See Other Side for More Fun

In building my Frankenset, I made a rule fairly early on: the card had to qualify based on the front of the card alone. I wanted it to be apparent looking at the front of each card why it belonged in the set. I always thought this was a good decision, but wondered about those pesky card backs. Because there are some good ones out there. Where do they fit into the Frankenset world I have created? There must be a place for them somewhere.

Then it hit me. It happened a few weeks ago when I was looking at the gallery view on an early 90s Upper Deck set on TCDB. I was searching for card numbers that might fit my Frankenset, so I went to the gallery view to get a good look at the front of the cards. But right next to the front of the card is an image of the back. I noticed some really interesting ones and planned to go through some of my own that I already had to see what I could find. And what did I find? Plenty of material for ANOTHER Frankenset. A Frankenset just focused on the backs of the cards.

Now with two young children at home, I don't have much time for anything much less tracking and hunting down cards for another Frankenset, so I'm going to start slow. Here, I am going to feature some of the cards that inspired me to go down this path, in addition to some others I have found so far. Some of the cards fit the existing categories in my main Frankenset, but with card backs, you have more written material to work with, so there will be some new avenues to explore, which is exciting.

Two cards right off the bat that I really enjoyed were this Mickey Hatcher card and this Luis Polonia card where he is being harassed by, I am assuming, Lance Parrish's son. 

1991 Upper Deck #666, Mickey Hatcher

1992 Upper Deck #147, Luis Polonia

These are both fantastic. If you didn't catch it, Hatcher is experiencing a hot foot. The front of the Hatcher card also made it qualify for my regular Frankenset. Luckily I have two copies.

Another category I found was cards describing players in much too-glowing ways. I found this example fairly absurd:

2001 Topps #183, David Segui

Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols, David Segui. Umm...no. 

Then there was the flipside. Cards basically bashing the player's abilities in one way or another. 

1991 Score #153, Mickey Hatcher

There's Hatcher again. Ol' gray haired, bad kneed Mickey. At least some compliments followed.

Another fun one was Dave LaPoint ripping himself with a classic line.

1990 Score #357, Dave LaPoint

A body made for bowling. I can relate. 

A final category that I enjoy is random facts on the backs of cards.

1992 Topps #18, Greg Cadaret

Greg Cadaret enjoys Huey Lewis? Who doesn't?!

Another random fact comes from the 1991 Topps card of Mickey Tettleton, who I found out was nicknamed "Froot Loops" in researching a previous post. Now I know why.

1991 Topps #385, Mickey Tettleton

I'm looking forward to finding more of these diamonds in the rough, but it might take a while to put together a full set. I have probably about 200 so far, and don't have that many more cards to look through here at home. But like I said, I don't have time to work on it anyway! 

Unflattering Card Backs

Sometimes, I'll admit, I neglect to look at the back of the card. When you are flipping through a large number of cards in a dime box, for example, you just don't have time. If you like the front of the card, you set it aside in your pile. Done. That's it. But maybe later you take a closer look. Or if you have a player collection or a set in a binder, you might sit down one day and really soak in both sides of the card. (I'm not a double bagger on pages, so it's easier for me. Cue dissention in the comments section.)

My most prominent player collection is of my favorite Cub of all-time, Ryne Sandberg. He has a lot of great cards, because great players tend to have a lot of great cards. I think the companies generally spent more time creating better cards of better players. This is of course not always true, but I was recently looking at some of Nolan Ryan's late-career cards, and wow are there some awesome ones. Maybe that's a post for another day. 

So back to Sandberg. How to describe the greatest second baseman of the 2nd half of the 20th Century? (Yeah, I'm aware of Joe Morgan. And you know who Joe Morgan's biggest fan is? Joe Morgan. So yeah.) The card producers would have had a lot to choose from for Ryno, and they often used some of the following:

• 10-time all-star (1984 through 1993)
• 9-time Gold Glove winner 

Sandberg won these consecutively from 1983 through 1991. He also played full seasons at second base in 1992, 1993, 1996, and 1997. The Gold Glove winners from those years were:

1992 - Jose Lind (yawn)

1993 - Robby Thompson (can I use yawn again?)

1996 - Craig Biggio (worse fielding % than Ryno that year and yes, I know it's not just about fielding %)

1997 - Craig Biggio (not even in the top 10 fielding % that year)

• Gifted athlete (three sport letter winner in high school, stole 50 bases and hit 40 homeruns in separate seasons)
• Consummate professional
• Fundamentally sound 
• Dedicated to perfecting his craft at bat and in the field

With these characteristics in mind, the folks over at Fleer had a lot to choose from when they pictured Sandberg (the NL home run leader in 1990) with the 1990 AL home run leader, Cecil Fielder. I really like the front of this card.

1991 Fleer #709, "Home Run Kings" Ryne Sandberg and Cecil Fielder

So what did they choose to put on their the back of the card?

In case you missed it:

Seriously? That's the best intro you can come up with? I mean, yeah, the rest of the card is flattering, but really? And what does that even mean, "at ease behind an office desk"? Are his feet kicked up on the desk while he sips a cup of coffee and chats with co-workers? I picture the relaxed version of Ron Livingston in Office Space. It just strikes me as bizarre. I'm not really upset about it, so no worries.

Guessing the same person who came up with this write-up is the same one who chose that hideous yellow design. Maybe it was Phil? Hmm...

But don't worry, the makers of something called Sports Card Review took it to poor Cecil on a "card" made sometime before the 1993 season. It can only loosely be called a card because it is one of those lame productions from the early 90s that sought to speculate on the value of a player's cards and whether or not they were a good buy at the time. This "card" itself is flimsy and severely lacking in substance. In any event, here's the thing:

Fantastic use of Word Art on the front by the way. And you know what? Cecil had a pretty good year in 1993. So there.

I'm really not that crabby about this whole thing, but I think I sound crabby. Maybe I need a vacation.