2024 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Auto #95FF-TW Red #/10

Card Review: 8.9

It's very close, but I'm calling this "Red" variation my third favorite behind the white "base" (not sure it's fair to call it "base" as it is an insert and not part of the set) and "Blue" variations.  I will say that this red looks better in hand than it does in the scan.

With this "Red" variation, I am now in possession of at least one copy of each of the variations that are available.  I've heard it referred to as "completing the rainbow," but as the son of a public high school art teacher, I have far too much respect for the color spectrum to feel good about describing an assortment of white, green, two similar shades of gold, red and blue as a "rainbow."  That said, I'm definitely going to set aside my misgivings and call it a "rainbow" when I post about it on bluesky (and maybe here).

Number of this card in my collection: 1

2024 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Auto #95FF-TW Gold #/50

Card Review: 8.0

This "Gold" Archives Auto is numbered out of #/50 and is the fifth variation of this card that I've added.  All that remains is the "Red" version numbered out of #/10.  I rated this card the lowest of the five and that probably isn't entirely fair.  I think I'm just tired of them at this point.  Had this been the first one I picked up after the base card, it probably would have made a better first impression.  

I will add that I find it to be entirely too similar in color to the "1/1 Superfractor," from a distance you can't really tell them apart.  I would have preferred a brighter, less similar color, like a neon pink or orange, or a pastel purple or something.  A '91 Fleer yellow would be cool.  This gold is basically the "Superfractor" without the microchip texture all over it.

Something I do find to be a positive about these color variation autographed cards is the back.  The back has a very matte finish.  It's great, so great in fact, that it's frustrating.  To know that Topps has the ability to make "modern" baseball cards with raw matte backs, not exactly the same as, but certainly similar to the backs used for their first fifty years bugs me.  Why can't they do this as the standard back in the base set?  I would describe these backs as almost the same in feel as 1992 Topps, maybe a little better, but a little natural evolution in card stock quality is to be expected.  The only explanation I can come up with is a concern that the matte backs could "damage" the card surface of the the adjacent card in a pack?  Which, if is the case, just irritates me more.  Kids today need to get over their condition obsession.

In any event, I'm happy to add this, and at the risk of providing spoilers, barring a mistake by the post office a post about the "Red" variation should be appearing on this blog shortly.

Number of this card in my collection: 1

2024 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Auto #95FF-TW Superfractor #/1

Card Review: 8.7

This is it, the 2024 Topps Archives one of one "Superfractor."  And,...I guess it's okay.  I paid nearly three as as much as I ever had for a single Wallach card to own it (2005 Topps Rookie Cup Relic being the previous owner of that title) and I guess I'm okay with that?  When I saw this pop on eBay I immediately did a search to see what others were selling for.  The results weren't encouraging.  Guys I consider to be relatively anonymous players were coming in at around $400, which was a non-starter for me.  Regardless I went had and set a bid at $102 and walked away.  To my surprise, that was more than enough and the final auction price came in at just under $90.  Do I feel that's an insane price to pay for a baseball card printed in 2024, yes absolutely.  Had I known I was actually going to win the auction would I have bid that much?  Probably not.  My intention was to lose, post the pictures from the auction and blog about that.  But here I am, with my first "superfractor" in hand.

So what do I think?  I think it's okay.  The base card with the white border is still the best looking of these by a wide margin.  For purely display purposes, that's the one to go with.  I like this variation better than the green but not as much as the blue.  Though I don't have them in hand (and am not awaiting them in the mail either), I expect I'll like red better than than this and the gold looks about the same.  But I'll hold off to judge until, or if, I ever pick up the other two variations.  The ones currently for sale are asking nearly as much as I paid for this thing.

My primary complaint with this card is the sort of microchip pattern that the entire thing is covered in.  It's lame.  Worse yet, it's not limited to the border, it covers the enitire card.  To use the name of great new punk band out of the bay area, "Who Asked for This?" (check them on out spotify).

Number of this card in my collection: 1

OFFICIALLY HAVE THEM ALL.

Arlington, TN

These 19 cards were sent by Mark of Arlington, Tennessee.  This is at least the third time Mark has sent cards going back to 2020.  It was a nice assortment of Wallachs that included the not often seen 1995 Leaf Limited and 1991 Classic.   The 1991 Score Super Star is another Wallach that I don't see all that often but sort of flys under my radar.

Thanks for the cards Mark!

