2017 "Rediscover Topps" 1993 Topps #370

Card Review: 9.0  I like this 1993 Topps design.  It just has that inherent "baseball card feel" to it.  The superfluous blue "rediscover Topps" stamping along the side does nothing but slightly detract from the original, thankfully, it's somewhat difficult to see in blue foil.  Hopefully any kid that may have pulled one of these and was seeing 1993 Topps for the first time, wouldn't get to bad of an impression.

Number in my Collection: 1

2020 update: 2

Color Break Down:
Blue: 1

Red: 1

2017 "Rediscover Topps" 1984 Topps #232

Card Review: 9.5  I gave 1984 Topps a "9.7" grade.  I'm knocking this one down two tenths of a point due to the superfluous gold stamping running down the side.  The card looks better without it, but 1984 Topps is such a classic, that it takes more than a little stupid stamping to ruin one.

This card was recently sent by a reader (his package post is coming soon). I haven't really made an effort to purchase these when they pop up, as I don't really feel a burning need to pay a dollar plus for an 1988 Topps Wallach, when they can be had for mere pennies elsewhere, especially these that have been degraded with extra stamping.  In my outdated vintage universe, this stamping is frowned upon, and lacks the novelty of adding the character that some kid's hand writing on the front of a '52 noting a trade to the Browns brings with it.

That said, I need one of each because I'm a prisoner to my own o.c.d. impulses.  I don't need one of each color, but I'd like one of each year.  This is the first '84 I've seen.  I'm now short '82, '83, and both '86 (base and All-Star), assuming those even exists.

Number of this card in my collection: 1

2020 update: 2
Breakdown by color
Gold: 1

Bronze: 1

2017 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Autograph #FFA-TWA "Red" #/25

 Card Review: 8.7
This "Red" variation is pretty nice.  In hand it looks much more red than it does in the scan.  This is the 4th variation of 2017 Topps Archives I've posted.  There's still a "Gold" variation out there, and I mean literally "a" gold variation, as it's numbered 1/1.  So I'm not holding my breath on seeing that in my hands anytime soon.  More likely than not it's buried away in a box somewhere sealed in a pack.  Destined to collect dust someplace that looks like the warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I've slowly become a fan of this annual release from Topps.  The last few years I've bought more packs of Archives than I have of Heritage.  That's not to say I love it, I don't, but it's fun.  Which is why I have to cringe a little when I hear other collector's online whine about the Fan Favorites Autograph checklist in this set.  Guess what, maybe isn't this set isn't for you.  I actually pulled Dave Stieb and Kevin Seitzer autographs from packs this year in a run of what I would call extremely unusual luck compared to my normal pack opening experiences.  It was fun.  They were immediately recognizable names and looked really familiar on the 1990 and '89 card designs.  It gave me a little warm fuzzy feeling of nostalgia.   Which is what this set is supposed to do.  If there was disappointment, it's that I would have liked to have pulled a Tim Teufel, George Bell or maybe Kevin Mass instead of of Seitzer, but that's nit picking.  I don't really expect to get anything other than regular baseball cards out of my packs.

So a lot of collector's have a problem with Tim Teufel.  Not liking Skip Bayless or that ball hawk, I get those complaints, as I have zero fond memories of them or the teams they played (or rather didn't play) for.  On the other hand, I don't get whining about an 80's staple like Teufel.  That problem lies with you if his autographed card falls out of your pack and you have the nerve to get upset.  I get it, it's not worth anything.  Honestly, would I have been more excited to pull Aaron Judge?  Of course, and I would have listed it on eBay by the end of the day.  Everyone likes money.  But I'm not buying these for "value." I buy them because it's fun.  I'd also get very excited if I won a $1,000 on a scratch off-lottery ticket, but that's not the thrill I'm seeking when I open pack of baseball cards.  My point being, and I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should collect, is that maybe people should just relax a little.  There are a lot worse things than having a Dave Magadan autograph card appear in your $2 pack of cards.  For instance, I once bought and opened pack that had nothing but 1992 Donruss cards in it.  I survived, and trust me, those packs were far more harmful to the hobby than autographed cards of well known guys who fell short of Cooperstown.

Number of this card in my collection: 1  (only 24 more to go)

2017 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Autograph #FFA-TWA "Blue" #/50

Card Review: 8.8  The blue is my favorite of the variations of this card.  The white works best, but of the colors I'm giving the blue a slight edge over the red.  Like all the other variations of this card, the back is my favorite part, and the only Tops evidence in existence that Wallach ever played for the Angels.

