Where Did National Chicle Go Wrong?

Yesterday I learned that the much maligned Topps National Chicle would not be making a return in 2010. It, along with T-206, would be effectively replaced by a new old set "Gypsy Queen."

I'm hardly broken up by the news--I was quick to lay blame on a National Chicle set that was an unbelievable disappointment and I've felt that T-206 was weak (again) as well. Still, I thought enough of National Chicle conceptually to make this comment on twitter:

I thought chicle had potential with a couple tweaks

And the more I thought about it last night and this morning, the more I really felt that to be the case.

I'm going to admit right of the bat that I don't know what it would have taken to make the set a success. There is a schism in the card collecting community where one group of collectors views cards as a subset of memorabilia, especially autographed memorabilia, and collects for that reason. There is another group that collects for team sets or full sets or generally appreciates cards for being cards and not as vectors for autographs or memorabilia. The result is an uneasy tension with card sets that Topps et al. doesn't seem to know quite how to balance. I potentially good set can be a commercial failure because of a bad autograph checklist. An often boring and crappy set can be a huge success for reasons that boggle the mind.

So instead of parsing those dynamics, I'm going to talk about what makes a set good, or more specifically, what made National Chicle not so good. I think that we'll find that it is the same things that made T-206 not so good, and what I think may make Gypsy Queen not so good, even with all of the fancy autograph announcements and such.

The cards look bad.

Isn't that the whole point? Cards are, in their way, little rectangular pieces of art. If I'm an autograph collector, I'm going to want my autograph to be on something that looks nice--there are enough signatures floating around there that it doesn't make any sense to go after an autograph that is on some stupid item.

With T-206 the full-size cards just looked crummy. I don't know if it was because the images where just filtered poorly through photoshop or if the no-hat concept just failed in execution, but every time I saw a full-size T-206 card it looked somewhat blurry or out of register or generally unappealing. Faithful replicas of T-206 they were not.

For Chicle the problem was more fundamental. The set commissioned artists to draw each card--a fabulous concept that I was really on board with. The point here was to make unique cards that looked good. The problem, unfortunately, was in execution. Many of the Chicle cards looked terrible, a problem that was as much the fault of the artists themselves as it was with whatever product manager thought that it was a good idea to approve certain paintings in the set.

It didn't help that the set got off on the wrong foot by showing us the stupid "Chipper Ruth" card, and the whole "show legends in the present day" bit fell way flat. As did showing rookies in classic rookie cards Those cards looked weird, and didn't fit in with the overall set aesthetic.

Sure, maybe the checklist was weak, but I'm not sure that was the case. Miguel Cabrera and Ryan Howard signed. Stan Musial signed. Buster Posey and Neftali Feliz are in the set--before they were Rookies of the Year no less. Sure, there were some unknown rookies and future scrubs, but have you bought any card product for the last ten years? That's how it goes. The set certainly doesn't need to live and die by its autographs if it has other things going for it. I think Allen & Ginter and Topps Heritage have shown us that.

The problem that I have is that National Chicle was immediately lumped into the "Retro" set bin, even though it had a chance to be fundamentally different. These were painted cards. They had a chance to be something.

But now, one year on, the set is dead. Maybe it's for the better, but I think replacing it with a different, and seemingly very ugly IMO, vintage set is a mistake. I mean, am I going to get a Sandy Koufax or Hank Aaron autograph out of Gypsy Queen? Of course not. Neither are you. We're all going to get Brent Dlugach v.2011 autographs and we'll be disappointed because we also have a bunch of stupid looking cards in our box that nobody cares about.

Chicle could have been better if they had just worked out the kinds. Get better paintings, for one. Eliminate the nonsensical subsets (throwbacks are fine). Expand the checklist so that we can get real team sets or a nice collectible set. Stop the artist autographs--nobody cares about those, or multiple parallel backs.

Simply said, can I just have a normal set someday that doesn't repeat a tired formula? Can I have something that is new and interesting in some way?

Can you just give me Topps Gallery again? That's what Chicle should have been.

Woah.

I just stumbled upon this little card while searching for something unrelated. I had no idea this even existed.



