The definition of cool

Back during my trading forum days, I'd pound out about thirty trades a month.

I swapped cardboard to my heart's content. Day in, and day out.

I was proud of the sheer amount of trades I'd made.

These days, my pace has gone down considerably. I haven't made a trip to the post office in a couple weeks.

That's fine with me, though. Recently, I've learned that it's not about how many trades you make.

It's who you trade with, which instantly makes the blogosphere the best place to swap cardboard.

I received two trade packages yesterday. Way back when, a two-package day wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary.

However, they were two of the greatest mailers I've ever received, and that's no exaggeration. As you might've already guessed, they came from two fellow bloggers.

The one I'll be showcasing this afternoon comes from none other than Greg, author of the blog that introduced me to the blogosphere, "Night Owl Cards".

Now that I think of it, we've never really agreed on an actual "trade". Sometimes I send him Dodgers, and sometimes he sends some stuff back my way.

It's definitely the best way to do things.

It was no different this time around.

I recently shipped a handful of Dodgers cards out to Greg, just a few goodies I'd accumulated from various dime boxes and the like over the last few months. (Given how many fans of the club are in the blogosphere, Dodger cards have become one of my main dime box focuses lately.)

I wasn't quite sure what to expect when I saw a mailer from Greg poking out of the mailbox yesterday.

One of the first cards that fell out of the package was a sparkly parallel of Mr. Coco Crisp.

There's something special about the combination of the gold sparkles and those gold A's uniforms.

However, that was the only card I knew Greg would include. I'd asked about it a while back when Series 2 first hit the shelves.

Other than that, I was completely in the dark about the cardboard that awaited me.

Boy, was I in for a treat.

Greg always seems to find a few neat Cubs cards to send my way.

I'm not exactly a "team collector". I collect a bits of pieces of every team, some more than others.

However, I probably take the most pride in my trio of Cubs binders. It's like taking a ride in a time machine through the history of my all-time favorite team.

From what I've seen and heard about him, Brett Jackson has a chance to become a major part of Cubs history.

This is the first card of his I've received. As a result, I've decided to make him my newest "binder inductee".

I'm betting he'll have a lot more cards down the road, though.

You can never go wrong with '75 minis, even if they are of the knock-off Lineage variety.

I actually like this blue-yellow color combo better than most of the actual colors Topps featured on Cubs cards in '75.

Like brown, for instance.

Topps, please bring this set back.

I'm begging you.

I hope Topps doesn't end up overdoing the whole "sparkly" thing.

They were great in flagship last year. The "gold sparkles" were okay this year.

With a set like Lineage, though, they look a bit out of place. I don't think the design fits all that well with the diamond border.

Still, I'll never be able to pass up anything of Cy Young, sparkly or not.

The cards Greg sent me included a little of everything.

Except for a few Cubs cards and a shiny piece for my Hall of Fame collection, there wasn't really any rhyme or reason to it.

However, those are my favorite types of packages to dig through.

After all, literally anything could be waiting for me.

Sometimes, even a random assortment of cards results in one that I've specifically wanted for a while, as is the case with this Papelbon "masterpiece".

I'd seen this card around the blogs a few times in the past, and I'd desperately wanted to claim a copy for myself.

Thankfully, Greg was there to take care of that, as the Papelbon was one of the first cards that fell out of the mailer.

It's funny, scary, artful, and awesome.

And it's all rolled into a single piece of cardboard.

Unlike Papelbon, the rest of the guys you'll see in this post have never been "inducted" into my binders.

As a result, I've created a small pile of miscellaneous "cool" cards that don't quite fit anywhere else in my collection.

That stack almost doubled after I sorted this package.

The great thing about the word "cool" is that I can shape it any way I want.

Card of Greg Olson on a mini-tractor, or whatever you'd call that thing?

Cool.

Awesome action shot of Jay Bell bellyflopping into third base while wearing a throwback jersey?

Cool.

All this time, I thought my '82 Fleer Pete Falcone was the only example I had of a card within a card.

Or, a "Cardboard Inception", as I like to call them.

Turns out that Upper Deck snuck one into their 1999 set with Brewers pitcher Scott Karl.

