Wednesday, March 14, 2018

A Brewer by Any Other Name: How do You Define a Card's Team Designation?



I’ve seeing someone else, blogosphere.

Yes, it’s time I told you.

I’ve joined up with a team collectors group and have been making pretty all of my recent trades with that gang. It wasn’t something I planned on doing… it just kind of, well, happened.


Ok, that was my dumb little joke to start things out. I’ll drop it now. But it does set up what I’ve been up to lately. I have embarked on the BIG BREWERS SORT… a massive effort to get my 9,000ish Brewers cards into some kind of order. I’ve broken everything into letter piles and have started breaking those into player stacks. Then those stacks get sorted and everything goes into a monster box. This will eliminate all my doubles and permit me to enter EVERYTHING I’ve got into the Trading Card Database. I started last week and can tell already it’s going to take A LOT longer than I anticipated. I’ve slogged through the A and B piles so far and found 932 different Brewers cards therein. I am doing this in anticipation of all the Brewers cards I will be getting from this trade group. The basic idea with the group is that each team has a collector and people sent team packages to each other whenever they have something worth sending. The group has apparently been without a “Brewers Guy” for some time, so everyone’s Brewers reserves are well-stocked. When I joined up, the other members sent me messages that sounded vaguely threatening. “You have no idea what you’re in for!” etc. So, I want to be ready for the onslaught.

But, as I do with most things, this project has me a little twisted up about things. I am sticking to Major League sets for the sort, but including players who never made the Bigs (which I guess makes me a Khalid Ballouli collector now). But what makes a card a Brewers card?

I had this in my Brewers box…


That’s Nori Aoki from 2009. It was made for the World Baseball Classic when Aoki was still playing in Japan. Three years later, he signed with the Brewers and I picked this up because it was his only American issue at the time. But this isn’t a Brewers card.

But what about this one?


That’s a Ryan Braun WBC card, also from 2009. It was made when he was a Brewer, but make no mention on the team on the card. It’s closer to a Brewers card, but I don’t think it really counts, as Braun is repping Team USA.

So, the uniform counts, right? Sure. So how about this…


…this is some weird-ass Donruss issue that originally came encased. You’re darn right I cracked that SOB open and pawed at those swatches. It’s what the good lord intended. Anyway, another example of a card made when a guy played for the Brewers, but who is not in uniform and with no mention of the team. And what team is Sexson repping here? The MLBPA? Hmmmm. This one, I’m a bit torn on.

Speaking of laundry, here is Paul Molitor, dressed in the classic Brewers blue and gold…


…under (ugh) a Blue Jays wordmark. It even has a transaction bubble, which reads “chased out of Milwaukee by a GM who had no clue what he was doing and an owner too damn invested in orchestrating his take-over of the sport to give a shit about retaining a franchise icon at a reasonable price.” (squints) Or something along those lines. Heartbreaking as this is, it’s ain’t a Brewers card. It’s a Jays card with an out-of-date photo.

So, the team indicated outweighs a jersey? Ok. How about this…


…Obviously, Jackie Robinson did not suit up for the 1997 Brewers, but this is a Brewers-branded card in a Brewers team set. Even the Trading Card Database classifies this as a Brewers card. I might consider this part of the Brewers collection just for fun.

But what of this?


Here is Chris Bosio with a transaction bubble (stripe?) indicating his shift to the Mariners. BUT, it’s undeniable a Brewers card aside from that stripe. Is this more a Brewers card or a Mariners card? Can it be both? Can a card be partially a Brewers card? Does this look forward or backwards? Hmmmmmm.

Now THIS is obviously a Brewers card.


Looky there… it’s Ricky Bones in a Brewers uni, with a Brewers logo. Slam dunk, eh?

Hold the phone…


…Ah-ha! The stats on the back correctly state that he finished the 1996 season with the Yankees. The Brewers traded him at the end of August (remember when base sets came out really, REALLY early?) and Upper Deck did not have time to fix his card aside from those three letters on the stat line. Oddly enough, Bones only appeared in one other 1997 set – Fleer Ultra – which depicted him with the Reds, the team he played for in ’97. This is essentially the same thing as one of those Topps “NOW WITH XXX” cards, only without the note on the front.