Number of this card in my collection: 3
2018 update: 4

 

2017 Bowman 70th Anniversary Buybacks "1991"

Card Review: 8.0  I'm only docking this card a tenth of a point for the foil stamping added to the front.    I liked the the 1991 Bowman set, and would probably go so far as to put it just a notch below 1991 Fleer as my favorite set of the year (but don't hold me to that).  The clean simple design (much like 1990 Bowman) is what I like about 1991 Bowman, so while the stamping is far from horrible, it's still unnecessary clutter.

Tops did a better job with these Bowman buybacks (Topps still owns Bowman, right?) than they did with they're own, but such a good job that I can support this fad.  It's disingenuous, tacky, and unnecessary.  Just pack the original cards in.  Don't stamp them and call them "new."  They're not.  They're just vandalized.  Which can be cool.  And these Bowman's are closer to being "cool" than the "Rediscover" non-sense, or any of that Leaf Memories garbage, but it still isn't cool.

I could get behind Tops finding legitimately roughed up cards with the scribblings of children from twenty years ago and inserting them, or how about buying cards from actual players or celebrities and stamping who the original owner was on them?  "From the collection of Mike Trout" would be cooler than another autograph card, wouldn't it?

                                                 

Number of this card in my collection: 1

2017 Bowman 70th Anniversary Buybacks "1990"

Card Review: 9.2
This card looks better without the 70th logo.  You can read about my profuse praise for the original, or un-altered copy (as this is technically an original too), here.  As far as the "buyback" logos go, this is probably the best that I've seen.  It's actually very well done, especially compared to the "Rediscover Topps" nonsense that I've seen so much of this year.

I don't know much about these cards.  I didn't know they were a thing until I saw a couple on eBay, and I had to do a google search just to figure out what it was called and what packs they were falling out of.  There really wasn't much out there on them, with differing opinions as to whether they exists with different color stamps, and if they how many different colors, and which colors are the most/least common.  I'm not losing any sleep over it, as I don't consider these "unique" cards and view my collection as complete without them.  I have plenty of 1990 Bowman.  Some dude stamping copies in a factory 27 years later doesn't make them "new."

Number of Copies in my collection: 1

2017 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Autograph #FFA-TWA "Peach" #/150

Card Review: 8.3

While I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a "peach" bordered Topps set in the future as a non-starter monstrosity that I would reject out of hand on principle, "peach" doesn't work with the other colors on 1989 Topps.  I think with the right design and accents, "peach" could work, it just doesn't here.

I don't think I'm alone in that assessment, which sort of begs the question, "what was Topps thinking?"  My best guess is that they were trying to match the pinkish color that dominates most the of the back.  Had they been able to replicate it and have a true match, it might of worked.  Though it would still clash with the red, blue, and baby blue on the front in the team name and border.

This "Peach" variation, limited to 150 copies, is the most common variation after the standard auto card.  There's also a blue (75), red (25), and gold (1) variation.  I haven't actually opened any Archives this year.  I was prepared to, but by the time my Target finally had some in stock, I already had a small stack of Wallach cards from the set, and figured I had blown enough on 2017 Archives already via buying these on eBay.  So in the off-chance the lady that the stocks the cards at my Target is reading this (she isn't), get your act together.  I'm trying so hard to give you my money.  But back to my point, having not bought any Archives, I haven't looked at a wrapper, so I don't know the lottery odds on these "Peach" variations, or if they're even labeled as "Peach."  Did Topps designate them as "Peach," or did the first person to start listing them on eBay just come up with that name and everyone else ran with it?  I'd have probably have gone with "pink" if I were doing the labeling.

As on odd little aside, my first two of these cards are consecutively numbered, 128 and 129.

Number of this card in my collection: 2
2017 update: 5
2018 update: 6

 

                                

2017 Topps Archives Fan Favorites Autograph #FFA-TWA

Card Review: 9.4
It's been twelve years since Topps last included Tim Wallach in any sort of issue, putting him in the 2005 Topps Rookie Cup set. I'm a firm adherent to the old adage of "not to look a gift horse in the mouth."  Topps including a Tim Wallach card, in any capacity, in a set in 2017 is without question a "gift horse" from my perspective.   I've spent over a decade scouring every checklist of every issue looking for "Wallach" to no avail before this one showed up.  So while I would have liked to have seen Wallach included in the 2017 Topps Archives base set, this card's existence is still cause for a bit of a celebration.  Sure it would have been nice to have hundreds (or thousands) of a new card to chase down for pennies apiece, but this is fine, and I am very grateful to Topps for Wallach's inclusion.

