PRODUCT REVIEW: 2007 TOPPS CO-SIGNERS BASEBALL
by Dave Bartiromo, June 10, 2007

I almost didn't buy the '07 Cosigners. I saw the list of possible pulls and I figured that I'd just get a couple of common autos and nothing more. While I definitely did not get any life changing pulls, I can honestly say that for around $100 per box, it looks like you'll get good value from this product. I pulled the following signature cards from my box: Solo Sigs Carlos Quentin (the dreaded common sig), Cosigners Melky Cabrera / Curtis Granderson (average at best, but I am a Yankee fan so it's slightly better than average for me), and Rookie Autograph Troy Tulowitzki (better than average, I'd say). So looking at those autos, nothing spectacular and if it stopped right there, I'd be just a bit underwhelmed. However, I did pull a (non-autographed) Daisuke Matsuzaka card, which provide enough book value to make my purchase worthwhile. That's the positive. Let's move on.

The negative of this set is this: The inserts (other than the autos) are pretty much garbage. There are so many versions (numbered to 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, etc.) that the value of the serial numbered card has been dumbed down to almost nothing. This is happening throughout many different products. (Don't believe me? A 1/1 Alex Rodriguez from Moments & Milestones books only at $60.) And who's really pumping their fist when they pull a Milton Bradley / Mark Kotsay insert card serial numbered to 275? It ain't me, I'll tell you that. Plus, the look of these inserts is terrible. There's gold, blue, silver, silver blue, hyperplaid, gold hyperplaid, etc. The list goes on. Soon there'll be flannel, gingham, rayon, hypergingham, gold rayon, etc. They're abundant (despite serial numbers), confusing (so many variations) and ugly. Even the serial numbers stamped on the cards vary in type size. Cosigners is supposed to be a high tier product (not as high as Sterling and others like that, but higher than Bowman, Topps, etc.). The inserts should look like they're from a high tier product.

I'm probably not buying another box of Cosigners I'll sit here and hope my Dice-K rookie comes out at around $40 and that my Tulowitzki auto books at a reasonable number. I'll wait until Bowman Chrome comes out for my next box purchase (maybe) and I'll try to fill you in when that happens. Thanks for reading.

PRODUCT REVIEW: 2007 BOWMAN BASEBALL
by Dave Bartiromo, June 10, 2007

MUCH BETTER! That's the best way for me to convey my feelings about 2007 Bowman Baseball. 2006 was, in my opinion, a total mess. Quality issues and collation issues ran rampant in every pack of '06 Bowman. It appears as if those problems have been corrected making '07 Bowman a much better product than it's predecessor.

First of all, it's so nice that the players in each pack are not in alphabetical order. Packs contained what appeared to be a completely random sample of cards, not a group of players whose names begin with the same letter (as was the case last year). The decision to make the veteran player cards feature a black border while the prospect cards sport a white border...brilliant. This not only makes the cards instantly distinguishable, it also limits the chipping issues that often plague the black border cards. Let's face it, Bowman is about the rookies (and prospects). We don't care so much if the Nick Markakis card has a little chip of white showing as much as we would if, oh, ANY rookie card was in less than near mint condition out of the pack. Making the borders white really helps this cause.

It's still going to be a bear to complete the master set of Bowman cards, however. The autographed cards are inserted at a rate of one per box and in the one box I ripped (so far), the autograph was a parallel. That means I have ZERO autographed cards toward my master set. Note: parallel cards are nice but as a set builder I would have rather had the base version of that autograph.

I think that 2007 Bowman Baseball is a good price/value product. You pretty much get what you pay for, nothing less. The cards are sharp, the information would help with anyone's keeper league baseball draft and the rookies are prevalent throughout. All in all, Topps did a much better job with 2007 than with 2006. I hope they continue to improve on this flagship product.

HEY UPPER DECK, NO ODDS ON THE PACKS? I'LL BUY SOMETHING ELSE
by Dave Bartiromo, April 2, 2007

Am I the only one who is getting a little annoyed at Upper Deck for their decision to leave the odds off of their packs and boxes? What is commonplace for all other manufacturers (of baseball, football and other sports cards), Upper Deck has decided is no longer something they should continue doing. Shame on Upper Deck for making this poor decision. I was not so concerned in 2006, thinking maybe they'd try it, eventually going back to the old (better) ways in 2007 when they received enough complaints. No such luck. New 2007 Upper Deck packs and boxes indicate nothing of what you might get inside.

