Card of the Day: 2007 Sweet Spot Classic Signatures Gaylord Perry Gold
2007 was a bad year for me and baseball cards. I had a couple nice pulls, and made some solid purchases on eBay, but there were a couple foolish buys that netted me a whole lot of nothin’ for a lot of somethin’ — the kind of poor decisions that can ruin an excellent year. One example being this horrendous Gaylord Perry 2007 Sweet Spot Classic Signatures.
Sometimes I get the urge to play with the big boys and bust a box (or in this case a single pack) of high-end product, the stuff that usually sits and collects dust behind the counter. And every time I buy one of these things I get bit in the ass. I can’t ever remember when one of those gambles paid off.
So, let this horrific story serve as a notice to you cardboard gamblers such as myself. When you’re heart tells to you go buy something way above your typical price point, think of me and this god forsaken pack.
Packs of Sweet Spot Classic cost a pretty penny at the card shop, usually about a hundred bucks. These tins look awesome. I mean how can you really resist a package that reminds you of what could be lurking within …
But when I opened my pack in September 2007, there was nothing even close to Ruth within, which was to be expected, but the actual pull made me want to crawl up in a fetal position and hide. The autograph was of Gaylord Perry, and to make things worse, the Signature was in poor condition. In case you missed it at the top, have another look at this disgusting Gaylord Perry.
If you’re wearing glasses, don’t bother trying to clean the lenses, the Perry signature really is that blurry and faint.
Logic would have it that my odds at pulling a Ruth were astronomical, and honestly, I was expecting to pull something along the lines of good ol’ Gaylord here. But what makes this pack such a kick in the balls is the fact that that I can’t even enjoy the signature because for some reason UD decided used a different type of “leather” on these cards. The fabric is very much along the lines of those slick, shiny souvenir team-logo balls sold at stadiums. And autograph collectors know that signatures on those balls start to bleed almost immediately.
So, why am I bringing this up 15 months later? Because I’m still pissed that I never contacted UD customer service to complain about the product, specifically the choice to use a substandard ball material for the signatures. Had the Perry signature been crisp like the other Sweet Spot autographs I own, I would be OK. But there is NOTHING appealing about this card what so ever.
Need a reminder? Have another look. Shit.
Note: If someone at UD is reading this, I’ve still got the tin, the original wrapper and receipt to remind me of this garbage you guys placed on the market. Never again will I buy your high-end nonsense.
cardboardicons.com 
December 18, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Leave it to Gaylord to even doctor a baseball card before he signs it!
January 1, 2009 at 11:45 pm
I guess if would have read Mario’s post more carefully I would have seen this instead of commenting over there. Sorry you had a bad experience, but this is not a high end product. High end products are $200 plus for less cards than this. The classic certainly does cost more because of the chance for cuts and whatnot, but if your shop charges $100/tin for this then they are gouging jagoffs. These sell for $70 all day, and the regular non-classic SS go for $42/tin with 2 guaranteed autos. Also,if you look around on eBay, people don’t mind the slightly faded auto if its a collectible player. They’re not all faded, but its kind of known at this point that some are faded, and its not a deal breaker for most people. Just my .02
January 2, 2009 at 1:18 am
Charlie, I suppose the definition of “high-end” is up for debate. You’re right, $100 for a pack of cards is not “high” considering that just a few shelves to the left of this thing were packs of exquisite basketball, which sell for four or five times more. For me, $100 is my “high-end.” Go figure.
As for the card, I understand the fading, but my beef here is about the inferior ball material. That is what caused the fading. If UD had used the same material it used in the basic Sweet Spot, all would be fine.
January 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I belive they did use the same material. My faded SS Auto is from the regular issue. I should have said that before. That’s why I believe its a problem with the ink and not the ball material. I have 3 Golds, and 1 Silver, and none of them are faded. However, my 1 blue ink base auto is badly faded. That is why I think it was the pens. You can see what I’m talking about if you’d like here.
http://s145.photobucket.com/albums/r232/Chas321/Cubbies/?albumview=grid
January 2, 2009 at 5:31 pm
And yes, believe me $100 is a lot for me as well. This is just not considered to be a high-end product as far as the hobby goes.
December 11, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Late to the party, but I too consider Sweet Spot ‘high end’. At least on the lower end of the “high end” spectrum. It’s all relative, I suppose.
December 21, 2009 at 3:33 am
[…] think this is my first Sweet Spot autograph. I’ve always avoided them because of the fading problem that seems to affect a percentage of the cards. But I took a chance, picking this one up for $15 at […]
March 18, 2010 at 11:43 am
I came across this while googling “Sweet spot signature faded”.. Because I’ve seen several on ebay.. and was considering bidding on a yogi berra with a barely visible signature.. Forget it though.. The thing looks like it will disappear in another couple years. Complete incompetence for any company in the hobby to NOT know what ink and materials will work together and not fade. They’d have been better off with pencil and paper. Seriously. Sorry to read about your expensive lesson. I will indeed heed your advice and never purchase UD’s inferior products.
March 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I wouldn’t say “never purchase” just be cognizant of what the product is. Not all Sweet Spot autos are fading … just seems to be the ones from this set.