Complete Set Sunday - 1999-00 UD Retro McDonald's Hockey

      Seeing how I dropped like 30 scans on you yesterday, I thought I'd take it easy on you today and do a smaller set.  Also, seeing how we are now smack dab in the middle of the NHL playoffs, I thought it would be a good time to do some hockey.  I tend to describe sports like relationships...I often call baseball my wife and hockey my mistress.  Come springtime, I get torn between two lovers very easily, especially when my Devils are actually winning series, rather than choking them away.  Plus, granted with a speed bump or two, my Mets are also not sucking with vacuum-like precision (yet).  So while I have been very busy and stressed out recently, my sports watching has been a most welcoming and relaxing oasis. It is with that I give you the 1999-2000 Upper Deck Retro McDonald's Hockey set.

This is a 35 card set featuring 15 different hockey superstars, each shown in a contemporary photo on one card and a rookie photo on another, thus properly fitting under the "retro" banner.  The cards themselves are printed on thick rough cardboard stock, like old school Topps, another defining feature of the Upper Deck Retro cards.

The dual photo set up works well for some players (like Brett Hull, Patrick Roy, and Dominik Hasek) and not so well for others (Jarome Iginla and Paul Kariya) but overall it is a real nice way to present superstar players.  I was always a sucker for those 1983 Topps Super Veterans and these work along the same lines.

The player selection leaves a little to be desired - no Martin Broduer?  hello?!!? plus, no Gretzky, Messier, etc. - but it does capture fifteen of the best players of the turn of the century.  Since this was a regional set, there might have been a method to their madness, I just can't quite figure it out.  Let's look at the backs...

...they are well done...the contemporary cards have complete career stats and the rookie flashback cards have stats from their rookie years and little blurbs about their rookie exploits with matching photos to boot.  These cards being Canadian, they are also written in French as well as English. 

The last five cards of the set are the obligatory "rookie prospect" type cards.  They actually did a pretty good job choosing five players who have had decent long careers.  The only aesthetic drawback to the set, really, is that it is 35 cards, leaving that nasty nasty empty pocket.  Oh well, you can't have everything.

I fell hook, line, and sinker for the Upper Deck Retro card sets.  They were some of the first attempts at faux vintage and they had real personality.  I voraciously collected the baseball sets and when I found out these cards existed, I had to have them.  Of course, they were only available in Canada and as I have mentioned, I have never been out of the country, so I went to eBay to pick up this set, when I cannot recall, and it has resided in my set binders with a few other smaller oddball sets ever since.  I have oddly not chosen to put the baseball Retro sets in my set binders yet, but when I do, this set might go live with them.  In fact, I have a half completed UD Football Retro set from the same time period as well, which I should get around to completing and then I can have the whole happy UD Retro family.

Miscut.

    With all the talk about scissors and cutting your own cards, what happens when the professionals go wrong?  I think when we open a pack of cards, we all have the expectation of perfection or, at the very least, competency.  I think we have all run into a miscut card at one point or another.  Lucky for you, I collect these kinds of cards (so you don't have to).  As I have said many many times before, I love oddball cards, and not just the kind put out by Mr. Turkey or Kahn's Franks.  I also really love the one-of-a-kind gems that can only be created by a great lapse in quality control.

Here are some recent examples:

Pity, that was the first card I saw of Junior in a White Sox uniform.  I'm not sure if that 2007 Kotchman is miscut or just misprint, but if you look, you'll notice how terribly askew the foil is applied on that card.  I bought a whole box of those 2005 Playoff Prestige cards, imagine my joy and horror that for six straight packs, I got a wonderfully miscut card amongst my normal cards.  I especially like the color chart on the side of the Furcal in the upper right.  Let's look at the backs too...

The test pattern is also on the back.  You can see much better how terribly miscut those Playoff cards are, if you just saw the fronts, if you didn't know any better, you might think that askew look was part of the set.

There's more...oh boy is there more...

Once again, Rafael Furcal is prominently featured.  It is quite disappointing, at least to most people, to get a miscut card in a high end product like Gold Label.  Not for me.  I am pretty sure that card was the highlight of that box for me.  Those Bowman Chrome cards on top came in the same pack; considering there were only three cards per pack, that is quite the quality control issue.  Somehow some misprint cards wandered into my miscut pages.  OK, lets look at those real quick.  Those 2005 Bowman gold parallels might, at quick glance, seem fine.  Then, on second glance, you see Bartolo Colon's signature coming out of Shannon Stewart's head - a little creepy.  Also on there is a Hideki Irabu rookie and a Nefti Perez sans foil on the front.  You would think there would be more missing foil cards with the proliferation its use in the last decade or so, but I haven't seen as many in my day as I would imagine I should.