There were 25 copies of this made and somehow slipped under my radar when I put the gallery together earlier. Sure beats that Brent Dlugach autograph, doesn't it?

On the flip side, it is just another chance for us to experience the horrendous drawing of Cabrera, something that even an on-card autograph can barely salvage. It's too bad that the rumblings and grumblings are telling me that Chicle won't be back next year. It is one of those sets that could have really been great with a few improvements (see: better artwork choices), which you can only assume would have been worked out in Year 2.

Tigers Gallery Checklist: 2010 Topps National Chicle

Well, it took me about a month but I did it. I got around to picking up all but one of the cards that I want from 2010 Topps National Chicle. I must admit, that is a strange thing for me to say. Usually I'll take the following approach

Set X is released
I look at Set X and either like or don't like
If "Like" either Like Enough or Don't Like Enough
If "Don't Like Enough" keep cards as they come but don't actively pursue
If "Like Enough" Complete entire team set (excluding parallels).

With National Chicle, I changed the end game. I liked it enough (or thought that I would) to chase the team set, and decided that I'd go after the autographs and relics too. The one thing that I decided not to chase was the "Rookie Renditions" SP. I hate it. I think it is stupid. And it doesn't match the rest of the set at all.

So, that's what I mean when I say I've gotten almost all the cards I want. I could take or leave the Cobb SP, but since there are 8 base cards, he would make an even 9 and fill up a page nicely. I picked up the relics and autographs--not caring what kind of back variation they had and am now quite happy with how things have turned out.

This set was made on two things: On-Card Autographs and Hank Greenberg. Beyond that, the Tigers pretty much fail to impress.

Base Set I've talked about this ad nauseam, but the more I look at the cards the more flaws I find with the Tiger base set. I'm just going to flat out say it: It's not good. Sure, there are good bits here and there, but I'm really disappointed about how it turned out. I think the Tigers got the short end of the artist stick. The big exceptions are the Greenberg and the Kaline. The Porcello is pretty good too and everything else upsets me. sigh.

The one thing that I've said before and will say again: I hope that Chicle did well enough to warrant a 2011 re-do. I think that it has so much potential and has a uniqueness that is difficult to replicate. A mulligan could go a long way, especially if Topps decides to employ someone who has stricter design sensibilities and can nix some of the poorer artistic attempts.

As for the checklist: 8 base cards, 1 "Retired Stars Revisited" Short Print of Ty Cobb looking "Modern" with a helmet and batting gloves, 1 "Rookie Renditions" Short Print of Brent Dlugach in a card made up to look like Al Kaline's 1954 rookie card. It is stupid and horrible and I'm being to hard on it but I don't care.

#26 Rick Porcello by Mike Kupka	#40 Johnny Damon by Dave Hobrecht	#47 Brandon Inge by Jason Davies
#71 Miguel Cabrera by Dave Hobrecht	#85 Justin Verlander by Jason Davies	#206 Hank Greenberg by Brian Kong
#224 Al Kaline by Monty Sheldon	#271 Brent Dlugach RC by Paul Lempa	#287 Ty Cobb SP by Dave Hobrecht
#327 Brent Dlugach SP By Brian Kong

Relics There is only one and it is fantastic on all levels without exception. I love it so.

2010 Topps National Chicle #NCR-HG Hank Greenberg

This here version is the Bazooka Back (#/99) which has some nice paper-pulp granulations for that premium tactile experience.


Autographs They are On-Card, which is good. Really good. They include a picture of a deformed Brent Dlugach, which is bad. They also include Rick Porcello, which is good. His Bazooka Back version lacks sodium benzoate the same rich graininess of the Greenberg card. That's bad.
Update: There is a dual autograph Miguel Cabrera & Ryan Howard card that I just saw for the first time. Numbered to 25 copies, it is very nice minus the aforementioned horrible Cabrera drawing.

#NCA-BD Brent Dlugach	#NCA-RP Rick Porcello	#NCDA-2(?) M. Cabrera/R. Howard (#/25)

Why is the back different from the Greenberg? Why is the serial numbering in a different spot? All questions that are never to be answered (and don't really matter)


Inserts etc. The inserts in this set are basically non-existent. (YAY!) The only exceptions are the Topps Logoman continuity patch set that is running across all product lines and the set's oversized Box Topper Cabinet Cards. Ty Cobb has one of each.

