Broomfield, CO - Sunday Edition

Adam, who publishes "Infield Fly Rule" sent the above cards from Broomfield, Colorado.  The 1993 Topps Traded are always a nice (and somewhat uncommon) surprise.  If you're so inclined, I encourage you go and check out his blog and add it to your list of card blogs if you haven't already,  here's a link:

And before I dive into the non-Wallach cards Adam sent, here are the updated numbers for the Wallach cards he sent:

1986 Topps: 307

1988 Topps All-Star: 656

1991 Topps: 230

1993 Topps Traded x2: 26

The majority of the cards sent by Adam were 2014 Topps.  While I haven't been that aggressive about it, I have slowly been working on filling out the Topps bases sets from 2008 to present.  2008 is when I started collecting again and at some point in the last few years as I've dived more and more into vintage set building, it started to bug me that I wasn't completing the current sets.  So it's been a focus.  Thank you for the help with 2014 Adam.

Yesterday, when I went to edit my "need page" to reflect the cards sent by Adam, I also finally took the time to update my 2012 needs.  Previously I had only listed 2012 Series One, and left "TBD" for Series Two, as there were so many of them.  When I got towards the end I googled a checklist to see how many cards were in the set.  Card #7 was a need, so I didn't know if it was a year Topps didn't print a #7, or if I was just missing it, and in turn didn't know if #660 or #661 was the final card.

Well, there is a #7, and the last card is #661.  I'll admit, beyond talk of the design when it's first released, I am more or less completely ignorant to the on going's of current baseball cards and the chatter around them.  If I see a blog post debating some trivial aspect of the 1968 design, I'm reading it.  If it says something about a red ink autograph rainbow Topps Now living redemption, I'm probably ignoring it.  So this may be old news to many of you, but it's new to me and I didn't get a chance to whine about six years ago because I oblivious to it.

#661 in 2012 is a short printed Bryce Harper card.  There shouldn't be intentional short prints in the base set.  That's dirty pool as my grandfather would say.  So already annoyed, I became even more agitated as I looked into this card.  I have two basic questions, and I can't find answers to either, so somebody help me out;

#1 Is my 2012 Topps set complete with cards #1-660, or do I need #661 to be complete?  I know, "collect what makes you happy," but what makes me happy is having the commonly accepted "complete set."  I don't need all the variations errors, etc, I just need the traditional complete set.  So does 2012 include #661, or is it just a gimmick insert?

My second question is what really made me start to lose my temper (as much I lose my temper with regards to baseball cards, basically I just shake my ahead and mumble to myself, that qualifies as a full on cardboard rage).

#2 If #661 Harper is part of the set, which one is the "right" one?  I went on eBay and couldn't figure out what the "regular" card was,  there are multiple photo variations, and none of them seem to cost all that much more or less than the others.  If Topps is going to pull these stunts, and I understand there are collector's who love this sort thing, they shouldn't do so in a way that agitates old set builders like myself.  The Topps base set is all we have left, and we don't want to see it messed with any more than it already has been.

So if any one as the answers, please fill me in.  I still have a huge number of other needs in 2012 before I have to worry about #661, but eventually I'll get there, and need to know which way to go when I do.

And if you're interested, here's an updated look at my "modern" Topps set needs that I'm looking for:

2017: 87, 455, 513, 539

2015: 616, 617

2012: 7, 30, 52, 60, 82, 89, 97, 99, 109, 119, 150, 158, 159, 178, 179, 185, 188, 199, 213, 239, 245, 324, 330, 334, 349, 351, 353, 356, 357, 359, 361, 362, 365, 368, 370, 371, 375, 377, 378, 381, 383, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 410, 411, 413, 415, 416, 417, 420, 422, 424, 425, 426, 428, 430, 431, 434, 436, 437, 438, 441, 443, 444, 446, 448, 451, 452, 456, 457, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 475, 476, 479, 480, 482, 484, 485, 487, 488, 489, 492, 493, 494, 495, 499, 500, 504, 505, 507, 512, 513, 514, 517, 518, 520, 522, 526, 528, 529, 530, 531, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 540, 541, 542, 543, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 555, 556, 557, 560, 561, 564, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 575, 576, 580, 582, 583, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 593, 597, 599, 601, 605, 607, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 617, 618, 619, 620, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 638, 639, 640, 641, 643, 645, 647, 648, 649, 651, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 660....and 661? (is it part of the set, or just a gimmick insert?)

2011: 100, 135, 138, 145, 155 

2010: 353

2009: 387, 449, 451, 643, 658

2008: 90, 209, 258, 457, 476, 518, 541, 618, 623