Updated Totals:

1987 Fleer: 288
1987 Topps: 1,223
1988 Donruss: 1,200
1988 Topps: 968

1989 Bowman: 242
1989 Topps: 1,033
1990 Donruss: 629
1990 Donruss Baseball's Best: 21
1991 Classic: 8
1991 Fleer x2: 320
1991 Score: 413
1991 Score "The Franchise": 350
1991 Score Super Star: 29

1992 Fleer Ultra: 195

1992 Upper Deck: 393

1995 Leaf Limited: 17

1995 Upper Deck: 59

2024 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Auto #95FF-TW Green #/99

 

Card Review: 8.1

This is the "Green" variation of the 2024 Fan Favorites Archives.  These are numbered out of 99 copies.  It's now the third 2024 Archives I've added, along with the standard white border copy, and the blue "color match" variation numbered out of 25.  The green border just doesn't work well with the Expos baby blue uniforms.  Whenever I see these various border color variations, or pattern variations on Topps cards (typically in the base set every year, usually not ones that include Wallach) my first instinct is to imagine how they would look as a standard set design.  Sometimes I think they would work, more often, I don't.  That's not rooted in any hatred of brightly colored borders, I give them all a fair chance.  For instance, I love 1991 Fleer (yellow) and 1991 Donruss Series 2 (green).  I can't stand 1990 Donruss (red) or 1991 Donruss Series 1 (blue).  And sometimes I'm just sort of indifferent to them, like say 1986 Fleer (navy blue).  So I do feel my assesment is coming from a relatively unbiased place when I say this green just doesn't work for me, with this particular photo and likely wouldn't as a set either.  A final note, these borders have sort of a shiny, oil on water shimmer to them, as well as the top half of the card, that sort of fades to a more standard matte finish where the autograph is.  I actually kind of like it as a gimmick, but would find it offensive as an actual set.

In any event, there are three more of these variations out there, a gold (#/50), red (#/10), and single "superfractor" wonka ticket variation.  I know they're out there, but at the moment, the seller's on eBay want them more than I do.

Number of this card in my collection: 1

Andover, MN

 These five cards were sent by "Crocodile Cards" of Andover, Minnesota.  This isn't the first time "Crocodile Cards" has sent cards, though he appears to have moved since last time.  Or maybe I just dropped the ball on adding it to my map of where cards have been sent from.  In either case, this city has been added.  (Check out his blog by clicking this link)

Thanks for the cards Croc!

Updated Totals:

1982 Donruss: 264

1984 Fleer x2: 214

1989 Sportflics: 18

1991 Denny's: 24

Washington, D.C.

These six cards were sent by Colin from Washington D.C. (with an assist from his brother in Kansas City). You may notice that the envelope does not appear to be in mint condition.  That's not a result of over exuberance and excitement in opening it.  My parents have a new puppy, and during a recent visit, she got hold of some mail on my counter.  The cards escaped unharmed.  In fact, they're in as good of shape as any cards I've ever received.  Even the coloring on them is incredible.  On all of them, truly some sort of anomaly, or Colin and his brother ripped tons of wax as kids and only kept the best.  I don't know, but whatever the case, I'm happy to add them

Thanks for the cards Colin!

Updated Totals:

1990 Bowman: 178

1991 Topps: 413

1992 Score: 148

1992 Topps: 353

1993 Fleer: 105

1996 Pinnacle: 72

2024 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Auto #95FF-TW Blue #/25

Card Review: 9.0 

I've seen this card labeled as "color match" instead of "blue," in fact, that's how the listing on eBay I purchased it from titled it.  The baseball card database however is calling it "blue," and that makes more sense to me, so I'm calling it "blue" as well.  These blue variations are numbered out of 25, making it scarcer than the green (#/99) and gold (#/50), but more abundant that the red (#/10) and the 1 of 1 "superfractor."  

Currently I only have this and the basic one in hand, with a green on the way, but I've seen photos of all of them and the standard (regular?) version is the best looking by a wide margin.  Which, makes these a little unnecessary and redundant, doesn't it?  Then again, all of these are inserts and not part of the actual Archives checklist, so they're all sort of gimmick cards without a set to call home.  

In any event, personal distaste for inserts and on card autographs aside, it is more or less still a baseball card made by Topps that says "Tim Wallach" on both sides and has his picture on it, so I'll try to collect them all, though there is no universe where I actually pay any sort of premium to add the red or "superfractor" variations.