Now, if UD snapped a shot of Karl signing his '99 issue and used it for a future release, wouldn't that be a card within a card, within a card?

I'm already confused.

I'm not sure what's going on with Landon Powell's 2009 OPC issue.

If O-Pee-Chee taught us anything about Powell, it's that he has nicely-clipped fingernails.

Speaking of not knowing what's going on, can anyone tell me what the deal is with either of these?

I'm especially in the dark with that Darren Lewis card. That's the oddest leap I've ever seen. Perhaps a bee flew into his uniform at that exact moment.

Either way, both of these are definitely "cool" in my book.

All in all, the sheer randomness of these all of these is what made them so fun to peruse through. I've probably featured more cards in this post than in any of my past trade posts.

That's how much I enjoyed digging through all of these.

These cards were indeed "super random", as Mr. Night Owl noted.

They most definitely worked, though.

Like I said, it's all about who you trade with. Before I joined the blogosphere, I'd never received a "super random" package out of the blue.

Chalk it up as one of the many reasons why the blogosphere is so awesome.

Thanks, Greg!

It's a go

On most Monday nights, I like to sit back and polish off one of my "Mondays with Hoyt" posts.

Not tonight, though.

For one thing, I'm having trouble coming up with something to write about that relates to Mr. Wilhelm.

But, more than that, it's because I have a bit of an announcement, as far as this blog goes.

It's something that I openly wondered about in one of my "Hoyt" posts from a few Mondays ago. I've decided to go forward with the idea I discussed in that post.

As a slight spin-off from Night Owl's "100 Dodger Cards" countdown, I'm going to finally rank my 100 favorite "binder" cards.

It's probably not a new idea in the blogosphere by any means, but it's been one that I've wanted to delve into for a while.

I can't provide an exact date as to when the "countdown" will start. If I had to guess, it would probably be within the next couple months, most likely when my winter break comes along.

However, I've already come up with a few ground rules.

Firstly, this list will comprise only of cards from 1981 to the present.

I have a feeling that vintage would comprise about 90 percent of the list if I didn't separate the two. Since '81 was the first year Fleer and Donruss entered the market, I figured it would make a good cutoff.

So, yes, Mr. Mendoza. You're eligible to make "the list".

For those who wanted to see some glorious vintage, don't worry. I haven't forgotten about you.

I fully plan on composing a "Top 100" list for vintage at some point in the future as well.

Rule #2.

No player can be represented more than two different times in the "countdown".

Otherwise, Jim Abbott, the "ultimate cardogenic", would make up about 20 percent of my list. Sorry, Jim, but I've got to keep it fair.

I've already picked out the two Abbott "nominees". This one didn't make it.

That should tell you just how awesome his cards have been over the years.

Onto the third rule.

I've decided that autographs, jerseys, shoes, jockstraps, etc. will not be included in the "Top 100".

There's a few reasons for this.

For one thing, it's like comparing apples and oranges a lot of the time. I absolutely love all my base and inserts of Bobby Doerr, but they can't be expected to compete with something like this.

Secondly, they're just not a main focus of my collection anymore. As I've recounted in the past, I was a "semi-mojo" guy for a short time in my collecting past. I still loved dime boxes and all, but I'd usually be more proud of the stack of jersey cards I'd come home with after a card show.

That's how I came to acquire this jersey/autograph card of Mr. Doerr, which frankly looks a little out of place on this blog.

Lastly, and most importantly, there's the whole memorabilia fraud thing that's come to light in the last couple months. A lot of bloggers have written posts about it lately, so I assume everyone knows what I'm talking about.

I'd grown sour on the whole "jersey" fad a while ago anyways, but that assured me that I'd never voluntarily purchase another memorabilia card ever again.

Who's to say that this is even an authentic piece of Bobby Doerr's uniform anymore?

I have no choice but to leave them out of the countdown.

Those are the only ground rules I have for now, although a few others might come to me in the future.

It doesn't matter whether it's an 19th century ballplayer on a newer card. It's eligible to make the "list".

This Obak issue of supposed curveball "inventor" Candy Cummings has a chance to crack the "Top 100".

In fact, it's a decent bet that you'll see it somewhere on there when the time comes.

There's a good chance that you'll see a couple Hoyt cards in the countdown.