I see it like this: if I am going to spend my hard earned money on a box or pack of cards, I would like to be educated as far as what my chances are of pulling that autographed card or that game-used card. Without the odds, it may as well be a million to one. Topps, Donruss, and others tell me what my chances are! Why did Upper Deck remove this information from their products? I have been trying to obtain that answer for months now and no one seems to know. What I do know is that it was a poor decision. These cards don't cost 35 cents a pack like they did in the eighties (when there were no autographs or game-used cards inserted into packs), buyers need to know what they "could" pull.

Why write this today? I bought a blaster box of 2007 Upper Deck. The box didn't mention odds. The packs didn't mention odds. And, as suspected, I got just as many inserts as the box and packs said I would: zero. No inserts...not-a-one. Pretty sad, I think. It looks as if Upper Deck may have employed this policy so that they could insert less premium chase cards into their products while still maintaining the higher price point of old.

With Upper Deck's change, I'm leaning a bit more toward Topps, who, despite the photoshopped Jeter card, seem to be delivering a pretty nice line up of products in 2007. Boo on you Upper Deck. Put the odds back on the packs and boxes. Then, maybe I'll buy your products again.

2006 BOWMAN - QUALITY & COLLATION ISSUES
by Dave Bartiromo

It's a new beginning for Bowman. With the new rookie card rules set in place by the MLBPA, collectors were left wondering how Bowman would include the tremendous array of players in their 2006 set without being able to call them rookies. In mid-May the question was answered when Topps dropped Bowman 2006. Included as an "insert" set are the Bowman and Bowman Chrome "Prospect" cards that showcase the young players who will one day perhaps become the next big thing. Honestly, we all knew that Bowman was going to find a way to include these players. That has been the brand's bread and butter over the years and certainly it could not be disregarded just because of some new rule that was put in place. An easy way around the rule allowed Bowman to continue to showcase the youngsters that might become the next Pujols. And, while collectors are surely very happy that Bowman has not removed the prospects from their set, I would suspect that many of those same collectors (including me) are a bit dissatisfied with this year's Bowman product. Read on.

I busted two boxes of 2006 Bowman and the first thing I noticed (with the first pack) was that these cards are EXTREMELY condition sensitive. The black border seems to chip away if even a small breeze hits it. It's very difficult to maintain MINT status on these cards. Having said that, if you have one that's managed to avoid any chipping, you may want to send it in to be graded (even if it is only a Jacque Jones card). Look, I understand the nature of cards these days, however, we're not paying 35 cents a pack anymore either. These cards should not become damaged just by having removed them from the pack (which is, in many cases, what starts the black border chipping). Many Bowman collectors are also set builders. We want cards that are in good shape, not cards that we have to go back out and replace. To make matters worse, several packs included cards where the bottom right corners were bent. Perhaps some sort of packaging issue when the cards were boxed (the boxes were not damaged). Quality control is an issue here, as it was in Topps Series 1.

Condition is one thing. It's part of the nature of collecting baseball cards. However, the issue I am about to discuss is the one that really bothers me. Here are the veteran cards I pulled out of several separate packs of 2006 Bowman.

PACK 1: Travis Hafner, Torii Hunter, Todd Helton, Toby Hall
PACK 2: Andy Pettitte, Aramis Ramirez, Alfonso Soriano, Albert Pujols
PACK 3: Carlos Guillen, Carlos Beltran, Carl Crawford, C.C. Sabathia
PACK 4: Tom Glavine, Tim Wakefield, Tim Hudson, Ted Lilly
PACK 5: Jose Vidro, Jorge Posada, Jorge Cantu, Jonny Gomes
PACK 6: Mike Maroth, Michael Young, Mike Cameron, Melvin Mora

See any patterns? All the Toms, Tims & Teds in one pack. All the Mikes & Melvins in a pack, all the T names and C names in packs together. Are you kidding me? I have only listed six examples of this. It occurred in nearly every single pack. Collation of these cards is terrible. I remember when I would buy a pack of cards in the early eighties and, from the 792 card set, you had no idea what you'd get. It was mixed well. Now, if you get a Jonny Gomes, you know for sure that you're getting a Jose Vidro. I have to believe that Topps could have prevented this by randomizing their collation. No doubt when the cards are "sorted" for you already, it takes a great deal of fun out of busting packs.

