2019 Topps Archives Expos 50th "Green Variation" #/99

Card Review: 6.6  As far as I'm concerned this is more or less the same card as every other color variation it comes in, with foil stamping above the "EX" in "EXPOS" being the only change.  I guess if Topps is going to take the time to put these out in different colors I'll take the time to give them different grades.  This green comes in below the red and blue and just above the silver for me.

This card represents a rare instance of my first copy being acquired by a way of a reader sending me cards.  It arrived with a package from West Seneca, NY (thanks Brian!) a couple months ago.  It's probably only the 3rd or 4th time that's ever happened, and it may be few than that.

I've already written about this card on six other occasions as this is now the seventh variation of it that I've acquired.  How many variations do you modern collector's need to be happy?  This is absurd.  So if you're really interested in my thoughts on it, go ahead and click this link to the other six reviews.

 

Number of this card in my collection: 1 (98 more to go)

2019 Topps Archives Expos 50th Autograph "Gold Foil" #/50

Card Review: 5.9  I'm sliding this "Gold" foil stamped autograph variant just ahead of the "Green" and slightly behind the "Silver," as far as it's aesthetics go.  The gripes I've previously expressed about those two being inherently the same cards from the same print runs still hold true with this gold one as well.  In short, adding different colored foil stamping to a card doesn't make it a different card.  The individual serial numbering on the back just doesn't move the needle for me either.  In fact I think it's kind of the antithesis of what card collecting is all about.  How can we all share in a common collecting experience if a set is limited to 50, or 100, or 10 copies?  Kids won't be trading duplicates of these outside the little league snack bar next summer.

Ultimately, my point is that the card is nice enough without the autograph, or limited colored foil stamping.  The bells and whistles just distract from what was already a very good thing.

Number of this card in my collection: 2 (only 48 to go)

2019 Topps Archives Expos 50th Autograph "Green Foil" #/99

Card Review: 5.8  I prefer the "basic," or "normal," Silver Foil stamp on this card to the Green One that was added to this card.  I when say "this card," I mean "this card."  This is the same card.  Topps printed them up, then arbitrarily took a few copies and added different colored foil stamping to a few and individual numbering to a few others.  That doesn't change the fundamental fact that it's all the same card.  The 1988 Donruss "variations" have more of a claim to being "different" cards than these goofy different colored foil things do.  They at least required different printing plates and runs.  1969 Topps is a nice enough design without the foil stamping, and it certainly doesn't need the player, even a player as great as Tim Wallach, further tarnishing the card with some sharpie scribbles.

I know I'm complaining a lot here, so I don't want a key point to be lost.  I love this subset.  I was extremely excited to pick up my first copy of the Wallach card, and can't give Topps enough credit for including this subset in Archives this year.  But without question, the cards without the autographs are better looking than the cards with the autographs.  If a collector wants a card signed, they can take one to a show, go to a spring training game, mail it the stadium with an SASE, or any number of other options.  Topps doesn't need to be putting them in packs, unless it's a reproduction included on every card, like in 1982.

Also, this should probably be pointed out, these green ones are individually numbered out of 99.  I guess you could call this the "Geof Rowley" version of this card.  (Any "Vans" sneakers enthusiast may get that reference)

Number of this card in my collection: 1 

2019 Topps Archives Expos 50th Autograph

Card Review: 6.0  I'll cut to the chase.  I don't like autographs on cards.  I grew up during a period when it was considered sacrilege to write on a card.  "Don't let Mattingly sign an '84 Donurss, or Pete Rose sign a '63 Topps," were basic, bedrock principles of collecting that every kid on the playground trading cards knew by heart.  Beyond not liking the idea of some dude (even the dude on the card) scribbling his name on my card, I have never understood the appeal of an autograph that wasn't obtained in person.  Isn't that the whole point of an autograph?  It's proof of, or a way to commemorate, the experience of meeting someone?  These just feel like false, manufactured memories to me.  So, that said, this card has received the lowest rating of any of the four variations I've posted so far.

I'm also not quite sure what the design team was thinking when they opted to send Wallach the sharpies they did to sign this card.  It's really hard to see the ink.  If you're going to mess up a card with a signature, at least send the signers the right color/size sharpie to use.

I don't mean to complain too much.  Topps issuing new Wallach cards will always be a good thing, and I hope he continues to show up in these sets.  I'm not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth.  One thing this card has going for it, is unlike the foil variations, this is at least a "different" card.  The back of this card, while perhaps not the most exciting back I've ever seen, is at least unique.  This card is the result of it's own print run.  Not only is the back different on this card than the non-auto cards in this set, it's orientation in relation to the front of the card is also reversed.  Now, I can't the say the same thing about the various foil colored logos of this card that exists, but at least it's different from the non-auto copies.

Number of this card in my collection: 4
2020 update: 5

2019 Topps Archives Expos 50th "Red Variation" #/10

Card Review: 7.5  This Red "Variation" is my favorite of the color foil options Topps trotted out.  The "Blue" logo actually pops a little bit nicer, but given Topps went with a photo of Wallach wearing a blue batting practice jersey, the red works better.  I've said it before (Click the tags for blue or red b.p. jersey in the tabs to confirm), but I'll say it again, the Expos red and blue b.p. jerseys were awesome looking, particularly the red.  But I've never complained about the blue.  I would love to own those jersey's but I've never seen one for sale.  MLB did release a red Raines jersey a few years ago, and I did find a red one with no name on eBay once (unfortunately its too small to wear), but have never seen a #29 jersey.  The search does still continue.