That's probably not much of a secret, though.

Who knows?

Maybe a couple 2012 cards could crack the "Top 100".

Right now, I'd have to say that "Reed and the Birds" probably has the best chance of making it.

As is stands, though, I'm not making any promises.

You'll just have to wait and see for yourself.

The Gems of Junk Wax, Pt. 45: 1993 Topps #633 "Three Russians"

There's a lot to love about this hobby.

Every collector has their own unique reasons for why they chase after these seemingly innocent pieces of cardboard.

Personally, the main reason I've been a member of the hobby for the last dozen years or so is because it continually finds ways to surprise me.

You can never know everything there is to know about baseball cards.

There's always more "gems" to be unearthed.

This particular subject in my "Gems of Junk Wax" series is a perfect example of that very sentiment.

I've seen thousands of 1993 Topps singles over the course of my life. I felt that I had a good grasp on all the novelty-type cards out there.

Yet, during all that time, this magnificent piece had flown under my radar.

I'll always be in debt to the blogosphere for making me aware of its existence. Specifically, it was a recent post over at "Play at the Plate" that first introduced me to this card.

Immediately after I saw it, I knew it was one of those cards that I absolutely had to have. As a result, I fell victim to yet another "impulse buy".

Luckily, this purchase only set me back about seventy cents on Sportlots.

It's among the greatest seventy cents I've ever spent.

I am honored to have this card in my collection.

Being the baseball nut I am, I dug for some background info about these three guys immediately after the card was in my grasp.

According to the back of this card, the player on the far left is Rudy Razjigaev. However, his baseball-reference page lists his name as Rudolf Razhigaev.

I have no idea which one is correct.

Razjigaev (or Razhigaev) pitched for the Angels' rookie league and Low-A teams between 1992 and '93, posting a 5.54 ERA in 13 career innings.

In the middle of this shot, we have third baseman Yevgeny Puchkov, who hit just .208 in 52 career minor league games between '92 and '93. (At least his BR page agrees with Topps' spelling of his name.)

The last of the "Three Russians" is shortstop Ilya Bogatyrev. He never made it out of rookie ball, hitting .241 in his two minor league seasons.

On that note, a quick Google Translate search shows me that the Russian text on the front of the card doesn't even translate to the words "Three Russians". I guess that just adds to the mystery of it all.

And, as if that wasn't enough, it's also listed as an uncorrected error (or "UER") by Beckett, due to the fact that Topps headed Bogatyrev's stats on the back with "1992 Pitching Statistics", despite the fact that he was a shortstop.

My research as to why the Angels all of a sudden signed three players out of Russia came up empty.

Had Topps not come along, I get the feeling that the "Three Russians" would be forever lost in the annals of baseball history.

For that, Topps, I thank you.

This is definitely one of the best "gems" out there.

Before and after

Behold.

This was the first image to ever appear on this blog, over nine months ago.

Little did I know where this one simple picture would take me. My "low-end collector's journey" through the blogosphere has been hard to put into words. Inspirational, thought-provoking, and transforming are just a few that come to mind.

However, my time as a blogger can be neatly trimmed down into one simple word.

Fun.

These last nine months have easily the best of my long collecting career, without a doubt.

I've been introduced to an entirely new perspective on this hobby, one that will probably be more beneficial to my "survival" within it in the years to come.

I just wish I could've found the blogosphere a whole lot sooner.

My collection has undergone a few changes as well.

I've already received a ton of great cardboard from fellow bloggers, whether it be from an agreed-upon trade or one of those "surprise" packages that we all love so much.

The blogosphere has also inspired me to buy some cards that I might have previously passed on at card shows and the like. The most notable being the inductees into my "Cardboard Masterpieces" collection, one that didn't exist before I started this blog.

Tonight, I thought it would be interesting to see how the outward appearance of my collection has changed in these last nine months.

When I snapped the photo for my first-ever blog post, I had 43 different card-filled binders.

Even I'm surprised at how much has changed since then.

Nowadays, my collection consists of 55 binders.

I've had to split a few of my team binders into halves since then. Heck, my Angels, Cubs, and Yankees collections consist of three different binders at the moment.