The front of this card is hard to find much, if any, fault with.  But I can still nitpick.  It's a nice action shot, albeit, it would look better without the white fading and autograph, but it's still a good photo on one of my all-time favorite designs.  I could also do without a dreary game from Wrigley, but I guess they can't all be from the preferred Shea location.  The back however, is the real highlight for me.

Wallach's retirement from baseball coincided with a weird time for baseball cards.  In the mid-90's, plain old regular Topps cards were becoming somewhat obscure, and frankly, difficult to find.  I can remember walking into a Target, and not being sure which cards were the standard Topps packs, and walking out disillussioned (no accident that my hiatus from collecting started then too).  In any event, Wallach's final Topps cards should have been in 1996 and 1997.  Instead, 1995 was his final Topps issue.  In an effort to stay relevant, Topps really started messing with the base set in those years. One of the things they did was drastically shrink the size of the set, with the result being Wallach got squeezed.  I can forgive the 1997 omission, that's long been a result of retired players not reporting to Spring Training for Topps photographers to shoot, but I have yet to forgive the 1996 omission.  Active, five-Time All-Stars who were everyday starters for playoff teams the previous season belong in the Topps set. Topps midlife crisis in the 90's resulted in Wallach never having what I call a bookend card of any sort.  "Bookend" meaning, a Topps card showing his full career stats (only Collector's Choice issued a "bookend" Wallach in 1997, to their everlasting credit).  It's really cool to see his full numbers in the familiar Topps format.  In 2003, Topps All-Time Fan Favorites also included Wallach, but it only included his numbers with the Expos, and it also ran a banner along the side designating it as a modern issue.  It ruined the effect to a large degree.  This is the first Topps card to ever show that Wallach played for the Angels.  That's kind of crazy, but better late than never.  This may very well be my favorite card back of any Wallach in my collection.  I'm seriously considering blowing it up and framing it in my office.

Number of this card in my collection: 6
2017 update: 8
2018 update: 9

2017 "Rediscover Topps" 1987 Topps #55

 (Silver Stamp)

Card Review: 9.6

1987 Topps, depending on my mood, may be my all-time favorite Wallach card.  Top 5 without question.  These "Rediscover Topps" soil it some with the stamping, but even the superfluous extra foil can't bring this card down too much.

This "Silver" buyback has some rather serious issues, with what appears to be a floor scuff on the lower left surface, and a pretty serious dinged corner.  Usually these more recent buy backs are in better shape.

(Bronze Stamp)

Number of this card in my Collection: 3

(Breakdown by Color)
Silver: 1
Bronze: 2

2017 "Rediscover Topps" 1990 Topps #370

Card Review: 8.8

These "Rediscover Topps" don't seem to be all that rare.  As I type this I'm expecting a lot of five more  I just picked up to be arriving in my mailbox everyday.

I'm not seeking to horde these, but at this point, I'd like to try to pick up one of each Wallach's sixteen different Topps cards.  I'm sitting at five, assuming the new one I'm expecting arrives without issue.  Which isn't to say I'm avoiding these, there just isn't anything about them that allows me to justify paying more than the pennies that the ones that aren't damaged with foil stamping cost.

 Number in my Collection:

Bronze: 1
2018 update: n/a
2019 update: 2

2017 "Rediscover Topps" 1989 #720

Card Review: 9.2

I'm docking this card half a point off the grade I gave the "real" 1989 Topps due to the necessary foil stamping.  It looked better without it.

I like that Topps is putting vintage cards in current packs.  It's a cool idea, and I think it's great for kids.  But the stamping isn't for the kids.  It's for those of us (or more accurately, this of you) in the collecting universe who open packs and toss out the real cards while searching for what ever super-duper-mega-rare-and-shiny non-real card Topps is stuffing into packs at carefully stated odds.

I'm going to look into creating a baseball card themed scratch off lottery ticket so those collector's can get their fix with out sabotaging card collecting for those of us who would rather find a stick of gum than some gold matrix parallel.

