My guess is that when Topps came up with their Heritage brand, they likely had someone like me in mind as their target audience. And maybe that just rubs me the wrong way. I would like nothing better than to go to the store and buy a pack of 1970 Topps baseball cards. But I’ve never purchased a pack of Heritage cards and have no plans to do so, outside of a 7-figure financial windfall.
Yes, the Heritage cards are pricey but that’s not the biggest turnoff. Instead, it’s that they’re just trying too hard. If maybe they just recreated the look of the original and left it at that, then, yeah, they’d probably get my money. But this Jacob deGrom is a short print. Why on earth have short print cards as part of a base set here in the 21st Century?
And if a short print isn’t bad enough, there are countless other versions of this card. There’s one where Mets is in yellow, rather than the red pictured here. And there are chrome versions and OPC versions with French text and there are refractors of different colors and there’s an action variation and a silver foil version and an autographed one, too. Probably others that I missed.
It can be difficult to describe why you like something, regardless of what the item is. For me, part of the joy of baseball cards – the ones of my youth, not these 21st Century cards – is that they didn’t try to be anything more than what they were. They were baseball cards, you know, pictures of players in their uniform on the front side, with stats on the back and some text. Maybe even a cartoon or another picture.
The first time I remember feeling uneasy about baseball cards came in 1992, when Bowman put out a great set, except for one thing. That ’92 Bowman set had pictures of hot shot rookies and youngsters in street clothes. That was just wrong. Unfortunately, that was just the beginning.
After the card companies shot themselves in the foot with obscene production numbers in the mid-80s to early 90s, they had to do something. And they should be congratulated, I guess, for coming up with something that appears to have worked. They focused on high-end cards and chase cards and memorabilia cards and all of the other things that result in a 1,000 cards of star players available to collectors today.
This is turning into a “get off my lawn” rant. The original idea was to discover why the Heritage cards weren’t inducing me to buy them. And maybe that’s the answer – I’m just the old guy shaking his fist at the cloud.
Maybe there’s a compromise in here. Instead of trying to complete a 21st Century set with short prints, or trying to get all of the versions of a star card, maybe my focus could be on a non-star without a bunch of different variations. This card seems pretty sweet.
I sympathize. I had complete sets (of Topps) from 1956-2000, other then perhaps a dozen cards from the 1960s. I also had a bunch of the Upper Deck, Fleers etc. sets as well. Then they all went crazy with special subsets etc. and I said “enough”. I sold off my collection and only kept Mets Topps cards and special items (coins, supers, stamps etc.) from 1962-1976. Much more manageable and enjoyable to look at cards from my youth rather then as an investment portfolio. I also have no problem with reprints…….. a rookie Seaver in EX+ for a thousand bucks? No thanks. A $5 reprint works fine.
Complete sets in the 50s – wow! Hope you were able to sell them at the top of the market.
My earliest complete set is 1961. Right now I’m doing 1960, 1957 and the first series of 1952. Those will probably be the last big sets that I do. I’m also doing the Kellogg’s sets now and those just fit better. None of the Kellogg’s sets are bigger than 75 cards and they have great player selection for the most part.
One of my favorite cards is a reprint or rather a made-up card. It’s the format of the rookie 1967 Seaver card. But the other player is Nolan Ryan. Picked it up at a show 20+ years ago for $5.