2010 Topps Logoman Continuity LM-30 Ty Cobb (from National Chicle)

2010 Topps National Chicle #NCC-TC Ty Cobb Cabinet Card

And that's all she wrote! Close but no cigar. Good effort. Nice Hustle, and so forth. This is a set that had warning track power. It looked like it had a chance to knock one out of the park, but really, it was just a fly out. Hit the weightroom Chicle and you'll be able to get it over the fence next year.

Who's To Blame For National Chicle?

My worst fears have been realized. Even after I trumpeted the potential wonders of this set, and even after I asked for help on how I should collect it I finally have my Tigers team set in hand.

Sigh.

Sometimes, no matter what you do, you just get the short end of the stick. Sometimes, you luck out and miss it. In 2009 Upper Deck released a Goudey set full of washed out cadaverous freak cards. The Tigers were mostly spared, and for this the baseball card Gods were thanked. With 12 artists in National Chicle, you're bound to see a wide range of both styles and quality. Unfortunately, I think that the Tigers set falls just short of where I would have liked it to be.

I can't say I didn't see it coming, but I'm disappointed now that we're here.

But instead of blaming the Chicle release, or blaming Topps, I think that it is fair to blame the people responsible for the select number of letdowns and abominations in the set. As a former amateur and aspiring artist, I'm not one to hand down this criticism easily. But I think that there comes a time and a place when it is appropriate to say "I'm sorry, but that sucks."

So while National Chicle, the set, continues to be a very nice release on the whole, someone needs to bear the consequences of a relatively sad Tigers offering. Who's to blame?

Hobrecht
The number one offender in my opinion. There are 8 Tigers cards in the set (plus a Cobb SP still to be acquired by me). Hobrecht did two of them. The first you've already seen.

2010 Topps National Chicle #71 Miguel Cabrera by Dave Hobrecht

Cabrera looks as though his soul has been removed. His glazed over, out of frame focus suits lobotomy patients or is representative of the blinded by drunkenness crowd. For shame on you Mr. Hobrecht, if in fact that was your commentary on this card. In case you hadn't heard, we're not talking about that any more.

Am I being unfair to Dave for one bad card? Maybe. But as Wrigley Wax showed us, he was responsible for this card too.

Oof.

That's not to say that Hobrecht can't paint--JD's Wild Cardz clearly showed that not to be the case when they highlighted this card:

To call that card anything less the spectacular would be an understatement, but clearly that "A" game was not put into all of Hobrecht's work in this set. As for his other card, of Johnny Damon, it is a generally acceptable image, barring some slightly odd features. The most egregious part is the fact that he painted the WRONG D on Damon's hat (I'm pretty sure he got it wrong on Cabrera's turtleneck too). Still, this card falls in the "meh" range on the set.

2010 Topps National Chicle #40 Johnny Damon by Dave Hobrecht

But this is a whole lot of griping for me about just one card. Geez Dan, relax.

No.

2010 Topps National Chicle #271 Brent Dlugach RC by Paul Lempa

It must be really hard for Dlugach to play shortstop with a deformed midget arm. I am not a fan of this painting at all. Lempa seems to have issues with shadows and perspective. From JD's again:

Not so good, Paul. Also, I'll take this moment to criticize Topps here. Why is Dlugach in this set? (Twice??) He must this year's Mark Woodyard or Chris Lambert or Eulogio De La Cruz. If you don't recognize any of the names I just mentioned, it is because they were former Rookies that Topps decided needed billing across multiple card sets despite the fact that they weren't even on the 25 man roster and never had any impact on the team whatsoever. The card companies are rookie-obsessed, feeling obligated to make sure that each team has a rookie in a release, even when no qualified rookie exists. At least, that's my opinion on the matter.

With that, you've seen the two worst offenders in the Tigers set, plus a middle of the road Damon card. Out of an 8 card set, these are not particularly satisfying inclusions. It does get better, but even the cards that should be good have things about them that just screw them up.