Other issues. In only two boxes I obtained many doubles. MANY. I pulled two of the same Bowman Blue card (Francouer) serial numbered to only 500. I purchased these cards with the intent to build a set. Opening two boxes and getting over 50 doubles (of rookies, not just vets), is pretty disheartening. Sure, it offers potential. If Corey Ragsdale becomes a superstar, I have a pair of his cards, however, I am without another card that would have helped me finish the set. I'm not suggesting that two boxes should equal a set. I'm saying it should get you closer, not just provide you with extras. Each box includes one autograph. The base set autographs are featured on the Bowman cards (not the Chrome cards). They are fairly inconspicuous and other than the serial number label on the rear, do not feature any identifying characteristics. In fact, because even the regular cards possess the facsimile signatures, it's possible that you might "miss" a real signature on a card if you don't look closely. I'm sure that when Bowman Chrome comes out, we'll see the signatures on the chrome cards and that's why Topps didn't go that route here, but I ask…why not? Two Bowman Chrome cards are included in each pack; why not allow them to be signed? They would have looked better and they would have been somewhat immune to the condition sensitivity that is sure to plague this set.

I like Bowman a lot. It's a brand that has never failed to disappoint. When Topps Chrome falters after three weeks in release, Bowman and Bowman Chrome continue to shine. However, especially in light of the fact that there is less for the collector to choose from these days, it would have been nice for Topps to have done a bit better with this product. I suspect that these issues won't matter too much to the casual collector. The product features scores of "rookies" and will be a strong seller into the Summer as fewer products are available. It's just as shame that it couldn't have been better.

2006 TOPPS BASEBALL FAILS TO IMPRESS
by Dave Bartiromo

It was supposed to be the beginning of a new era in baseball cards. Only Topps and Upper Deck would be producing baseball products this year and the first of these offerings, 2006 Topps Series One Baseball was set to be the engine on the new hobby train. Engine stalled. Several quality issues plague the new product, which otherwise features are rock-solid design with super photography. It's hard to believe that after so many years of producing cards and now with all eyes on Topps (and Upper Deck) that the Duryea, PA behemoth would release a product laced with concerns.

Take a look at the date on this Barry Bonds Home Run History card. See something amiss? Bonds hit this home run on 09/20/105. When exactly might that be? This is not the only Home Run History card that has the year 2005 shown as 105. All the Bonds HRH cards that I pulled featuring home runs hit in 2005 indicated the date in this erroneous format. Aren't we beyond this sort of thing? In fact, these Bonds cards are supposed to wind up being a chronicle of (potentially) the breaking of the biggest record in sports. Perhaps Topps could have checked the printing plates for accuracy?

Card #145, Troy Glaus. He's one of the Blue Jay's 2006 keys to success. However, take a closer look at the stats on this card: . According to this card, Glaus played 24 games at Columbus, the triple-a affiliate for the New York Yankees. During those games Glaus hit a robust .333, had an OPG of .942 and then went on to play for the Diamondbacks later that season. It all sounds nice but the problem is, from what research I have done, it never happened! Trust me, I'm a pinstripe-bleeding Yankee fan and I would have heard if the Bombers added Glaus, even for a minute. So, the likely problem here? Either the stat line from Columbus should have been on another player's card or Topps doesn't know where Glaus plays. I'd like to think it's the former, but either way, who reviews these stats before they are printed? This is pretty poor quality control.





How about the "missing" card #297 Alex Gordon. Because Gordon is not Rookie Card eligible under the new Rookie Card guidelines, his card was pulled prior to the release of the product. I am quite surprised that Topps was only made aware of this at such a late time in the manufacturing process. You'd think something like this would have been cleared up when all the other rookie card players were being verified for the new rules. But then, to make matters more interesting, an Alex Gordon #297 has been pulled! According to Beckett.com, Ken Fisher of Bloomington, IL has found the only (so far) intact Alex Gordon card. So it was pulled, except for one? Sounds quite fishy to me.

So there you have three pretty good examples of how Topps failed to maintain high quality standards in what can only be explained as a rush to release the first new baseball product of 2006. I'm still building the set and I'll probably build Series 2 as well. I like to put the Topps sets away for my son. It would be nice, however, if the Topps quality I've grown accustom to manages to return before Pujols winds up in a few games for Pawtucket.