I like to keep my early oversized vintage on my bookshelf as well, a few of which you can see on the top half of the second bookshelf. Those have almost doubled during my time as a blogger, although that might have more to do with my dad's generous "grants" at the last few card shows we've attended.

It really is amazing to compare my pre-blog and post-blog collections. It's come a long ways since that first post back in December.

Sometimes, I stop and think about where my collection would be had I not decided to start writing. More than that, I stop and think about where I'd be.

It's held many surprises.

The blogosphere has managed to drop every single one of my pretensions about the almighty "book value". The only type of value I live by is "personal value".

As I've learned, that's the only guide you need.

But, most of all, it's managed to turn what I thought was a perfect hobby into an even better one.

Ever since I started this blog, I've been able to share my love for cardboard with other members who are just as passionate about it, and vice versa.

That's a special thing.

I can't wait to see what other surprises the blogosphere has in store for me.

Dime Box Heroes: Half the price

1999 Upper Deck "Textbook Excellence Doubles" #T-14 Vladimir Guerrero /2000

For a long time, I thought a dime was as cheap as baseball cards got.

I mean, how could it get better than a dime? The notion that I could turn one of those little silver coins I have in my spare change jar into an actual piece of cardboard was almost beyond belief.

Then it happened.

A couple years ago, I came across an otherwise innocent-looking gathering of cards at my local flea market, just another one of the standard 3200-count boxes I'd seen so many times before. 

However, the sign on the front of the box suggested that this wasn't just your ordinary table at the flea market.

"All cards, 5 cents each."

I had found my first nickel box.  

It didn't take me long to dig through all those glorious pieces of nickel cardboard. 

As I quickly learned, the possibilities are endless. Overspending isn't a factor. After all, one of those old, crumpled dollar bills lying in your wallet can net you twenty nickel cards.

All in all, I came away with about fifty cards from that first nickel box, which translated to a little over two bucks. (That same two bucks couldn't even get me a pack of Topps Chrome.)

It was one of the highest points of my collecting career. Among my "goodies" were my first two cards of Gary Carter as a Dodger, something I'd been searching for in the months leading up to that nickel box.

However, there wasn't really much doubt as to what the unquestioned "find of the day" was. 

Whether it be from a dime, quarter, or fifty-cent box, I get a huge kick out of finding any Vlad cards I need for my vast collection of his.

But finding a numbered, perforated, and just generally awesome Vlad insert inside a nickel box?

That's what it's all about.

Because of all this, it's probably easy to see why I love nickel boxes so much. One of our very own in the blogosphere was lucky enough to come across one of them recently.

It's amazing what a little loose change can net you in this hobby.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go check my sofa cushions.

Zero-Year Cards, Pt. 39

2005 Topps Total #433 Pokey Reese (Mariners)

They're back.

The "zero-year" cards are still alive and kicking on this blog.

Even though my last "zero-year" post was over two months ago, I haven't retired the theme completely.

Pokey Reese was the main reason I decided to resurrect the "zero-year" theme, at least for tonight.

After all, he's a prominent member of this "club". This is one of three cards I own that feature Reese in a Mariners uniform.

Sadly, Reese would never get another shot in the bigs after missing the entire 2005 season with an elbow injury. His major-league career ended after the 96 games he played with the world-champion '04 Red Sox.

At least he got to go out on top.

One of the reasons I've become a huge fan of Reese is because of his nickname. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

"Pokey".

How could you not love a nickname like that?

Up until about a year ago, I had no idea what his given name was.

Calvin Reese.

Who knew?

For a while, the only cards of Reese that I collected were the ones that listed him as "Calvin". Recently, I decided to just start a full-on player collection of his, although I still hold of the "Calvin Reese" ones in higher regard.

Still, I can't help but be fascinated whenever I see the word "Pokey" on some of my baseball cards. It's one of the goofiest, yet greatest, nicknames in the game's history.

Sadly, it seems like simple-yet-creative nicknames like "Pokey" are a thing of the past. Most of the ones today are too simple. I can't get into ones like "A-Rod". Or "K-Rod". Or "Joey Bats".

It wasn't always that way, though.

Back in the day, baseball was swarmed with great nicknames.

Just look at guys like "Yogi" Berra, "Duke" Snider, "Whitey" Ford for proof.

