The Infield Dirt with T.S. O'Connell

Free Updates

Let us tell you when new posts are added!

Email:

Click to subscribe via RSS

Navigation

Toy Trucker & Contractor

Categories

Search

More Links

Beautiful Balloons

Under the Hood

Monday, February 08, 2010

Next year I go back to Super Sunday channel surfing ...
Posted by T.S.

   Next year it’s going to be different. I’ve had a policy in place now for a long time that the television remote-control thingy gets put away every year at the Super Bowl, but no more. They’ve turned everything upside down: it used to be that the game sucked and the commercials were good, but not anymore.

   That was a damn good game last nite and I was rooting for a tie so we could have had a sudden-death finish. If anything would put some pressure on the NFL’s dumb overtime rule, having somebody win the Super Bowl based on a coin toss would be it.

   But a rare Favre-like moment for Peyton Manning shelved that idea as well – for the moment – and now I’m just left with a gala football game that’s come full circle. Started out as a football game 44 years ago, rather quickly devolved into a laughably silly capitalistic orgy and is slowly turning back into a football game once again.

(The Super Bowl has gotten pretty silly in 44 years, but the potential for the truly historic stuff – like Joe Willie's brash prediction of upset in Super Bowl III – means that the game itself is still important and nearly worthy of the hype.)

   Oh, the excess is still there, still silly as ever – old geezer rock bands at halftime? And I’m an old geezer! – but I think all that stuff is just tolerated because the underlying product, the championship game, still matters.

   All the sideshow stuff has kind of mutated into wretched self-parody, starting first, last and always with the overpriced commercials. I can’t even say decisively how it happened, but I do suspect that all the genuinely talented people who used to work on Madison Avenue have spied the bigger bucks available by simply waddling a bit further downtown. At least with the intriguing Super Bowl commercials you always had the suspicion that real creativity was being rewarded; I don’t share that fantasy when it comes to what happens in the financial district.

   So no longer will I shelve the remote control on Super Sunday. I am going to flit around the airwaves just as I do any other Sunday, hoping to find some billiards on ESPN2 while the NFL behemoths are swatting each other on the butts in the huddle.

   Still, I guess it’s an improvement to be disappointed in all the auxiliary foolishness rather than in the game itself.

Monday, February 08, 2010 3:57:02 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Dirty Harry at the Super Bowl would not be cricket ...
Posted by T.S.

   The arrival of Super Bowl Weekend got me to thinking about the most important NFL game I ever attended, the 1970 NFC Championship Game at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco.

   I’ve never been to a Super Bowl, but I can’t say that represents any kind of significant void. I’ve never been too interested in doing stuff just so I could say I’ve done it, and I suspect that all the corporate hoopla and then the silliness that envelops the game would simply annoy me if I were actually in attendance.

   But that 1970 NFL Championship Game was all business, and coincidentally turned out to be the 49ers last game at that quaint facility located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Park. Drat, but the 49ers lost it, messing up my plans to party in a city that had just won a major professional title. I’d missed the 1969 World Series entirely when my Mets startled the whole nation; I’d been in the Philippines for the whole year and then some. I wasn't technically old enough to drink (20), but a sailor in good standing could usually manage well enough on Market Street in that regard.

   So here was my chance and yet John Brodie & Co. came up a touchdown short. The only reason I’d even gotten tickets was somebody donated them and somehow I wound up being picked – along with a handful of others – out of the 3,500 sailors on the U.S.S. Midway to go to the game. I am pretty sure I didn’t do anything special to get the tickets; they must have been just randomly distributed to various divisions on the ship.

   I do recall that Kezar was a fun if unimposing facility, which I suppose explains why the 49ers were departing in favor of Candlestick Park.

   And I got a kick out of seeing the park prominently featured in the 1971 Clint Eastwood blockbuster “Dirty Harry.” That movie was fun because there were lots of location shots of San Fran places that I had frequented, including the weenie stand outside the bank where Harry Callahan was wolfing down a hot dog just as the bank robbers emerged.

   In the years following the 49ers exit, the facility gained a good deal of notoriety as an outdoor concert venue, hardly surprising given its close proximity to the Haight-Ashbury District.

   And so names like Led Zeppelin, The Doobie Brothers, Jefferson Starship, Joan Baez, The Grateful Dead, The New Riders of the Purple Sage, Carlos Santana, Waylon Jennings, and Neil Young were added to the Kezar legend.

   The facility was also used for a number of other pro sports, most notably soccer, but it was also the home field – if that’s what they call it – for the San Francisco Freedom of the Pro Cricket League.

   Jolly good.

Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:04:08 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

And still I am going to open a vintage cello ...
Posted by T.S.

   After blogging last week about a collector who got hosed (initially – he ultimately got his money back) by a bogus box of unopened 1971 O-Pee-Chee Baseball, I stumbled across a thread this week on the Collectors Universe Sports Card and Memorabilia Forum –

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=11&threadid=760774&STARTPAGE=1

that reminded me why unopened material has such power over collectors.

   The guy had a 1965 Topps Cello and for legitimate reasons detailed on the site decided he would open it. I could add that just wanting to open it would be an adequately legitimate reason all by itself, but there were other factors in play that made it an even less complicated decision than it might otherwise have been.

   With great deliberation and fanfare, the guy opened the pack and one-by-one scanned and posted the results, starting with the 1965 Transfer decal or whatever the hell they call those things.

   His process of unveiling the fruits of his undertaking was roundly and justifiably applauded by those on the forum lucky enough to take part in real time; I thought it was great fun even though I only took part in unreal time a few days later.

   I suppose the temptation for the uninitiated would be to call the results disappointing, since several of the best cards in the pack were off center, and I suppose from a pure economics standpoint that’s true. But we don’t know how much the guy had into it, though I suppose he probably would have done better to simply have left it in the GAI holder.

   Still, it makes me think there could be a good market for group purchases, like folks chipping in on large lottery ticket purchases on a weekly basis. I know this kind of thing has been going on for virtually the whole four decades of an organized hobby, but the Internet aspect adds a whole new dimension to the deal.

   I’ve got half a mind to buy a nice unopened vintage pack and then see how many colleagues want a piece of the action. This would be a nonprofit venture, simply for the sake of eliminating the pesky considerations that would involve.

   If 20 people ponied up $40 apiece, that would be $800, probably enough to pick up a really nice early 1960s cello. Following the format that the guy used for the 1965 Topps Cello, or something like it, we would open the pack and post the procedure online for all to see and enjoy.

   If we got lucky and nailed some specimens obviously in need of third-party grading, we would send them off and cross our fingers. Whatever the outcome, the cards would be offered either as a single lot or multiple lots in our next Collect.com Auction, with all of the proceeds going to the National Military Family Association.

   Just a thought.

Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:03:51 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [1]

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

And just like that, we find ourselves in court ...
Posted by T.S.

   Well, golly, that didn’t take long, did it? Major League Baseball Properties has filed suit against Upper Deck in Manhattan federal court alleging trademark infringement over the company’s use of MLB logos on trading cards without permission. “Let the games begin.”

   Sorry to be a couple of weeks premature with that exhortation, what with our Canadian friends readying for their two weeks of Olympic hospitality, but for collectors of modern baseball cards, things are about to get interesting.

   The immediate impetus for the suit was the recent release of a pair of 2009-dated Upper Deck baseball issues, Signature Stars and Ultimate Collection. We displayed a couple of Signature Stars cards on yesterday’s blog and intoned at the time that a lawsuit was likely on the way. No great talent for prescience was required to make that leap. The lawsuit also noted that Upper Deck was “on the verge” of distributing what it described as several other unauthorized card lines, an obvious reference to the company’s regular-issue baseball series, which is scheduled for release in early February.

   The suit said that Upper Deck’s cards improperly feature various sport and team logos and that some 2010 packaging featuring Derek Jeter may confuse consumers because of its similarities to authorized packaging used in 2009.

   “Upper Deck’s current conduct is reflective of a pattern of utter disrespect for the contractual and intellectual property rights of those from whom it licenses valuable trademarks,” the complaint said.

   In reporting on the suit, Reuters News Service also said that Upper Deck remains in default of more than $2.4 million it owes Major League Baseball.

   Major League Baseball reportedly seeks to halt sales of unauthorized cards and seeks triple and punitive damages.

   While the suit may seem narrow enough at first blush, the implications for Major League Baseball and indeed other professional sports as well are potentially significant. To my knowledge, the parameters of what is covered by league licensing of team logos and uniform indicia has never been explicitly defined in the face of a court challenge, and this in theory could open that particular Pandora’s box.

   But there would seem to be a big “if” there, too. Such a challenge to the basic underpinnings of the licensing provisions used in various forms by virtually all professional sports leagues would be so far reaching and potentially cataclysmic that vast forces would be marshalled against it. The legal maneuverings could take years and gobble up millions of dollars.

   The evolution of the baseball card business has a history of creating some odd bedfellows along the way, and I’ve got a feeling that if the federal courts don’t put this baby to bed right away, we could be in for a bumpy ride.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:01:26 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, February 01, 2010

Initial Upper Deck cards hint of lawsuit to come ...
Posted by T.S.