So which of these would YOU consider to be Brewers cards? They all have at least a partial claim (except for Aoki), but a case can also be made against each. Let me know what you think!

9 comments:

  1. The wonderful thing about card collecting is that you get to set your own rules. So a Brewers card would be whatever you say it is. You don't even have to be consistent about it. I'm a Mets guy. I've always included minor league Mets cards as Mets. If a card says "Mets", but the dude's wearing a Reds uniform, it's a Mets card. If a card says "Reds", but the dude's in a Mets uniform, its a Mets card. If a card says "Reds", the guy is wearing a Reds uniform, but there's a "traded to the Mets" bubble, it's a Mets card. Given all the ugly All-Star uniform cards Topps has put out in recent years, those WBC cards (if depicting Mets) would be Mets cards. Same with the funky Donruss swatch card. Now I hear you saying, "So they're all Mets cards." No, not at all. A card that falls into these grey areas that is visually unappealing is not a Mets card because no acceptable Mets card could possibly be both questionable AND unappealing. Not Mets cards. And what of guys who got cards designated as Mets but never played for the team, like the 1968 Dick Kenworthy? He was a Rule 5 guy who got returned. Spent his entire career, except for a few weeks one March, with the White Sox organization, yet his only Topps card says he's a Met. Not only is that a Mets card, but it pretty much justifies anything else I choose to do. There are, additionally, some Mets who either never got cards or solo cards or got few. Some of these players turn up in Venezuelan issues (and uniforms). So a card of Rich Folkers playing winter ball in Venezuela? A Mets card (I have several of those including Joe Foy and Jerry Cram). Guys like Wayne Garrett and Lastings Milledge have played in the Japanese Leagues and had cards issued in those uniforms. Mets cards. I'm kind of fond of Japanese baseball cards so, once or twice in the past, I've bought a box. Eery card depicting someone who ever suited up with the blue and orange is a Mets card. For some, foreign cards may be their only representation in my Mets binders. For others, it's a nice way to view their broad career path (without cluttering the binder with Cardinals, Yankees and other unspeakable teams). These are MY rules; they don't have to be yours. That's the whole point. You get to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a relevant topic for me as I've been entering my collection into the trading card database as of late. My opinion doesn't always match the database. I do a lot of entry by team and it can slow you down.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Color coding goes a long way. Bosio is a Brewer in 1993 Fleer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a Cleveland Browns football card collector, I had to wrestle with this subject with 1996 cards. Some sets still had the team as Cleveland Browns, while some showed the players in their Browns uniforms but the cards said they were Baltimore Ravens.

    At the time I didn't collect any of them. I didn't watch football for a year and a half, and wasn't collecting cards. It was only when I got back into collecting that I had to make a decision.

    I basically decided that I wanted those last cards of the players in their Browns uniforms, so I would collect them. However, I also wanted cards of new Browns players if the card has them with the Browns even though they were in an old uniform, so I collected them too. And a draft pick? I'll grab that too, even if they are with their college team!

    If a player is with the Browns and a card comes out of them with a different team, like your USA Braun card, I would definitely collect it. I don't know what I would do in the case of your Aoki. Since the Brewers were his first team, I might collect it. I definitely would not if he had played for another MLB team first.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would count all of these if they were for my Cubs collection. I'm going through a similar reorg and had a post in January about some "Undercover Cubs"

    http://onceacub.blogspot.com/2018/01/undercover-cubs-2017-dexter-fowler.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ahh yes.. The Ol' OPC transaction bubble..
    I had this issue when it comes to some cards.. I actually picked up two of a Nigel Wilson card from 1993 Fleer because the photo has him as a Jay but the card is a Marlin.
    The other time is one self-induced..
    I refuse to collect the Nationals. Once the Expos stop, I don't care about that team anymore. But 2005 has Expos listed as Nationals.. So if it still has an Expos uniform, I'll collect it.. If not, I don't want it.. lol

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cool 42. My philosophy is if it says Brewers or the guy is wearing a Brewers jersey in the front photo, then it's Brewers card. But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not a team collector, but I consider the photograph to be definitive in determining what team it should be considered. So to me that Molitor is a Brewers card.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As a team collector I'd count all of these as Brewers. If I were sorting sets into teams rather than going by card number? Much much tougher on those transaction cards but I think I'd go with the new team.

    ReplyDelete