In fact, they became better known by their nicknames. Nobody knew them as Lawrence Berra, Edwin Snider, or Edward Ford.

That sort of thing isn't found too much nowadays. With Larry "Chipper" Jones retiring, the only guy left is Gerald "Buster" Posey, at least off the top of my head.

Will baseball ever see a resurgence in the nickname department? Only time will tell.

Until then, we'll just have to appreciate the great nicknames the past has given us.

Like Pokey Reese.

A two-way street

Every once in a while, a post by another blogger will have a big effect on you.

That was definitely the case with what I read last night by Robert from "$30 A Week Habit".

It was short, concise, and very well-written. The title, "Write What You Want, Dammit", should give you a pretty good idea of what the post was about if you haven't had a chance to read it already.

As I've mentioned a few times before, I was intensely focused on the number of views I got and posts I made in the early days of this blog.

Sometimes, I wrote when I didn't really feel like it, just so I could maybe get a few more hits to my blog. Perhaps another couple followers as well.

It was definitely the wrong approach.

That's the kind of attitude most people have when they write essays for school. The concept of "forcing it" has no place in the blogosphere.

The idea that Robert conveyed in his post is one that marked a major turning point in my blogging career.

Earlier on, I didn't often mention a lot of the "obscure" players I collect on this blog, even though they pretty much represent the very idea of being a "low-end" collector.

After all, who the heck cares about Jesus Colome?

With that thought in mind, I figured people wouldn't read what I wrote. And since I craved those "hits" to my blog, I mainly ignored guys like Colome all together.

But, somewhere along the line, I realized that the opposite was what I should've been doing the entire time. I'm not sure when the thought first hit me, but it definitely marked the most pivotal change in my thinking as a blogger.

The "obscure" players deserve a share of the spotlight every once in a while. Heck, with a blog like this, they are the spotlight.

Thankfully, I've found that most bloggers think the same way. Turns out that I'd had it backwards the whole time.

I originally thought that no one appreciated the "under the radar" type of ballplayers, so I simply didn't write much about them. It's probably a carryover from my Jeter and Pujols-filled time on trading forums.

Most bloggers love "obscure" guys every bit as much as I do.

As a result, I've gotten a lot of great feedback with a few of the players that I thought no one else knew.

Maybe there are a few fans of Jesus Colome out there, ones who were waiting in the wings for this post.

One of my other main focuses during my earlier days of blogging was the amount of comments I'd get.

I'd actually get a bit upset if I didn't get any comments on a post I wrote, especially one that I felt was a decent effort on my part.

While I don't take my "need" for comments anywhere near that far anymore, reading the feedback I get on my posts is still one of my favorite things to do as a blogger.

The fact that people choose take a couple minutes out of their day to read and possibly even comment on the things I write will always be something for which I'm grateful.

As long as I'm blogging, that sentiment will never change.

Trouble is, I almost never left comments on anyone else's posts.

I read to my heart's content. If I click on a link to a new post on another blog, I read the whole thing. Word-for-word. I would hope that's the case with most people. (Another major theme of Robert's post.)

Still, as much as I read others' thoughts about the hobby, I didn't often comment on them. It was all take and no give.

A few weeks ago, I came to a major realization, as far as comments go.

It doesn't matter whether it's just a comment saying, "Nice card!", or a few paragraphs of feedback on my thoughts on a given topic.

I read your comments every single night, and I appreciate each and every one of them.

But I'm not the only one. I'm sure most bloggers love reading comments as much as I do.

Lately, I've become a changed man, at least as far as the blogosphere goes. I'm commenting on others' posts more than ever, although it's something I should've been doing this whole time.

The back of this Sports Illustrated for kids insert tells me it's "my turn" to come up with a comment for "Pudge" Rodriguez.

Thanks, SI, but I think this is the one time I'll pass on doing so. This is a family blog, after all. (Although I'd love to read some of the captions people sent to SI for that one.)

But, in general, the folks down at Sports Illustrated are right about my blogging tactics.

It is "my turn" to become a more frequent commenter in the blogosphere. It's the least I can do for the loads of great material people have left on my posts during my time here.

After all, blogging is indeed a two-way street.