   I had my column for Sports Collectors Digest finished last Friday when the 2009 Upper Deck Signature Series cards arrived in Iola. The significance there is that even though the set is technically a 2009 issue, the cards, packs and even the box itself carry a pretty stark pronouncement about the brave new world of Major League Baseball cards. So I scrapped the original column and started over.

   With Upper Deck now without a license from MLB, the hobby is presumably getting a glimpse even with this 2009 issue of what the regular-issue 2010 Upper Deck Series I cards will look like. Each card carries the admonition “NOT Authorized by Major League Baseball,” which seems fairly unambiguous, but that’s about all

that’s really clear cut in this instance.

   The cards themselves make no mention of team nicknames, opting instead for city designations, and there’s no use of team logos as design elements on the cards. But as the cards shown here illustrate, there was seemingly little else done to accommodate the new licensing arrangement, unless you point to photo selection choices that apparently obscure or avoid entirely the team script across the front of the player’s jersey.

   But don’t take my word for it about the potential for litigation. Major League Baseball Properties issued a statement that Friday morning alluding to the two 2009 baseball card sets from Upper Deck that use MLB logos as part of the cards, despite Topps’ role as the exclusive licensee of MLB.

   “We are surprised and disappointed that Upper Deck, a former partner of ours, would violate our contract by clearly using our intellectual property without our permission,” said the statement issued by Matt Bourne, MLB’s vice president of business public relations. “We will vigorously use all legal means to protect the intellectual property of Major League Baseball and its member Clubs.”

   Multiple attempts to solicit comment from Upper Deck officials on Friday produced no response. Upper Deck’s Series I Baseball cards are scheduled to be released the first week in February.

Monday, February 01, 2010 9:33:51 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Odds and ends as our online auction closes ...
Posted by T.S.

Conlon.jpeg.jpg

   Our Collect.com online auction closes this evening, and if you haven’t visited it’s worth a couple of mouse clicks, especially if you’re interested in some cool, old-time lots that are more reminiscent of 1985 than they are emblematic of 2010.

   The lineup ranges from 1/4-ounce single T206 cards to a great big old monster of 60,000 cards or more, the latter being more than enough to exasperate the most genial of UPS types. I also spotted a couple of my favorite non-mainstream things, including a 1952 Topps Reprint set and two different lots of the incredible Conlon Collection cards from 1991-94. And no, you won’t be wrasslin’ with me: I’ve already got both those issues and at my age movin’ stuff out is a greater priority than adding more to the inventory.

   But I gotta admit I’m still tempted by both. I still remember when the 1952 Topps Reprint set came out in 1983: Whew! What an uproar ensued. Up to that time there had never been a reprinting done by the original manufacturer and the idea just scared by bejesus out of most everybody. Except me.

   I recall writing a letter to the editor of Baseball Hobby News (Don’t ask why I didn’t send it to SCD, because I don’t know and I subscribed to both at the time.), essentially telling all concerned to take a chill pill and that everything would be OK. For once, I was right.

   Fast foward another eight years and the Conlon Collection made its debut, and I was on board from the start. At 1,430 cards – if MLB hadn’t stepped on its crank in 1994 it might have gotten all the way to its intended goal of 3,300 cards – it is still the biggest set ever for a nationally distributed issue.

   That whole issue of 1,430 cards ought to be included in every significant public library in the country: the photos of the famed Charles Martin Conlon are that good. It bothers me enormously that such treasures could still be available at such modest prices, but that’s a function of the original issues having been printed at a time when the hobby was much larger and print runs – even of a non-mainstream issue like that – reflected that greater size.

   By 1995, with MLB trying to figure out how to recover from its self-inflicted wounds, Megacards had already dramatically scaled back the print run. The final series of 110 is typically much harder to find that the earlier ones, and much more expensive when you do.

   For some odd reason as I type this (10:30 a.m. or so), the two Conlon Collection lots are in inverse relation in terms of the bidding. As I read the auction description, both lots have all four series from 1991-94 (1,320 cards), but one lot also has 31 of the 47 Color Conlon Collection cards that were also issued over that period.

   Assuming overall condition matches, the lot with the added Color cards ought to be the more expensive of the two, but it isn’t.

   Check it out.

Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:28:14 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

With Dawson cap precedent, what about Vlad? ...
Posted by T.S.

   I have more fun speculating about Hall of Fame related questions than just about anything I do in my role as editor of Sports Collectors Digest. I have always contended that election to the Hall is one of the defining elements – if not the defining element – of a player’s collectibility.

