Saturday, September 2, 2023

I should've passed on this one

I've been a lot more careful in recent years when it comes to buying. A large part of that is due to the fact that I just don't have as much as play money as I used to. I also seem to have reached a point where I don't want stuff just for the sake of having stuff. Stuff takes up a space, and space is always at a premium. Because of these two things, I will often go back and forth over whether or not I really need a particular item or not, especially when it involves something for sale online. When it comes to cards, and more specifically, those of the auction variety, more often than not, other folks usually end up making my decision for me by pushing the price of whatever it is up; and out of my range. Occasionally though, something will slip through the sewer grate...

The listing for this card ended two days after the Joe Rudi that was in the last post. Had there been a larger gap in which Joe had been able to arrive before this one came up, I never would've bought this one. I do sort of collect Bert Campaneris, though I'm still a bit down on him for not signing the 1969 Topps card I sent him about 5-6 years ago, which I only did because he was supposedly signing quite actively at the time (and yes, I know, this is a terrible reason to be down on someone). That being said, and despite my usual waffling, the seemingly complete lack of interest from other bidders is ultimately what swayed me into bidding on this card. I figured, for five bucks, I couldn't go wrong. Well, I went wrong!

Having never owned any autographs from the 2001 Topps Archives set, I didn't know about the glossy finish, and if you saw the last post, then you already know how I feel about it. If you didn't, I hate it. It's so distracting. If that wasn't bad enough, Bert's card also features a slightly blurred image (it wasn't noticeable in the auction photo), which wasn't a feature of his rookie card. One would think that Topps could've reproduced one of their own cards without blurring the image, but I guess that was too much to hope for in this particular card.

I haven't looked, but I really hope that there isn't anyone else on this checklist that I feel like I need to own, because I do not like these cards, and if there is, I have no doubt that I'll forget at some point and buy another one. 

Despite my dislike for the card, I have hung onto it, and will continue to do so for the time being. Though, if I end up dropping Bert's player collection (which is very possible), I will find someone else to send this too, as it won't be worth me keeping just because it's an autograph.


I realized as I was starting this post this morning (Saturday the 2nd), that this'll be my third post in six days on here. That may not seem like much to some, but I haven't done that on this blog in what seems like years. Seeing as how Monday is a holiday, I won't be doing four in eight days, but I should have something up on Tuesday. After that, I'll probably work on some stuff for the other two blogs, one of which has been terribly neglected this summer (there's only so many hours in the day!).

16 comments:

  1. Could be worse than $5 for an autographed Campy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If not interested in keeping it I know of 2 places where you could unload it. The first place is mine I'm not fussy about the 2001 Topps Archives Autographs I've pulled in the the time that they were released. The second place is my friend & fellow blogger of The Collective Mind blog he's got a nice Campy personal collection & I think he does not have this card in his collection. Anyway that's my opinion Choice is yours to decide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I didn't think there'd be any shortage of takers.

      Delete
  3. Wow, that really is an unusually blurred card. I wonder if it was some kind of printing defect or if they're all like that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It ain't collecting until you buy something you know you shouldn't have bought!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did he at least send you back the 69' card?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's a bummer that you're not satisfied with the card, but at least you didn't pay that much for it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah it's really weird how often Topps struggles with reproducing older cards. I thought for a moment this was one of those multi-player rookie cards that they'd expanded to be a single player card.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would've accounted for the blur had that been the case, but no, it's just a really crappy reprint.

      Delete