Thorzul will trade

23 03 2010

I know you are all busy voting in both sets of Round 1 games in the Berger region of the Tournament of Gimmicks, but I don’t want you to get bored with nothing new while you do so. So keep voting, and I’ll keep the new content coming, okay? Who am I kidding, you’ll get the new stuff anyway. Go here and here to read up on the match ups, and remember to vote by Thursday at midnight EST to voice your opinion on the worst gimmick ever.

No, it’s not 2010 Topps Heritage.  I’m trying not to buy any more of that, remember?  Instead, it’s part of the 2008 Topps Trading Card History insert set that I’m still trying to complete.  I was actually a bit confused myself when I opened the envelope and pulled this out until I turned the dang thing over and saw the back.

Thorzul has been ruler of all lately.  First, he told us to bip, and there was bipping.  Then he told us to send cards to Ethan Orlinksy of MLBP, and cards were sent to Ethan.  Then he told be to trade with him, and I had no choice but to trade.  I sent him a few ’82 Topps cards that you will probably never see, and in return he sent my the Markakis and a few more cards from the Trading Card History set that I needed.

Speaking of gimmicks, how about releasing the middle of this insert set as a hobby shop giveaway?  While cards 1-25 and 51-75 could be found in series 1 and 2 packs respectively, the middle cards were a once a week enticement to spend your money on Topps cards at your local hobby shop.   It worked on me, and since I’m luck enough to have a hobby shop within a few miles I was able to put together cards 26-50.  If you don’t have a hobby shop nearby, then you’ve probably got a big hole in your set. The only thing screwier was when Topps released the Ring of Honor cards in packs with odd numbers and made the even numbers the hobby store giveaway in 2009.  Perhaps this gimmick will warrant some mention in next year’s tourney.

Here’s two of the uglier cards from the set. When it first came out dayf the Junkie would do research on some of the more obscure cards that came out of the set.  You can see the work he did on the Sizemore card here.

The Webb card appears to be a tribute to the old Studio cards only in black and white, but it’s referred to on the back only as a 1927 W575-2.  That should be an easy set to find information on, right? Well, no, because I don’t think such a set existed.  From what I can tell, there are no 1927 W575-2 cards.

There was, however, a 1922 W575-2. It looked like this, courtesy of  FKW Century Old Cards:

Pretty close, right?  Problem is, a lot of  cards from the 20’s look like that. Plus the one shown there doesn’t have an autograph along the bottom or the player’s team name either.

Surprisingly, wikipedia has an entry on the 1922 w575-2 set which states, “Some cards have player team and position added to the name inscription.” So maybe it’s not that far off the mark. But if this is supposed to be a reproduction of the 1922 set, Topps only screwed up by 1) making it a studio shot rather than an action shot, 2) getting the date wrong on the back of the card, and 3) not including the autograph on or near the shoulder of the player, the feature which gives the original set it’s nickname, the “autograph on shoulder” set.

So while I love the Trading Card History insert set, that’s how much better this thing could have been.

But, it’s possible I’m wrong, and if anyone knows about the mysterious 1927 set that Topps is referring to, please let me know.

Speaking of ugly sets, Thorzul also threw in cards from everyone’s favorite 90’s eyesore, 1990 Topps.

I’m now so close to the end of this one I can taste it.  Pat Borders, where are you?

Oh, and 2039 Topps Heritage is going to be so awesome.

Remember, gimmicks voting is still going on here, here, here, here, here, and here.  Some of the votes are much closer than I thought on these, so you can still make a difference.  It’s not too late.  But after Thursday at midnight, it will be.  Vote now!

Advertisements

Actions

Information

2 responses

24 03 2010
Ted

Nice work on the gimmick competition. I think there should be a distinction, though, between gimmicks like Card-supials which were at least an attempt to come up with something new and were straightforward versus surprise-super-short print cards and phony errors that are simply designed to drive up prices. The former might have been a bad idea, but at least they weren’t dishonest or manipulative. Now that I think about it, that’s a pretty good way to distinguish ex-girlfriends, too.

27 03 2010
Rob M

I have the Pat Borders, ’90s Topps set aside for you. I’m looking to see if I can pull any more from your want list. -Rob M.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s