Fairfield Repack, Eighth place: 2007 Upper Deck Series 2

17 01 2011

Alright, now we get into the somewhat good stuff. When I got back into the hobby in 2007, I had to make a decision between Topps and Upper Deck as to what base set to collect. Since I’d been a fan of actual Fleer, the acquisition of it by Upper Deck and their use of its name to make more profit sat with me wrong. it wasn’t real Fleer anymore. It was Upper Deck in sheep’s clothing.

Because of that I went with Topps. Well, that and the fact the Upper Deck got my money with their hockey monopoly at the time, and I hated the prospect of chasing short prints in two sports so much that I never bothered to check if Upper Deck actually did this for baseball until 2008, when I foolishly decided to collect both sets.

I’d seen pictures of 2007 Upper Deck of course, but this is the first time I’ve seen them in person. I’m intrigued. Not enough to buy a box right now, but it’s an addendum to my list of things to buy this year if it’s cheap and easily accessible. Why not add another thousand card set to the mix?  All thanks to the eighth best pack of the repack box, 2007 Upper Deck Series 2.


At first I didn’t think much of this card. But when I flipped through the cards for scanning, its cards like this that make me want to collect it.  At first, it’s just Thome hoping for a long fly ball to be deep enough.  You can see that sort of desperate hope in his face as he begins his run down the first base line.  Did he get all of it?  I don’t know.  But look closer at the picture.  Click on it if you have to.

You can see the rain.

Yeah, it’s silly to get excited over a baseball card because you can see the rain.  But I do, and I did.  I can’t recall a single 2007 Topps card that came close to doing what this card does.  Capture a moment.

Alright, enough of that.  Here’s a standard issue baseball card of Henry Owens.  He was awesome in 2007, but has struggled with injuries and a PEd suspension since then.  He’s resigned with the Mets, I believe, and as a guy I once clamored for in fantasy baseball, I hope he can turn things around and do well.  Even if it has to be with the Mets.

Initially this was the card that made me like the pack, but there was something unsettling about it.  Now that Night Owl has enlightened us all about the Rule of Threes, I know why.  It’s the Peter Gammons looking fellow on the right, right along that line of thirds.  It’s supposed to be a card of Mike Lowell, but now it makes me want to buy a sweater vest instead.

What needs to be said about Alan Embree that hasn’t already been written by the countless blogs out there?  Nothing I can think of.  And I’ve never seen a post on Alan Embree before, either.  He’s a free agent if your softball team needs a LOOGY.

And the insert.  Maybe it’s spill over from the Thome card, but I don’t hate it as a cheap gimmick to add to the pack.  Flores was out all of last season with a shoulder injury, but should return this year to battle Wilson Ramos for the catching spot.

Okay, so I gushed a bit on the Thome.  At the root of it, it’s still a 2007 Upper Deck baseball pack.  And even if the Thome’s pretty good, there’s not much else there to back it up.  So that’s why it’s eighth.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

4 responses

17 01 2011
chuckneo

I do like that set. Funny – when I read the first couple of sentences, I thought you were going to say “so I collected Upper Deck”. In fairness to UD – Fleer changed itself from what you think of as beign Fleer way before UD bought Fleer.

Look at the 1994 set – white front, all glossy, it’s like it’s trying to be 1993 Upper Deck. And it did a good job of imitating a very good set, so I liked it, but it wasn’t what you thought of with Fleer.

Then, look at 1995 Fleer – pictures of just the player, with these crazy backgrounds that look like an abstract painting. Nothing like the 87 or 90 Fleer sets I was used to.

17 01 2011
handcollated

I love that ’94 Fleer set, but that was the first and only year that I opened a wax box of baseball cards between 1991 and 2007. Those ’95 sets are atrocious, but it appears ’96 and ’97 showed some return to sanity.

Most of my memories are actually of the mid 80’s, when a good couple wax boxes and a few extra packs would end in set completion, something I never accomplished with Topps or Donruss.

17 01 2011
anon

I’ve long thought that this was one of the ugliest designs ever. The text runs in three directions in two typefaces. The names are hard to read, and they’re placed in a strange position in relation to the other text elements on the card. I don’t like the two-sided borders that fade out to the edge, with the inset borders that fade in to the middle. Additionally, making the names of the teams and positions in a team color is fine and well when the color is easy to read on the white background, but as small as it is, the contrast needs to be higher. I think they tried to do way too many design elements here that ended up clashing. Too bad, too, because the photography is usually good.

17 01 2011
handcollated

I’ll be honest, I thought to criticize the type on the side as well (I’m not a fan of the desig. hitter distinction, either), but the picture on the Thome card made me ignore it all together up until I had the card scanned and uploaded. If anything, it’s so small it’s easy to ignore, I think. Whether that’s a plus or a minus is up to you.

That flaw that you point out actually works really well on that horizontal Lowell card, though, doesn’t it?

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