We might as well look at the backs of all these...

You can plainly see that it is Preston Wilson that is the conjoined twin of that Rafael Furcal.  Outstanding.

Some miscuts are more extreme than others...

That Shea Hillenbrand is barely miscut.  It is almost just really really off-center.  But, I determined it to be just miscut enough to join the pages.  Luckily, a few much better examples are prevalent on this page.  Those Gooden and Ripken cards have been part of this collection since I pulled them back in the 80's and they are wonderful.  That Dave Cochrane is also a favorite.  The "No Ink Additives Allowed!!!" is pure gold.  The odd warning and extra exclamation points make it almost surreal.  I pulled that card from a 1993 Ultra pack.  Also shown are some 1993 Ultra misprinted foil cards. 

On the back...

...you can see even more warnings on that Cochrane card (I wonder how many more there were on those Ultra cards?) and you can also see that it is Dave Schmidt that is the partner of that Dwight Gooden card.  Or is it Dwight Gooden who is the partner of the Dave Schmidt card?

We have a few more minor modern misprints and miscuts on this page.  My favorite is the early Upper Deck cards with extra and misplaced holograms.  Perhaps someone was trying to counterfeit those Paul Gibson and Torey Lovullo cards? Oh the humanity...

But wait?  What else is on this page?  Could it be miscut 1975 minis?  Indeed it is.  I have seen many of these over the years, I guess quality control was not high on the list of priorities for a test issue, and I kept a few for my collection.  The Al Oliver is cut almost so you can see how the set would have looked had the team name been on the bottom rather than the top. 

The backs...

...show more of the same.  That Higginson card is a separate card from the Sandberg card.  The Sandberg back is normal and the Higginson front is normal, so I display them back to back.  Same with the misprinted and miscut Zane Smith up there, it is a matching pair with the Dunston on the front.

Let's dive into some vintage miscuts...

...the 1975 Topps are probably my favorite for miscuts.  All the colors make for some very interesting pieces of modern card art.  Here you have a fine mishmash of horizontal and vertical; some extreme and some subtle. 

The backs of these...

...aren't quite as interesting as the fronts, to say the least.

Here are some more old school Topps miscuts:

That 1979 Garvey is a double print.  I wonder if the card next to it is also Garvey...alas, it is not quite over far enough to see.  I love the little stars on the borders of the miscut Grimsley Traded card there.  You see these on full sheets and I guess they were part of either the guide for the cutting machine or perhaps part of the printing process.  Alas, I don't know enough about the industry to know for sure.  I wonder why they never put rows of stars on the actual cards, they look kinda boss...

Backs...

...meh. Moving on.

You want 1973's?  We got 1973's.  I am not sure where I got so many miscut 1973 Topps cards, but I have a ton of them.  I have seen a ton of them.  I know 1973 was the first year they did a majority of the set in one series, I wonder if one has anything to do with the other?

Quick aside:  I once convinced a bunch of kids that Johnny Jeter was Derek Jeter's dad.  This was 1997 or 1998, before the internet was ubiquitous and could diffuse such a ruse.  I imagine there was a rush on his cards at local card shops for a week or so before the truth was revealed.  I don't know if I like messing with kids or Yankees fans more.

Backs...

...the backs show that the dotted lines are the edges of the sheet.  I prefer the stars.

1972 was not much better that 1973.  I have seen all form of miscut and misprinted 1972 cards. 

Hmmmm...wait, I think it is dotted lines on the bottom, stars on the sides.  Perhaps that is how the printer knew which end of the sheet was up?  I just noticed that for the first time...it all makes sense now. I am both supremely observant and an idiot.  A Cincinnati Reds fan once offered me $20 for that Bench miscut.  How do you price something that is unique, especially...

...since the back reveals it is attached to the boyhood photo of Bud Harrelson.  No way that card is ever leaving my collection.

Wow, and now some 1970 and 1971 Topps.  The early 70's were pretty terrible for quality control.