Number in my collection:

Bronze: 1

2017 "Rediscover Topps" 1988 All-Star #399

Card Review: 9.2

This is one of my all-time favorite Wallach cards.  Well, not this one, the "real" one.  These "rediscover" cards make things confusing.  In any event, I'm docking this "2017" card a little bit for the unnecessary foil stamp that isn't on the "real" 1988 Topps All-Star card.  I'd dock it more, but the foil stamp is the only thing that makes this a "new" card.

I don't mind the concept of these things, but they certainly make life difficult for OCD-ish collector's like myself.

 
 

Number in my collection: 3

By Color:Blue: 1
Red: 1
Gold: 1

2017 "Rediscover Topps" 1988 Topps #560

(Gold)

Card Review: 9.1

I'm docking this card about a point from the 1988 Topps base card for the foil stamping.  I mean, it's still a 1988 Topps card, printed, packaged, and sold with gum back in '88.  Topps adding some gold stamping doesn't change that.

In any event, I believe this is the gold variation.  I'm in no hurry to over pay for the silver, bronze, red, and blue (or whatever else there may be).  If they start showing up on sportlots for 18¢ I'll go ahead and add them to my collection, but with one in hand, I'm not paying any more than that for an '88 Topps card.  I don't care what color the stamp is.

Number in my collection:

Gold: 1
Red: 1

(Red)

2017 "Rediscover Topps" 1985 Topps

(Bronze)

(Bronze) 

Card Review: 9.5 

These cards present a bit of a dilemma for me.  How do I catalog them?  This is a 1985 Topps card, and it's technically my 282nd 1985 Topps Wallach card. But that's not how it's being tallied for purposes of my count.  This is a "new" card.

Going forward, the hobby publications, both print and online, are going to catalog these as 2017 cards.  So for purposes of conformity, I'm going to as well.  It's not the first time I've run into the issue these cards present, but it bugs me a lot more this time around.  The recent "Leaf Memories" issues were the same idea.  Except they put their's in a ridiculously high end (read; expensive) product and individually numbered them.  I ridiculed the product, counted the cards, and moved on.  So while I don't have scorn for these like I did the Leaf product, the issue of how to count them bothers me a lot more.

My issue with these is that I can't simply post them, label them, put them in my binder where I keep one copy of each Wallach I have, and move along.  I love Topps.  This particular 1985 Wallach is on the short list for my All-Time favorite baseball card, even with goofy foil stamping.  Calling it something other than a 1985 Topps, even though it's clearly a 1985 Topps (it's 32 years old and says so right on the back), really bugs me.

If Leaf wanted to take some of their forgettable early 90's efforts, stamp them up, and call it something new, fine.  Leaf is free to tarnish their previous sets that way, I don't care.  It's not that important to me.  But from the perspective of a guy born in 1979 who grew up collecting cards,  Topps base sets really are classic and iconic.  Where as Leaf sounded like a bunch of delusional, narcassistic morons when they said:

"In the 20th Century, there are a number of sets which clearly stand out as both noteworthy and universally loved, 1990 Leaf was definitely one such set...Leaf’s last 2012 release is a salute to one of baseball’s greatest sets. With that, we introduce 2012 LEAF MEMORIES BASEBALL.

This exciting set is a wonderful combination of both original 1990 Leaf buybacks (specially foil stamped and numbered) and cards that never were in 1990 Leaf."

Topps actually can lay claim having sets that are "both noteworthy and universally loved."  And while I may not love pulling these out of packs where a base card need should be instead, I can also see how these might be wildly appealing to kids.  I would have been jump up and down excited to pull a twenty year old card out of a pack in 1988.  And I'm sure that's the target audience who Topps is going for with these.  So if there are going to be inserts (there shouldn't be), these are as good as any I guess.  So why don't I give Leaf the same credit I give Topps?  Because those shameless scammers were charging $135 for a box that contained 10 cards.  They weren't trying to draw kids in, they were providing cover for guys whose wife's wouldn't allow them to drop $135 on a pack of two autograph cards.  These Topps buybacks actually achieve the goal that Leaf pretended to be trying to achieve. 

I will be making one deviation from the norm for cataloging these.  I won't be counting the different colored stamps as different cards. That's just too much for me to handle.  I'll keep track, but 1985 Bronze and Gold won't be two different cards on my counter, and they'll all be posted/updated on this page.  So with that, here's the count for the 2017 Rediscover Topps 1985 Wallach.

Number of Cards in my Collection:

Bronze: 1