   The fact that I am on the mark in all this speculation only about half the time discourages me not at all, though almost every time I swing and miss I ended up being mystified that I could have done so. A batting average of .500 would sensational for a ballplayer, but not so hot for a pundit.

   And so I own up to being 0-for-2 in the 2010 Hall deliberations. Though I believed him more than worthy of election, I had thought that the wide range of choices on this year’s ballot might have diluted his support enough to make Andre Dawson come up just barely short.

   Then, to compound my error, I theorized that while Dawson had reportedly indicated a preference to having his HOF plaque show him in a Cubs cap, the arc of his career suggests that it should be as an Expo.

   So far so good, but that’s when I stumbled. I thought that since he had apparently indicated a preference, that might sway the HOF decision. And I was wrong (or possibly his alleged preference wasn’t quite as profound as it had been suggested).

   Either way, he’s going in as an Expo, and that’s just fine and certainly the correct choice in terms of accurately reflecting his career. While I was typing this blog, the Hall of Fame's official annoucement showed up on my e-mail, so in the spirit of embracing all this online immediacy, I'll include Dawson's quote about the decision and that of HOF President Jeff Idelson.

   "I respect the Hall of Fame’s decision to put an Expos logo on my cap, and I understand their responsibility to make sure the logo represents the greatest impact in my career,” Dawson said. “Cubs fans will always be incredibly important in my heart, and I owe them so much for making my time in Chicago memorable, as did the fans in Montreal, Boston and South Florida, my home. But knowing that I’m on the Hall of Fame team is what’s most important, as it is the highest honor I could imagine.”

   And Idelson: “Andre Dawson’s Hall of Fame career belongs to every one of his fans, in every city across the country,” said Idelson. “The logo selection is only important from an historical standpoint, as the Museum has a responsibility to properly interpret the game’s history. Every Hall of Fame plaque lists all of the teams where an electee played or managed. Fans of ‘The Hawk’ in every city in which he played should claim Andre as one of their own.”

   And the announcement immediately prompted all the cyber chatter about potential headgear for folks like Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson and Vlad Guerrero. More fun when the time comes.

   In the meantime, I noticed that Vlad – easily my favorite modern player because he reminds me so much of the Great Clemente – has never won a batting title despite having a lifetime average of .321. Wow!

   Imagine, in this day and age of everybody swinging for the fences and massive dinero, a guy could have a lifetime mark like that without so much as one batting title. Nobody in the postwar era has a lifetime average that high without winning a batting title.

   And I used postwar as a cutoff because the batting numbers from earlier generations just don’t mean the same thing. You understand how that goes: kinda like the home run numbers from say 1996 to 2004 or so.

   Maybe that's a good reminder that baseball fans can – over time – learn to adapt and become reasonably comfortable with statistical anomalies. I think we are going to have to do just that.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:06:37 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [1]

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Buying unopened packs can be a risky business ...
Posted by T.S.

   An SCD subscriber sent me the picture you see here, illustrative of an ostensibly unopened box of 1971 O-Pee-Chee Baseball cards that he bought on eBay recently. As the image hints, the packs apparently weren’t all that uncirculated, and our subscriber ultimately got his money back.

   It’s perfectly understandable that a hobby niche with such a particular allure would be actively pursued by the unscrupulous, but it’s also worth noting that the kind of malfeasance portrayed here doesn’t always end up being quite so blatant and outrageous as having stats written in ballpoint pen on the front of a poor condition Cookie Rojas.

   As veteran hobbyists are aware, there are at least a couple of hundred “Christmas” themed rack packs that routinely circulate in the hobby that, while hardly as flagrant as the above-mentioned O-Pee-Chee ripoff, certainly raise a lot of eyebrows about their bona fides and lineage.

   The so-called Christmas Racks sell online and even in conventional big-time catalog auctions, with a wide spectrum of careful descriptions provided. The most reputable companies are more than a little careful in their catalog descriptions; the rest of the gang uses language that ranges from the awkwardly circumspect to the ridiculous.

   I get a kick out of some of the online descriptions, which in some cases exhort the winning bidder not to even consider opening the pack, noting that such an outlandish move would likely hurt the investment value. Translated: opening them would reveal that these are not uncirculated cards.

   There are plenty of hints about the questionable heritage of these racks, not the least of which is the selling price, which while not typically chump change is rarely in line with what you would expect to pay for uncirculated vintage material.

   Another telling point: the cards that are included in the racks are across several series, essentially unheard of in anything that Topps was involved in during those years (1952-63). If you need more, there’s also the curiosity of so many stars appearing in prominent “on top” position in the packs, frequently multiple Hall of Famers.