Number of this card in my collection: 1

2024 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Auto #95FF-TW

Card Review: 9.3 This is the first "new" Tim Wallach card Topps has put out since the 2019 Archives set, which included Wallach in the "Montreal Expos 50th" subset.  This card is done in the style of a 1995 Topps, and I'd call it a significant improvement over the original, which wasn't bad to begin with.  It's really a very nice looking card.  The vintage Expos baby blues work really well with this design (but they look so good they work well with just about any design).  By 1995 the Expos had stopped wearing these uniforms in favor of the bland grey script jerseys on the road, and Wallach was in his third year with the Dodgers regardless.  

The front photo of this card is as nice as any Topps ever put on a Wallach card.  While I can't prove it, I'll go ahead and say with an enormous degree of conifidence that this photo was taken during the same game, if not same at-bat, as the photo used on Wallach's 1990 Topps card (more photos below for comparison).  At some point I may get around to photo shopping this photo onto the 1990 card.  The primary back photo looks very familiar, but I couldn't place it to a card.  A quick google search shows it to be a Getty Image from 1988.

My nitpicks, to the extent that I have any, are two fold. The first is the autograph.  I know I'm fighting not just a losing battle, but a full on lost cause here, but I can't stand autographs on cards.  Ten year old kids getting a card autographed by a player at the ball park is great, I can name every player that ever signed for my brother and I as a kid.  But cards out of the pack shouldn't have sharpie or pen marks on them.  They're just a blemish, and the wrong kind of blemish (as in not a wax or gum stain, which of course are fine).  My second tiny complaint is with the tiny action photo on the back.  We've seen it before.  It's the photo used by Topps for Wallach's 2017 Archives card.  The guy played 13 seasons in Montreal, there's enough photographic evidence of it that Topps doesn't need to double up.

All in all, I am very pleased with the release of this card, and will make an effort to track down a sample of each of the two or three dozen variations that Topps probably made of it, so long as the prices aren't too insane.  So far I've seen four different colored and numbered variations, but I suspect there are more.  I'll update when I learn something definitive.

Number of this card in my collection: 2

Photo Comparisons

   

Original 1995 Topps vs. 2024 Topps Archives

 

Original 1995 Topps back vs. 2024 Topps Archives back

. 

1990 Topps, photo taken at Shea Stadium, likely from same game.  Notice the batting gloves.

 

Getty Image from 1988 used for card back.  Small action photo on 2017 Archives below.

History of Topps Archives Fan Favorites Tim Wallach Autos:

   

2003 Topps Archives (left), 2017 Topps Archives (right)

2019 Topps Archives (left), 2024 Topps Archives (right)

2024 Topps Set Review

2024 Topps Set Review

I finally  picked up a 2024 Topps set.  Once again this year I opted not to try to build the set by way of purchasing packs and for the same reasons.  It would have cost me probably close to a grand to do so and that's assuming I was even able to find packs to over pay for (I'm not sure I ever saw Series 2 on shelves).

So instead, for the rather reasonable price of $47 shipped on ebay, I picked up a factory set.  I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss doing this the old fashioned way, especially in year where I really like the design, such as this one, but I'm not made of money either.  So let's dive in.

These factory sets now come in an endless variation of boxes.  I'm not sure how many, what they all mean, or what the various gimmicks inside are, and I don't really care.  So long as they include all 700 cards as this one did, that's good enough for me.  This particular one came with a cello-pack of five rookies with photo variations and as I discovered once I started sorting the cards inside, four additional rookie cards numbered 697 to 700, so each of those numbers have two players sharing a card number.  Those four rookies and the ones in the package have a different designation in the upper left on the back marking them as cards that are not part of the actual set and as just goofy extras.  Fine.  I'll take free cards, they're essentially really nice cereal box card giveaways.

 Once again this year, like every other year I believe, the cards inside were not in numerical order.  I have a system down for sorting to the point of it being muscle memory so I was able to get them in sequence fairly quickly and at this point I actually enjoy it.

Now as to the cards themselves, here some thoughts, cards I like, players I like, complaints and just general musings:

 

#300 Emanual Valdez, it's a great looking card.  Nice job Topps.  However, why is a guy with 139 career at-bats getting card #300?  These historically have been reseved for the biggest stars in the game.  I'd like to see Topps going back to reserving every card number ending in "0" for a star player, but that would require time, effort, and maybe even an appreciation for baseball cards and the people who collect them.  And it's not like they can say they don't worry about numbering anymore and it's all random, such as this next one:

 

#99 Aaron Judge, someone at Topps is willing to take 30 seconds and make sure the absolute biggest star or two get the special numbering.  They're just not willing to take 30 minutes and count off 60 or 70 stars, that may require an actual knowledge of baseball.