2010 Topps National Chicle #47 Brandon Inge by Jason Davies

Human Fly Anyone?

And this one is just off, and not enough for me to really complain about, but I think that I at least need to mention the feminine eyes that Justin Verlander is sporting.

2010 Topps National Chicle #85 Justin Verlander by Jason Davies

Hmm...That one is Davies too. Listen man, it seems like you do good work and you get this close to making really nice cards and just screw it up a little bit at the end. Don't ever be a closer and you'll be fine.

But seriously, what's with this crap? Two Hobrechts and Two Davies? and a Lempa? Has it gotten to the point where I need to collect these cards based on their artists instead of the players? What do you think the Beckett Value is on a Hobrecht versus say, a Zachowski?

Anyway, I would have liked to have seen a little more diversity among Tigers artists. Out of an 8 card set, 6 artists sounds good, but with 12 to choose from it's really not--especially when the two repeats you have put out some of the lesser works in the set. I mean hey, I wouldn't complain if you had to give me a second Monty Sheldon

2010 Topps National Chicle #224 Al Kaline by Monty Sheldon

Ooh baby.

I will be posting a full Tigers gallery of National Chicle in the next day or two that shows off all the Tigers cards. This set really does look quite good, and some of the artists have done phenomenal work. I recommend reading posts from Cardboard Junkie, Wrigley Wax,JD's Wild Cardz and A Pack To Be Named Later (although no artists on that one) for plenty of images to give you a well rounded view of the set. In the meantime, we'll see if the Tigers grow on me, or if all is saved by the inclusion of a beautiful Brian Kong drawn Hank Greenberg relic that's on it's way to me.

Some Chicle Advice Would Be Nice

I'm in a bit of a pickle. From the scans I've seen, I like Chicle. No, I'm not going to make this entire post rhyme. I really am in a pickle.

This time.

Sorry.

So here's the thing: I'm collecting the Tigers team set, as I am wont to do for anything that looks remotely nice. See: Goudey, A&G, Masterpieces etc. The problem is that the Tigers have only 8 cards in the set. Of those, Cabrera and Dlugach are drawn horribly, and I'm hit or miss on the Verlander. We're talking about an aesthetic success rate that is under 65%.

Meanwhile, there are other cards in the set that I think are stunningly awesome. Seems to me as thought this is the recipe for set collection, right?

The last time I collected a set was 2008 Masterpieces. I bought two blasters and was so frustrated with collation (50% doubles in Blaster 2) that I just said screw it and bought the whole set on eBay. So I have the set, yet it holds little emotional weight.

Contrast that to 2007 Masterpieces, which I also collected "the old fashioned way" and have fond memories of. Still, even with the whole process behind me, it sits is a binder next to 2008, relatively unlooked at.

So the dilemma I have is one part "should I collect this set" and one part "geez, I can get the base set for $19.99 and I really like a lot of the cards, so should I just buy it?"

And honestly, I don't know. So for the moment, I need some advice from someone--anyone--who has seen these cards in person.

How are they? How do they feel? How do they look? Shine? Fall? Display?

The appealing part of this set to me is the original art variation throughout. It doesn't stand to get boring or monotonous throughout the course of the cards. The downside is that some of the cards are plain ugly, but if they are a minority I can get by it.

What I'd like to do is go out and buy a pack of Chicle to see for myself, but I haven't been able to do that yet. In the meantime, I'll just rely on the lot of you.

What do you think of National Chicle?

The Grand Scheme Knows You're Not Excited, But Doesn't Know Why

As Fun As A Kick in The Crotch Is that a pervasive malaise I hear among the collecting community? A Cardboard Problem was feeling it a month ago, I Am Joe Collector caught it, and Beardy is preaching it from the rooftops. The jist is this:

Collectors right now are bored.

I understand. Let's see. So far this year there have been the three "illegal" Upper Deck releases, only one of which was really exciting (Ultimate Collection) and is no longer really buyable because of pervasive counterfeiting.

