If there was an award for "Rookie Cardblogger of the Year," then Gellman of Sports Cards Uncensored would be a cinch to win it this year. You may not like his style, you may not agree with all his takes, but his blunt frankness and brutal honesty have been a welcome addition to the cardblogosphere.
For an example, check out this must-read post where he calls out the scourge of The Hobby and the guy who has single-handedly made the Beckett newsgroups unreadable for the last five years: "Joe Collector."
Normally, I do not comment about "Lotto Pack" products, but recent events have led me to reconsider. First, take a look at this video of 2007 Upper Deck Exquisite Football.
You get the idea.
Now it would be one thing if it were isolated to just 2007 Upper Deck Exquisite football. Maybe Beckett got lucky, maybe not. But if you look at some of Beckett's other video box breaks, they've seem to be getting "Hit of a Lifetime" cards out of all sorts of UD, Topps, and Donruss-Playoff products in all sports (and non-sports).
All of which leads me to wonder: W.W.J.D. What Would Jim Do? Say what you want about Jim Beckett, but no one (and I mean, NO ONE) ever questioned the man's integrity. Beckett truly was "The Hobby's most reliable and relied upon source," and part of that had to do with the man in charge. But no more.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Beckett (or anybody else in The Hobby media) doing video box breaks and product reviews. Objective consumer reporting is a vital component to any respectable journalism outlet. Nor should Beckett be held to account 100% for this debacle. Topps, UD, Donruss, et al, may very well be sending Beckett loaded boxes. (And it's not just Beckett either, as this video from Dr. Wax Battle shows.) Beckett probably is an unwilling accomplice, and we should give them benefit of the doubt. But Beckett should have never put itself in this position in the first place.
May I make a proposal? From now on, anyone in The Hobby media who reviews product should no longer accept free samples from card manufacturers, and the manufacturers should no longer offer them to the press. If you're going to review wax, and expect your reviews to be taken seriously, then pay for your box like the rest of us.
I'm proud to say that in my 9+ years of reviewing wax, I've never received any free cards from the manufacturers. And I can say to you with full confidence, that every single product I've ever reviewed on this site was paid for out of my own pocket at current market prices. I don't think it's too much to ask of Beckett -- or anyone else who reviews wax -- to do the same. W.W.J.D.?
I just got first issue of the new Beckett Sports Card Monthly in the mail today, and I have to say I'm it bit disappointed.
I understand why Beckett restructured their magazine lines. And I also understand the need to appeal to new collectors. But only one year's worth of prices for baseball cards? Come on!
And if that wasn't bad enough, still no pricing on any 2008 Baseball card products.
I'm signing up Beckett Baseball Plus -- or whatever they're going to calling it.
I'm sad to see the monthly mag go (especially since I've been a subscriber since '92). But the state of The Hobby no longer justifies a monthly single-sport price guide.
How does this effect current Beckett subscribers? I have no idea yet.
It may have taken them a while, but Beckett finally has a blog. From the looks of it, they're not really blogging about The Hobby, per se. But, as the title suggests, it's just a bunch of Beckett employees, blogging about the comings, goings, and absurdities of working in The Hobby Media.
Oh and one other thing. As any self-respecting Glengarry Glen Ross fan knows, Second Prize is a set of steak knives. "Third Prize is YOU'RE FIRED!"
I received the new Beckett (Apr. 2007) on Monday Mar 19th -- about a week later than usual. I hope this an abberation, but in the dozen years I've been a Beckett Baseball subscriber, I don't recall ever getting it this late. Am I the only one?
Nonetheless, I was very disappointed with this month's issue. I figured that the reason Beckett was late this month was that it was being held up to include pricing on 2007 Topps. Well, guess what set isn't in the new Beckett?