Nothing extreme in these cards, just some generally off center cards, all about the same amount.  I guess you can deduce that every once in a while, the sheets missed the cutter by about half an inch.

Wow, those 1970 cards sure look 100x brighter next to those 1971 backs.

Here is another favorite.  That 1968 Bernie Allen might be the worst diamond cut card I have ever seen.  Right behind it is that 1968 Steve Blass.  That Ken Berry is miscut and woefully out of register.  I have seen a bunch of 1968 Topps cards that are out of register (blurry to the layman).  I wonder if that was because of the burlap design. 

I have two of those 1967 Jack Baldschun cards, they are identically off center.  If anyone wants one, drop me a line, I will gladly send it to anyone who is as obsessed with miscut cards as I am...

Those diamond cut 68's are making me seasick.

I told you I have a lot of 1973 miscuts, here are some more.  Wait, that 1965 checklist looks fine...

...until you see the back...

...I like how some kid used it anyway.  I have seen a lot of 1962 Topps really off center, but not quite miscut.  That Wes Covington barely qualified, but the Mike Higgins shows that the wood border didn't go to the edges of the sheet.  I guess you gotta save on ink somehow.

Yup, I have some vintage Topps football miscuts too...

...tough being a Chiefs fan, huh?  That diamond cut Jim Marshall is oddly fitting, given his infamous claim to fame. 

Backs:

Here are some more modern football misprints and miscuts.  That quarter of a Giant was one of the cards as listed when I opened a pack of Pro Set back in the day.  I found that quite amusing and it has been amongst my error and miscut cards ever since. 

I have two of those Barry Sanders cards, once again, identical in off centered-ness, if anyone wants one.  As you can see, those two 1992 Topps cards aren't miscut...

They have blank backs.  And you may wonder why I have a completely blank card on this page.  Who cares about blank cards?  They use them as spacers all the time.  Well, that blank card came out of the same pack of 1992 Topps football cards as those blank back cards.  It is a completely blank card, not a spacer.  In my world, there is a difference.  I am not sure how that first series Star Wars miscut got in my collection (probably from my childhood), though I do have a bunch of diamond cut series four Star Wars cards.

OK, since I am just rambling here and showing everything in the damn binder, here are some more misprints:

Some more blank backs (the Franco, LaCock, Mills, and Curtis).  A few miscut backs only from 1975 and 1987.  The Rusty Kuntz does not have a 1979 Carew back, it is just a doubled up card.  The 1990 Leaf checklist with the inverted Sid Fernandez back is pretty cool, and if I had needed that checklist back in the day, it would have been pretty damn frustrating.

The backs...

...show the blank backs and a diamond cut Pudge that got thrown in there for some reason.  I should probably put that closer to the front where it belongs.

Since I have no finish, I'll try and bring it all the way back to the beginning with a few more cut cards I found but did not cut myself...

...those last three cards have all been trimmed to some extent or another.  The 1956 Smokey Burgess had its entire border excised so it would fit in a 9 pocket page I assume...where as the 1962 Gene Woodling was cut smaller for some odd reason I cannot quite figure out.  That last card is a 1955 Topps Double Header.  Well, it had its head cut off, so it is a single header, and really, since it has no head at all, I guess it is a no header.

Homemade.

       As I have mentioned before, I have a deep adoration for oddball cards and food issues.  It would seem that a very specific aspect of that particular kind of card has been fodder for some recent debate.  I'd be lying if I didn't often look at other posts and say "me too!" and I am going to do that here, but add a twist at the end.

Here is a page of random unsorted retired players that I have in a binder but have not fully organized nor integrated into the rest of my collection:

I am going to do something that haven't done on this blog (I don't think) and just focus in on three of the cards on that page:

What you see are three old school food issues cut off the sides and/or backs of boxes, all to varying success.  I am pretty sure whoever snipped off that 1976 Hostess Bake McBride sneezed somewhere near the bottom.  How else do you explain the sudden and inexplicable chunk taken out of the lower right corner?  That 1962 Post Felipe Alou has been well loved all around.  It was cut with B+ precision, but then obviously put into the kids' back pocket.  Those are some impressive creases, even by my low standards.  That 1961 Jim Coates is cut rather well, but it is the back thatI find much more interesting...

...I believe that is a baseball rubdown from one of the 1960's oddball sets floating around (someone with a better knowledge of the 60's could help me out on that one), a rather ingenious use of them, by the way, to fill in the empty brown cardboard void.  That is why that random Yankees common has remained in my collection all these years.

