

But, as I heard more and found out more about the set, it started turning me off.  The first problem: no Ryan Braun.  I guess Topps is okay about bringing back steroid abusers from the past, but anyone who has been suspended but is still a current player is persona non grata.  That's fine.  I don't have that big of a problem with that. I can work through that issue.

Problem Number 2: increasing the number of short-printed cards to fifty.  Each year, this number has creeped northward--from 41 thanks to the ridiculous shoehorning of another Bryce Harper card into the 2012 set to 45 last year.  Even this didn't make me wonder whether it was just a game to Topps.

Problem Number 3: using the same designs for the short prints as for the regular set.  Ugh.  One of my least favorite activities is continually flipping cards from front to back as I open the pack to see if the card is in the "high number" series.  In the past, at least, the distinctive designs helped identify the short prints.  Not this year:

While the 1989 Topps Design (another issue I have which I'll get to in a minute) provides the base set design for cards 151 through 200, this card of twice-convicted steroid user Manny Ramirez is card 204.

EDIT:  Oops, forgot to address the 1989 design thing.  Yeah, I get it that we're 25 years after 1989 and all. Not all anniversaries should be celebrated. I guess Topps is celebrating those years when it pulled the wool over everyone's eyes successfully and printed enough cards for every man, woman, and child to have put together three complete sets for themselves and one more to ship to Africa for those less fortunate.  Please let this design die, Topps.  Please.

Problem Number 4: Only 5 Brewers in the base set.  On the bright side, there are no Brewers in the short-printed high numbers.  I even picked up my Robin Yount card:

On the other hand, this is 5 Brewers as compared to:

• Eighteen St. Louis Cardinals, all in the 1-200 base set
• Eleven Boston Red Sox, including 4 short prints
• Nine New York Mets, including 3 short prints, and 
• TWENTY-TWO New York Yankees, including 7 short prints and this guy:

Nothing against Murphy, who is hitting well as Brian McCann's backup currently, but why do the Yankees get their freaking backup catcher in the set and the Brewers All-Star shortstop from last year, Jean Segura, doesn't get into the set?

Problem Number 5:  The elimination of the Fan Favorites being the high-numbered cards in favor of more cards of Babe Ruth, Reggie Jackson, Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan, and Justin Verlander.  One of my favorite parts of the 2013 Archives set was having cards of guys like Lee May, Charlie Hough, and Kent Hrbek included.  Yeah, there weren't any Brewers in those short prints last year, but the guys I mentioned were minor stars who were beloved in the cities in which they played.  This year, there are a few of those "fan favorite" types -- Darren Daulton is probably the best example -- but even here it just appeared to be an excuse to put in more New York and Los Angeles players into the set...Dusty Baker, Mookie Wilson, John Olerud (as a Met), and Graig Nettles (as a Yankee) are not the same.  

So I guess Problems 4 and 5 really are the problem of being a smaller market.  Bud Selig was right.

Other than those major complaints, 2014 Archives isn't a bad set.  Seriously.  I don't mind the 1987 "Future Stars" inserts that much, such as this one that I pulled:

I don't mind the All-Star rack-pack-insert-style cards either (I got a Gary Carter here, so it's been put away in its binder already).

I'm not even viscerally opposed to the Parallels.  I have a Felix Hernandez gold that I'd love to trade for something I actually collect:

I guess I just feel used.  I'm such a fool for these cards.  And seeing everyone posting on their blogs about them is making evident this set's ability to wrap me around its proverbial finger linger. And linger.  And that's my tortured way to understand thinking about The Cranberries.

But I'm done being a fool for Archives.  I'm not going to try to collect the full set this year.  I'll take the Brewers, but that's all for me, thanks.