The gold border of the Topps set - I'm glad was moved to a parallel design in later years, it just isn't needed on a base card. Also, the 2005 Bowman is a decent basic design - I generally don't like/appreciate Bowman designs, but this one I can take.
These just aren't my "thing". I can appreciate that there are people out there that collect minor league cards, especially of people that went on to be stars, but it just isn't for me. In some ways, it just casts the collecting next way to far. Besides, I don't mind a solid base set, but when a card is numbered 2476, that's just ridiculous - oh, and don't worry baseball's 2008 Upper Deck Documentary series - you are unique and it should stay that way....
A couple posts ago, we had a nice McNabb football serial numbered insert. Today we get another card from the same insert set, but this one is of the gold variety - so numbered to only 400 - but also of a better (my opinion) player.
It probably stinks for Eli that at any family gathering, he still isn't the best quarterback at the table, but it does seem like he and Peyton have a good relationship, so it could be worse I guess.
Three new cards for the 2005 Classics set will be an highlight, as will the nice 2008-09 O Pee Chee insert. Again, have to mention the pictures on the Cliassics cards - so nice with the black and white kept in tact.
No offense to Joe Thornton who we saw not long ago on the other 2007-08 Upper Deck checklist, but Malkin is a step better (again, to me anyway) but both are nice with the multi photo fronts.
Best of the rest will be the additional McDonalds cards - some nice traders for anyone interested!
Through 3360 cards:
|- Complete 2007-08 UD McDonald's Checklist Subset (6 cards)|
|Inserts / Var Kept||105||7|
|Doubles Inserts / Var||25||1||42||47|
If I'm going to get minor league cards, I'd just go for the affiliates of the Jays and Expos.ReplyDelete
Speaking of which.. Nice Expos cards at the lead!
If the baseball set is like the basketball set of the same design, the Star Ruby cards fell less than one per box.ReplyDelete
I think you are correct. (Yay!)Delete