Fisking the Latest UD Press Release.

I was already to write about my visit last night to the tenth circle of Hell (a.k.a. New York's Citi Field), when I get this e-mail from Upper Deck...

"Upper Deck pays tribute to ‘The Kid’ by producing 20 different versions of his base card to commemorate each year of his MLB career."

Now if I were a Griffey super collector (which I'm not), this headline might as well read:

Upper Deck screws over fans of ‘The Kid’ by producing 20 different versions of his base card to commemorate each year of his MLB career; yet is only bothering to announce this cruel gimmick now, almost a month after the release of 2009 Upper Deck Series Two.

What do you say we have a little more fun with this press release, huh?

---

"North Las Vegas, NV (June 10, 2009) – Collectors began noticing something different as they put together their 2009 Upper Deck Baseball sets: not every version of card No. 855 of Upper Deck spokesman Ken Griffey Jr. looked the same. Truth be told, Upper Deck produced 20 different versions of Griffey’s base card depicting Junior during every year of his MLB career. The images, stats and text on the back of the card correspond directly to the year that’s featured."

In other words, UD is doing EXACTLY what Topps did ten years ago when they made 70 and 66 different versions of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa's base cards -- only instead one for each home run, there's one for each of Junior's seasons. And we all remember what that led Topps to...

1) Repeating the gimmick with Barry Bonds and his 73 homers.

2) The Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, and A-Rod Bullshit Home Run Wastes of Space.

3) The debacle that was Generation Now and the travesty of Moments & Milestones.

The fact is, this whole let's-make-multiple-different-variations-of-the-same-card isn't really all that new. To see UD recycle a gimmick that collectors have already rejected is pretty sad, and speaks to the imagination (or lack thereof) of the current baseball product development team.

“`It’s important for us to continue to look at ways to make the regular base card interesting to collectors,' said Gabriel Garcia, Upper Deck’s associate baseball brand manager."

Because it's not like collector's don't want a well-designed, well-structured flagship card set anymore. Right?

Hey Gabe, you want to make things "interesting to collectors?" How about, instead of investing UD's time and resources into gimmicks, invest it into QUALITY CONTROL! Like, oh, I don't know, NOT PUTTING 47 MIS-CUT CARDS IN A WAXBOX. Or how about, PUTTING ALL EIGHT PACKS INTO THE BLASTER BOX! Maybe then you won't need to debase yourselves with gimmicks.

“`By creating different versions of Griffey’s card to commemorate his illustrious career, we hope to have people go back through their collections to see which versions they have and to hopefully put together the entire 20-card set'."

Does Upper Deck really, really, their customers are dumb enough to fall for something this? Does Upper Deck have any shred of respect for The Hobby at all? Do they have any shred of dignity for themselves?

"Since we did not announce this, it’s been interesting to see how quickly collectors picked up on it and how well some of these cards have been selling in the secondary market.”

Because, God forbid, you actually tell collector's what is actually in your product before you sell it to them!

Much virtual ink has been spilled on this blog, and others, on Topps' stealth gimmicks from last year. And although they've continued with the base card variations, Topps has at least given The Hobby the common courtesy of announcing what is in the product, before it goes live. (And no, do not interpret that last statement as an endorsement of the Legends base card SPs in 2009 Topps. They're still stupid and pointless.) Why can't UD do the same?

While no version is more limited than another, the cards are limited in nature and should be considered short prints.

Let's deconstruct this sentence, shall we? If "no version is more limited than another," than should they really "be considered short prints?"

Here's a novel solution: STOP MAKING BASE CARD VARIATIONS. Your target audience hates them. One card, per player, per card number, AND THAT'S IT.

Remember when "Baseball Cards" had, you know, *BASEBALL* players on them?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you this year's "Poley Walnuts."



And yes, this is an actual card that will be inserted into '09 UD2 packs.

One year ago, this happened.

Looking back one year later, it still amazes me that somebody at Topps thought this was a good idea.

Insulting Our Collective Intelligence, One Gimmick at a Time.

The sad thing is, someone at Topps has convinced himself that collectors actually want these gimmicks.

Seriously, Who Cares Anymore?

It's like they're not even trying.

(h/t topps-heritage.com)

The Final Word on the Topps/Wal-Mart Kerfuffle

So yeah, I was wrong. It turns out it was a gimmick after all. In addition to the stealth "Black" cards in Wal-Mart Blasters, there will also be a stealth "Throwback" version of 2009 Topps that's exclusive to Target Blasters. The plan was to release both versions in April, but Wal-Mart jumped the gun and released them a month early.