   If you need more incriminating evidence, there’s also the recurring theme of those very same Hall of Famers being substantially off center. Obviously, given all the off-center cards that Topps produced during that span, finding them in racks would be expected, but hardly in the kind of overwhelming percentages found here.

   I could add that a reasonable examination of the racks – I have seen several and looked at photographs of literally dozens – either screams or loudly mutters that these cards have some kind of a history in the hobby.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 4:15:12 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [2]

Monday, January 25, 2010

Topps and Upper Deck could be back in court soon ...
Posted by T.S.

   In last week’s issue of SCD (Feb. 12), I wrote a feature article about 1963 Fleer Baseball cards, and somewhere in the middle of the undertaking realized that I was seeing similarities to the current licensing situation involving Upper Deck, Topps and Major League Baseball.

   After Fleer launched its first attempt at a mainstream MLB card set in 1963, Topps promptly took them to court claiming that the cards violated Topps exclusive contracts with the individual players. The court agreed and 1963 Fleer was finished after a single series, and the playing field – metaphorically speaking – was abandoned to Topps alone for nearly another two decades.

   Now obviously any such comparisons are inexact by definition, but there are eerie parallels between the two situations. With the 2010 version of Upper Deck Baseball expected to hit the streets within a couple of weeks, the almost complete radio silence from Carlsbad, Calif. about what it’s going to look like prompts the following bit of speculation.

   With Topps now the exclusive licensee for MLB, Upper Deck was faced with the daunting prospect of figuring out how to produce a card set that doesn’t run afoul of restrictions on the use of team logos, colors and insignias, etc. While Upper Deck officials have been mum on the subject, and visits to the company’s website offer no hint about what the cards will look like, it’s at least possible Upper Deck’s “solution” could end up being responsible for all this nostalgia about 47 years earlier.

   Under the assumption that 2010 Upper Deck Baseball will portray MLB players in some fashion in their regular uniforms – perhaps with some nominal airbrushing of logos here and there to provide some legal fodder for a defense – it would seem that Topps (and MLB) might quickly file suit and set the ball rolling for a rough-and-tumble tangle in the courts between the two archrivals.

   This speculation – and that’s all it really is – fits well with the paucity of information available about 2010 Upper Deck product thus far. If the idea is to get the cards out there and significantly distributed before Topps legal talent can rain on their parade, Upper Deck’s handling of this precarious topic over the last several months makes perfect sense.

Monday, January 25, 2010 2:56:43 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [1]

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

How about a little help with 1958 Topps question ...
Posted by T.S.

   Here’s an admission you don’t get every day from hobby pundits: I am hardly the final word on virtually any topic you want to name in our beloved hobby.

   Being a member in reasonably good standing of the hobby press and having the kind of forum that Sports Collectors Digest represents in reaching avid collectors every week – or in online blogs virtually every weekday – may give a faulty impression.

   I have long understood that there are countless advanced collectors who have vast knowledge and understanding of their particular areas of expertise but simply don’t have the soapbox that others do.

   It is to these sages that I direct my question about 1958 Topps Baseball. After I wrote a story a couple of weeks back in SCD about that colorful issue, I got an e-mail from a reader asking if I was aware of the reason Topps selected that design that year.

   Easiest way to do this is just quote him directly: “You do know why Topps cut out the ballpark backgrounds and went to vivid colors for the 1958 set, right? Because they were all in, or from, Brooklyn, and they couldn’t bear the thought of the new cards depicting photos from Ebbets Field or the Polo Grounds (except where unavoidable, as in the team shots and the multiple player cards).”

   I was startled, because I had never heard that theory, and at least potentially mortified because I should have. But at my age mortification is rarely a big deal, so I called a couple of old-timers who made me feel a bit better because they hadn’t heard of it either.

   And so I called Sy Berger, in part because I always like finding excuses to call him anyway. When I relayed the theory, Sy said, “Baloney.” Which seemed fairly unambiguous. “No truth to it at all,” he added. According to Sy, the switch to the cut-out backgrounds – I’ll paraphrase here – was based on finding a contrasting style to the previous year where photos were left intact to show the ballparks.

   Sy’s pronouncement may or may not put an end to the discussion, but I’d certainly love to hear from any readers who had heard such a thing, including any attribution, however sketchy it might be a half-century later.

   Either way, I think it’s a great bit of hobby lore.

   And in a personal aside, I’ll wish the Bergers a happy 64th wedding anniversary. How cool is that?

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:33:19 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [1]

Free Updates

Navigation

Search

Archives

More Links