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I am very reluctant to count these foil color variations as "different" cards.  These red ones are numbered to ten, but it's the same card as the silver, or blue, or green, or gold or black (I'm not sure there is a non-signed black version, or gold either for that matter).  Topps ran a print run of this card.  Then they took ten of them, it didn't matter which ten because they were all the same card, and added a red foil stamp to the front and a number to the back.  That doesn't mean any post production alteration can't be cool.  It just doesn't make it a new card.  Can you imagine the demand if Topps had asked Andy Warhol to doodle on cards in the 60's and randomly inserted them into packs?  That would have been amazing.  However I wouldn't feel as though not having a Warhol copy of a '66 Pete Rose meant that I didn't have a '66 Pete Rose.  I feel like who does the post production changes is irrelevant.  Be it Andy Warhol, Topps, or me as a five year old adding "C" to all my '84 Topps to differentiate them from my brother's cards. 

In any event, I feel as though I lack the authority to over rule the hobby standard and count these as all the same card, so I will count them as "different" too, albeit, reluctantly.

Number of this card in my collection: 1

2019 Topps Archives Expos 50th "Blue Variation" #/150

Card Review: 7.0  The "Blue" variation of the foil Expos Stamp looks better than the standard "Silver" variation (is it a variation if it's the "standard," or are all inserts inherently "variations?").  Obviously blue works better with the Expos logo and as a result these blue variations just look a little nicer, albeit, not as nice as the "red," which I'll get to posting in a few days. 

These are numbered to 150 on the back in tiny gold stamping.  Some people think that matters, I'm just not one of them.  Hear me out.  Topps printed up god knows how many copies of this card.  Once they did that, it was a "card."  That's it, that's the card.  Then they took 150 copies of that card, it didn't matter which ones because they were all the same card, added a blue stamp on the front, and numbering on the back.  It's still the same card, with some post production graffiti.  If I did it with a sharpie, the card is deemed ruined.  If Topps does it with a press, it's more collectible?  I've seen this movie before (remember those ridiculous Leaf Memories monstrosities?).  If Topps is going to do "variations," than they should actually do "variations."  The 2017 Archives Wallach had actual "variations," as the card itself was a different color.  They weren't all born of the same print run.  I still wasn't wild about that gimmick, but at least you could call them "different" cards and only sound like half an idiot.  Same for the chrome and refractor variations they've done before.  They may be goofy, and kind of stupid, but at least they're not literally the same card the way these foil stamp variations are.

Number of this card in my collection: 1

2019 Topps Archives "Montreal Expos 50th" #MTL-TW

Card Review: 6.5  The last thing I'm going to do is complain when Topps issues a new Wallach card in a current set.  I'm a firm believer in not looking a gift horse in the mouth.  That said, I'm still going to nit-pick a little, with the understanding it's coming from a good place.  And this is by no means a "bad" looking card, either, which is more than I can say for a few of the other Expos I've seen in this subset.  

The "Subset" nature of this card is a bit annoying.  The reason being, is about half the people who collect cards think they can charge a premium for an "insert," while I fall in the other half, the half who gets annoyed as they toss the two crap cards in a pack that don't help complete the set into a junk pile.  So these Wallach's are showing up online with prices well in excess of the 18¢ or so (probably less) that they warrant, and as a result, despite an abundance of them being available, I'm not inclined to buy them until I've exhausted the supply of say, I don't know, the 200,000+ 1987 Topps Wallach cards that can be bought for pennies.

Additionally, I'm just not a huge fan of the '69 design.  It's not horrible by any means, it's just sort of forgettable.  I'm about half-way done putting together the original '69 set, and have decided my favorite part of the design is the pink card backs.  These Expos tributes do a pretty poor job of matching the original color.  And while I'm on the backs, I would have liked some more numbers.  The write-up isn't terrible, but the fact that Wallach also had more hits, RBI's and a half dozen other records in addition to games played for the franchise maybe could have been mentioned.  And beyond that, how about some sort of career stat line as an Expo on all of these cards?  

The front is actually a pretty good photo, and stands out from the ones Topps used during Wallach's playing career.  This one features a "Silver" foil Expos stamp.  This is, presumably, the "normal" one.  To appease the scratch-off lottery ticket element of the card collecting world, this card of course comes in a dozen or so unnecessary variations, that for reasons that will forever elude me, some people are willing to pay obscene amounts of money for a couple of tiny foil stamped "1's" on a card.

The Silver foil stamping, also available in Green, Blue, Red, Gold, and Black

I did briefly consider trying to complete this subset, but ultimately decided against it.  The checklist just isn't that exciting.  Topps was clearly more concerned about who they could round up to sign autographs (another unnecessary variation of this card) than they were with the actual history of the Montreal Expos (Seriously, no Gary Carter?)  So, I'll just be rounding up the Wallach's.

Number of this card in my collection: 3

Reminder, I have a new address:

J. Corey Stackhouse

100 W Apache ST

Farmington, NM 87401