Just spotted this one, it’s probably an uncorrected error though: Check out the spelling on Pittsburgh on the Short Print version (left).
Archive for Topps 206
Been waiting all week to see the 2009 Topps 206 Blasters to hit retail store shelves, and when I found them Wednesday I was thrilled. Problem: The odds for any for the hits are off the charts. Autographs are EASIER to get in Blasters than relics. The easiest signature can be attained 1 in every 162 packs while the easiest relic falls 1 in every 672 packs. Autographs are almost five times easier to get than relics! There are two ways to interpret this: 1) Topps is giving Blaster Buyers a better shot at signatures; 2) Topps is milking Blaster Buyers for every penny.
These odds won’t make a difference to set collectors; Blasters offer an extra pack and cost a dollar less than buying seven random retail packs. But for basic collectors, Blasters may not be worth the money — the hits are at least three times harder to get. Is this fair?
The main problem with retail products is pack searchers are everywhere. Within 10 minutes of a retail box being placed on the shelf, someone has rifled through it and yanked the hits. So what are retail shoppers left to do? Buy blasters, which contain packs that are not searched. The problem here though is that Topps is making the collector work even harder for their hit.
There’s always the option to buy a hobby box, and given the stats that Cardboard Problem presented on Wednesday, that is looking like the best option for basic collectors.
I can’t stay away from 2009 Topps 206 retail packs. Searched or not, I find myself drawn to those blue wrappers like a piece of metal to a magnet. It’s almost masochistic at this point because I know there is almost a 99 percent chance that I will not pull a relic. What I keep telling myself is that those blue and black framed beauties are not my reason for buying these cards. And to an extent I am being truthful. The reason I am drawn to these cards is because of the minis — they resemble cards that are a century old, and for the most part they look pretty good. But what sucks is that the and relics are minis, too, only set inside colored frames which are easy for searchers to spot. Bastards.
I digress. Knowing all this, I still bought a few packs the other day and managed to do well with the minis. So well, in fact, that I hit for the cycle: got four different mini backs in just a few packs. The Piedmont backs may be the most common, but I think they may be my favorite. I really like the Polar Bear (1:10 packs) , the Old Mill (1:20) are so-so and the Cycle backs (/99) are serial numbered. But the Piedmont backs are a thing of art — they look exactly like the cards from a century ago
Which one is your favorite?
Purchased a few more 2009 Topps 206 retail packs on Monday and pulled a mini of Ken Griffey Jr. Is this really the best that Topps could have done for this veteran; a card of him looking like a huge blob? Seriously, given that this set is sort of art-based, I think there were some real opportunities. Maybe Topps could have given us another Griffey card featuring that pretty swing, or give us a throw back of him climbing the wall like Spiderman. But to put out a card that looks like this is almost a slap in the face. I don’t care if he was an Upper Deck autograph exclusive his entire career, Griffey deserves better than this heaping pile of garbage.
The rest of the five packs break was so-so. No shortprint minis, no short print base cards, but I did wind up with a relic: Chipper Jones Old Mill (1:254 packs) border jersey card. It also should be noted that I pulled another Trevor Cahill mini (Piedmont) and it appears that Topps just screwed up all of the Cahill minis as this one also features the back intended for Josh Whitesell.