But those three cards are before my time.  How did I do as a kid when the scissors were allowed out of the drawer (there was a nasty incident in my extreme youth where I played "haircut" with my little sister, thus eternally banning me from using scissors without permission.  Even as an adult I find myself asking permission to use the scissors, rather than asking where they are.  But I digress...)  The following cards have been in my collection for decades and each and every one of them were cut off of their cardboard panels by yours truly:

Not too bad, if I do say so myself.  The top two 1987 Fleer cards are box bottom cards.  The Grote is a 1976 Hostess card that I cut off of a panel I bought at a show in the late 80's.  That one is the only one with some suspect trimming.  It would seem that I had the same issue with a lower corner as the aforementioned Bake McBride card, though quite not to the same extreme.  Perhaps there is something about those cards that just begs for poor trimming.  The 1986 Topps Gooden is also a box bottom card - very sharp.  The other four drakes cards are slightly smaller by nature, not by butcher.  I included that Gooden Glossy All Star card as a visual guide of a standard issue size card (I am also amused that the two pictures on the 1986 Drakes and that card are practically identical).  So, perhaps it is cheap 1970's cardboard that makes for bad card cutting, not over-caffeinated or under-intelligent children.  Oh, and it seems I have doubles of that 1986 Drakes Gooden in the middle, so if you want/need/desire that card, drop me an email. 

So where was this twist I promised?  Well, I have done other things with scissors and baseball cards and  boxes.  First, I like to make binder labels out of them...

I have about a million of those "Topps of the Class" cards laying around, so it made sense to tag my Topps binders with them. Here I do the same thing for a football binder...

I also noticed that the graphics on the boxes were kinda neat, so maybe I could make labels out of them:

I am pretty sure that football label is the first one I consciously made to be a label for my binders.  I also noticed that recent modern binders use a label that is the standard size of a baseball card.  So making binder labels out of card boxes then grew into me finding the best 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 bits on a box and making my own unique cards out of them:

One of the obvious drawbacks of this little art project is they use a lot of Yankees on baseball card boxes.  Luckily, I have Big Papi and Bruce Lee to balance out all that Jeter and A-Rod nastiness.

That middle card there is from a blaster of 2009 OPC, I believe, and it makes for a better ad than any of the advertisement cards Upper Deck put in their packs the last few years.  These cards are also the only time I ever put cards in back-to-back, since the opposite side is either blank cardboard or very abstract bits of the reverse of the box. So what you are seeing here is only two pages:

That middle card is the closest I will ever get to having the Abraham Lincoln DNA card in my collection, but that is certainly good enough for me.  I even got some of the A&G box seal onto that one.  I like to see if I can get odd little bits into the card like that...like the hologram on the Drew Brees card, or the kung-fu dude flying out behind the Ken Griffey card.  The bottom right card is not from a baseball card box, it is actually from a Whiffle Ball display.

Since I so rarely buy any new product, much less entire boxes of new product, I am afraid those last four or five spaces might never get filled in.  I have a bunch of other homemade box cards scattered in my collection, so perhaps I will bring them all together just to have the pages complete.  I thought with all this talk of cutting out cards off of boxes, I would go a little outside the lines and show you what someone with a pair of scissors and a lot of time (and boxes) on his hands could do.

Quick Trade with gcrl

      You may think that I have abandoned blogging everyday or perhaps my industrial strength ADD has kicked in and my focus has gone elsewhere.  Well, luckily the answer to both of those is no and no.  The truth is I have been traveling and, surprisingly, actually working more the last couple weeks (yay!).  How do you bloggers with a full time job do it?  I guess blogging is like anything else in this world - if you really want to do it, you find the time.