There has been Topps, Topps Lite (Opening Day), Topps Jr. (Pro Debut) and Heritage on the other end. That is three of the same basic design and one of a rehashed design using the same formula for a decade. Recently, there was Topps Finest, which I thought looked snazzy as always, but failed to set the world on fire.

So people are cranky. And bored with what's out there. And not excited about collecting anything but stuff from the mid-aughts, or vintage things or what have you.

It's gotten so bad that eTopps was just listed amongst the best current releases and Beardy is already hyping up Gint-A-Cuffs II even though we're still months away from the next Allen & Ginter iteration.

These are Dark Times.

The Good Ol' Days I admit that I don't remember such a unified lull among bloggers at this time last year, but I'm not sure why. It's not like we were swimming in card-collector paradise. Just look at the release calendar.

February 4 - Topps Series 1
February 5 - Upper Deck Series 1
February 6 - Playoff Contenders
February 25 - Topps Heritage
February 27 - UD Spectrum
March 11 - UD First Edition
March 26 - SPx
April 2 - Topps Finest
April 16 - UD Piece of History
April 23 - Donruss Century Collection
April 29 - UD Goudey

That release calendar extends until the end of April 2009. In it we see two unlicensed products that nobody thought twice about (Playoff Contenders, Donruss Century Coll.), the unequivocally "meh" UD Spectrum, SPx--which people were ok with , the hit or miss UD POH and UD First Edition which not even UD First Edition's mother cares about.

With this in mind, it seems as though we are all going through a bit of withdrawl. Ask yourself this: were you really excited about Spectrum, or POH or SPx? No. You weren't and you know it. But they were something fresh and different and new to tide you over with a pack here or a pack there while you waited for something that you really wanted. The next big thing, as it were. In this case it was probably Goudey, or maybe something else.

So what are we to do, the masses seeking something to be excited about and with nothing new out there to feed our cravings, no matter how mediocre? Where is the excitement?

Get Excited It's coming.

I think, mostly because of the HUMUNGOUS INITIAL BACKLASH over the product previews, that people have written off National Chicle. If you are one of those people, you are a fool. Here are three reasons why (from one of Beckett's two galleries):

Oh, and there is a page of many, many more reasons why that have been posted in an unprecedented display of transparency to remedy the PR nightmare that was the initial preview of this set. This set not only replaces Goudey on the release calendar, it looks to me like it is going to surpass it in many ways.

Lest we forget:

1. Topps knows how to do vintage-y cards. They do them really, really well.

2. The #1 Biggest Complaint in the card industry since I re-started collecting has been the use of sticker autographs. These are all on-card and the initial checklist, if it stays intact, is strong.

This may very well be the first set that I decide to collect in its entirety since 2007/2008 UD Masterpieces. Why? The cards, by and large, look phenomenal. Sure, you'll get your occasional duds:

Of which I'm FURIOUS that these two players are made to look like brothers with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, thereby ruining, in my eyes, the best Tigers card in the set. There are others too, that are just not very good paintings. But they seem to be the minority. Taken as a whole, with a ton of preview images out there, this set looks great. Like, best set in a long long time great. Like, these are all hand painted and many of the images look as good if not better than UD Masterpieces great.

Yes, I'm annoyed by the Chipper/Ruth card. It is stupid. It is also just one card in a subset that I don't need to collect. Did I complain when 2008 UD Masterpieces featured Zombie Roy Halladay? No. It was what it was and I just turned the page and looked at my beautiful Evan Longorias and the like.

To me, the only question remaining is how will these cards look and feel when they are released? The only thing that I can see sinking this ship is a crappy cardstock choice or a bait-and-switch auto checklist and I think that Topps is too good at making sets like this to make that mistake (especially the former).

So Buck Up Suck it up folks. Quit moping. What is potentially the best baseball card set to be released in two years is coming out NEXT WEEK and there has been exactly ZERO hype for it. Zero. This passive-agression will not stand. Get on your computers, browse some images, see that box pre-orders are pretty darn affordable given two on-card autos and buck up.

I don't care if you buy any of these. I'm not a Topps shill. I don't even care if you like the cards or not. What I care about is shattering the illusion that there is nothing going on in the hobby and nothing to look forward to for months. There is and it's time that you start paying attention.