Something Topps still gets right, and to their endless credit, gets right year after year, is the full career stats on the back of cards.  Below are series of veterans that really highlight just how nice a feature the full stats on the back is:

 

                      

Topps, also to their credit, continues to produce nice cards for players who aren't on their way to Cooperstown (maybe a few guys below could be, but you get my point).  Here's a look at some cards that caught my eye as nice ones in the set:

 

  

The over the wall (or at least against the wall) catch has been a favorite since at least the 1989 Upper Deck Eric Young.  Maybe there were earlier examples, but that's the first one I remember going crazy for.  Here is Luis Robert getting the treatment from Topps with a great looking card:

Great as that card is, and the general idea of that card is, I think you can have too much of a good thing.  I'm not sure what exactly the number is to cross that that line, but Topps crossed it this year.  In fact, they crossed it by such a wide margin it made me long for some old staples of Topps sets that I haven't seen in awhile.  Like whatever happened to that standard yearbook style photo?  Think 1985 Gooden or 1961 Willie Mays, I actually wouldn't mind a few cards like that mixed into a set.  Not to mention photos from guys in the dugout or standing around the batting cage.  Those used to be staples.  Not as exciting as these cards below, but again, I think you can have too much of a good thing.

I give Topps pretty high marks for how they handled the standard subsets this year.  My complaints, to the extent that I have any, are complaints of ommission.  I'd like to see manager cards again, checklist, and themed All-Star cards similar to what they did from around '82-'93.  I also wouldn't mind Record Breakers and Throw Back the Clock cards making a comeback, but I don't feel as strongly about that.

 

I like the team cards.  They're more or less standard fare, but Topps clearly puts some effort into the photo selection.  My only note is I'd rather Topps printed actual checklist cards and gave us Team Leaders on the backs of these, or some other statistic.  It could be hot dogs and beers sold during the season, anything really.

 

I love "Future Stars," especially "Future Stars" with the '87 style rainbow font.  No Notes.  Same for the Rookie Cup cards like the one below.  Topps does a great job not trying to fix something that isn't broken.

 

I like these League Leaders.  Would I really like to see the tiny heads from the 60's make a comeback?  Of course, but these work fine too.  As for the MLB cards like the one below, they remind me more of 1980's Fleer than traditional Topps, but Topps also has a history of cards like this going back to '54.  I kind of like them, but like the team cards, I wish it wasn't also serving as a checklist, which I think should be a stand alone card.

The Rookie Variants: I wasn't sure if I was going to include these as I don't consider them part of the set.  But if I didn't include them, I wouldn't have anywhere to complain about all the things I don't like about them.  Below is the De La Cruz rookie.  The "real" one, as in the one you would need to obtain if you were trying to build the set (something collector's have been doing with Topps offerings for over 75 years now) is the one on the right with Elly batting.  The one on the left is, well I don't really know what it is.  It's a "variation" or "alternate photo."  Below the card number on the back, Topps clearly identifies it as not being part of the actual set.  I guess they're just a stunt for player collectors?  I find them just to be annoying.  How is a guy going to have an iconic Topps rookie card if there are multiple photos?  We lose something with these.  I say '84 Mattingly, or '75 Yount, and we can all instantly see cards.  That won't be the case for these cards in another five years, let alone 40 or 50.

Wierder still, a couple of these guys aren't even in the regular set.  How do classify that?  I came of age with the "XRC" in Traded sets, but at least those were to some extent recognized as real sets.  Asking collector's to obtain extra cards that can only be acquired 3 or so at a time by way of buying a factory set just strikes me as absurd.  

In any event, I make my peace with the basic 700 card set and don't sleep on not having all the duplicate numbered variant cards.  I also don't feel I gain anything special by having them.  They're just sort of,...there.

  

  

  

 

All in all, this is my favorite set since 2018, and in the running as my favorite design since I started collecting again back in 2008.  I love the hints of 1986 in it, and hope Topps continues to do call backs to older sets (my first impression of 2025 is it looks like 1982).  I prefer they take chances, even if they miss, its better than an endless parade of all white bordered blandness.

Thanks for reading.