     Tonight I can't sleep, so here is a quick post about a little (yet awesome) trade with jim of gcrl (the man has a lot of ee cummings in him).  I find his main blog a most excellent read (I am a huge Ron Cey fan), but my trade query regarded his side project, oh my o-pee-chee! (oh mon o-pee-chee!), which is a fantastic salute to one of my own obsessions, the variations on O-Pee-Chee cards.  Now, I had recently found a nearly complete 1986 OPC set amongst my piles.  It was missing six odd cards; I can't figure out if they were pulled out of the set by someone (or even myself once upon a time) or if these really were the actual six cards that helped this set evade completion.  Knowing the cards he had on his site were all his, I figured if anyone in the blogosphere had these six cards, it would be him, or he would know someone who would.  After a quick email exchange, I was tickled to know that he had the dastardly six I needed:

Odd combination, don't you think?  Jim also found a few of my rookie all star needs.  In fact, he emailed me that he had a 1964 Jimmie Hall and I ignored it at first, figuring he had emailed me this information by mistake.  But nope, it was on my wantlist and he had read it and found it for me.  The man knew my wantlist better than me...much like Henry Jones Jr., this is why I write things down, so I don't have to remember.  And once again, it is nice to know the system works!  I hope I can find the time this week to get to the post office to drop his cards in the mail.  Plus, his generosity is being rewarded by an all out insomnia driven search for a few of his nebulous nine.

Jim also put a little note in with the cards, always a wise decision, since sometimes packages get misplaced or worse, get to the bottom of the pile...

...no jim, thank you!

Complete Set Sunday - 2004 Upper Deck Rivals.

       Fear not, intrepid Starting Nine readers (of which, I believe there are nine of you), I have not abandoned my posting; I was just on a little pleasure trip to my old stomping grounds of Boston.  I went to see some good friends and to see a Sox game.  I would really have liked to have gone to see the 100th anniversary of Fenway on Friday, but alas, I could not get tickets to that game - not without skipping a mortgage payment anyway - so I settled on Saturday afternoon's game.  Red Sox vs. Yankees.  The Greatest Rivalry in Sports® etc., etc.  It was such a beautiful afternoon.  I was with my Sox fan friends.  We had damn good brews at the Boston Beer Works before the game (only poser pink hat fans go to the Cask and Flagon).  By the fifth inning, the Sox were up 9-0 and all was right with the world.  Everything was going so well.  And then...and then it all fell apart and something happened that has shaken my baseball fandom to the core - and remember, I am a Mets fan first and foremost so that is saying something.  The Red Sox coughed up that nine run lead.  And almost once over again.  They gave up seven in the seventh and seven in the eighth.  I was stunned, stymied, dumbfounded, and pissed.  I did something I have not done in 25+ years of going to baseball games.  I left early.  I looked at my buddies and said, "I need beer.  Right now...and they stopped selling them. Let's go." and I left.  I am kind of mad at myself for doing that.  I am also friends with far too many Yankees fans who left all form of nasty messages on my phone and facebook.  Sure, those first six innings were fun, but besides that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?  Yes, the Red Sox shot me in the back of the head.  It was a bad day for baseball.

It is with that backdrop that I present the 2004 Upper Deck Rivals.  

It is a set featuring the Red Sox and the Yankees and it was sold as a complete set in hobby outlets.  

It has 30 cards, which, out of some fit of laziness, I did not scan all of.  I probably skipped some of the Yankees.  I guess I am still mad.

Upper Deck did a bunch of these types of sets in the mid-aughts.  It is kind of a fancier version of the old Fleer boxed sets sold in drugstores and toy shops in the 1980's, but who cares? It has a bunch of classic photos and players and the Rivals section with contemporary positional match ups are well done and pretty awesome.

When I got this set in 2004, a local card shop (one of those overpriced mall-type ones that I don't frequent) was having a signing with Peter Gammons, who has cards highlighting What If? scenarios in the set.

The odd thing is that, at the time, my girlfriend worked directly with Gammons' nephew; I probably could have met him any time I wanted.  But as it turns out, I met him at the mall.  And he was very affable and friendly, we had a brief conversation about music and baseball (and his nephew) and he signed my big ass card.  That was a good day.

I have a few Red Sox sets, a couple from their World Series wins and this one, which was made right before they actually won it all in 2004.  This was at the very pinnacle of Red Sox/Yankees hostilities.  The 2003 ALCS was an all out war (brought to a nasty conclusion by Aaron bleeping Boone).  Then the 2004 ALCS happened.  The Sox came back from down 3-0 in the series to win.  And now, eight years later, they are choking away nine run leads.  Baseball is a funny, brutal game.  As you can tell by my rambling, I am still overly affected by yesterday's debacle.  I will reel it in and head for the big finish.  This set is in the binders because the Red Sox are my baseball mistress.  I don't love them like my wife, but I adore them all the same.  If they keep playing like they did yesterday, there won't be anymore sets for me to add to this one for a long long time.