Today, we’ll continue with Challenge #20 Your favorite parallel card based on the parallel, not the player.
This was a fun, although challenging, topic. Oc course, if it wasn't challenging, it wouldn't be called a "challenge" right? But, the idea of liking a card because of the design as opposed to the player was an interesting concept. And, in this case not even the design. But, a parallel of that design. I couldn't think of a time where I chased a card because of the parallel and not because of it being a Red Sox card. Not a chrome version. Or a purple version. Maybe a snowflake parallel. That was close, but still not right. But, that didn't mean I couldn't come up with a "favorite" of all the parallels I happened to get.
That's when this card came to mind.
Anyone collecting in the nineties remembers these beauties. In 1992 Topps came up with a great parallel. A few few of the cards would be produced with gold covering the name and team banners on the bottom of the card. I don't remember the insert rate, but it was pretty low (or is it high?) even by today's standards. But, you had an additional way to get the cards. Packs had scratch tickets in them. If your ticket was a winner, you'd get one (some?) of the gold cards. But, a problem came from that. The scratch cards were thin. A flashlight was all you needed to see through the foil and know where the winners were. So, Topps was seeing all kinds of winners. Not only was that a supply problem, but it was weakening the appeal of the hard-earned gold cards pulled from packs. The solution? Cards from the scratch tickets would be marked with the additional "winner" designation. Sort of a shiny gold scarlet letter. It would tell the world that this card was somehow inferior to the regular gold cards. So, it was an unintended parallel of a parallel.
I don't remember sending away for any of these cards. I do remember getting a bunch at a yard sale at some point. I assume that's where this one came from. B then, I think the "winner" designation had the opposite of the desired effect. Instead of making them "inferior" I think they were making them "neato." It was something a little unique, and a swell story.
That's pretty cool, and a good reason to love this parallel.
Even if I don't care for the player on the card.
This was a fun, although challenging, topic. Oc course, if it wasn't challenging, it wouldn't be called a "challenge" right? But, the idea of liking a card because of the design as opposed to the player was an interesting concept. And, in this case not even the design. But, a parallel of that design. I couldn't think of a time where I chased a card because of the parallel and not because of it being a Red Sox card. Not a chrome version. Or a purple version. Maybe a snowflake parallel. That was close, but still not right. But, that didn't mean I couldn't come up with a "favorite" of all the parallels I happened to get.
That's when this card came to mind.
Anyone collecting in the nineties remembers these beauties. In 1992 Topps came up with a great parallel. A few few of the cards would be produced with gold covering the name and team banners on the bottom of the card. I don't remember the insert rate, but it was pretty low (or is it high?) even by today's standards. But, you had an additional way to get the cards. Packs had scratch tickets in them. If your ticket was a winner, you'd get one (some?) of the gold cards. But, a problem came from that. The scratch cards were thin. A flashlight was all you needed to see through the foil and know where the winners were. So, Topps was seeing all kinds of winners. Not only was that a supply problem, but it was weakening the appeal of the hard-earned gold cards pulled from packs. The solution? Cards from the scratch tickets would be marked with the additional "winner" designation. Sort of a shiny gold scarlet letter. It would tell the world that this card was somehow inferior to the regular gold cards. So, it was an unintended parallel of a parallel.
I don't remember sending away for any of these cards. I do remember getting a bunch at a yard sale at some point. I assume that's where this one came from. B then, I think the "winner" designation had the opposite of the desired effect. Instead of making them "inferior" I think they were making them "neato." It was something a little unique, and a swell story.
That's pretty cool, and a good reason to love this parallel.
Even if I don't care for the player on the card.
No comments:
Post a Comment