The Cardboard Junkie has, as usual, expressed the opinions of many Hobbyists. Most of what I wanted to write, he already covered, so I won't pile on.

I will leave you with this. If Topps, Wal-Mart, and Target got together to create a special-run exclusively for their stores, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem was the bait-and-switch.

If a collector purchases a Blaster of 2009 Topps Baseball, he/she has the expectation of receiving 2009 Topps Baseball and not a stealth parallel set that he/she was not aware of -- and probably doesn't want anyway. It really is like buying a can of tomato sauce and getting diced tomatoes instead.

And another thing. Is it really too difficult for the card companies, big box retailers, and distributors to, you know, actually tell us what's in the product before we buy it? Or am I asking too much?

Why the Wal-Mart Black cards are not a gimmick. (I think)

In 1997 Pinnacle Brands released the third edition of their popular Pinnacle Certified Baseball set. The set had been highly anticipated by collectors as it was one of the first sets to exploit the low-numbered parallel concept. At a time when a card serial-numbered to 5000 copies was still considered "scarce," '97 Certified had three different parallel sets limited to under 100 copies: Mirror Red (limited to 90 copies), Mirror Blue (45 copies), and Mirror Gold (serial-numbered to only 30). The '97 Pinnacle Certified Mirror parallels raised the bar (or lowered it, depending on your view) and established the benchmark for scarcity.

But when '97 Certified went live, some collectors noticed something peculiar. They looked like a base card, but it had the "refractor-like" sheen of a Mirror insert. Collectors had accidentally discovered the now-legendary Mirror Black parallels, and as reports of them began to surface on the Beckett Message Boards, many were led to believe that these cards were a "stealth" one-of-one parallel.

Only it wasn't. Pinnacle later admitted that the Mirror Blacks were printed as part of a test run and inserted into packs as a mistake. (They weren't even ones-of-one as at least two Jay Buhner and Juan Gonzalez Mirror Blacks are known to exist.)

Fast forward to 2009 and the news that some base set cards being pulled out of 2009 Topps Wal-Mart Blasters have black-borders. Given Topps' recent history, many collectors have (rightly) called shenanigans. However the Wal-Mart Blacks, just like the Mirror Blacks of 1997, may very well be legitimate error cards.

Why do I believe this? Let me count the ways...

1) The coloring

If Topps was to produce a special edition of their base set, why would they choose the same color as one of their established parallels?

2) The scatter-shot distribution

Some Blasters have yielded nothing but lack base cards. Some have yielded nothing but white-bordered base cards. Now if Topps really, really, did produce a parallel that's exclusive to a particular pack-type, wouldn't it have made sense for them to distribute them a little more evenly? (i.e. one-per-pack)

3) Bad P.R.

With all the goodwill Topps has earned with their 2009 effort, why would they throw it all away with a gimmick like this?

More than likely what happened was redux of the Mirror Blacks -- only on a much larger scale. When the time came to produce the Wal-Mart Blaster packs, Topps (or the sub-contractor who printed the cards) made a mistake. A number of black-bordered cards were accidentally produced, and instead of throwing them away, they decided to pack them out as a Wal-Mart-exclusive "Special Edition." In other words, Topps is trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

But hey, I could be wrong. If Topps really did collude with Wal-Mart to create a "stealth" parallel, and failed to inform anyone until after the fact, many collectors will never, ever, purchase a Wal-Mart Blaster again.

Finally, an explaination of those Black Bordered Topps base cards.

Ripped-and-posted directly from Topps.

"Topps is confirming that it randomly inserted special “BLACK” cards (the entire front of the card is black except for player image) in 2009 Topps Baseball Series 1 $19.99 value boxes found at Wal-Mart.

"The exclusive limited edition set includes each of the 330 subjects found in the 2009 Topps Series 1 Base Set."

And now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

How To *Properly* Do A Single-Card Insert

This is what makes the David Price gimmick card so frustrating. With this card, Upper Deck got it all right.



It has a different design from the base set, not numbered as part of the same, and was announced on the checklist before the product's release.

It reminds me of those way-cool SP cards that UD did in the early-90s.

And now, a Special Comment.

As someone intimately familiar with the worlds of politics, sport, and the collectibles of the same, I can say with only the utmost certainty that each is populated with the same villainous archetype: the furtive, pusillanimous but ultimately cocksure abusers of power bent on the realization of any goal, no matter how dastardly, at any cost, no matter how inimical.

By now, on this their twentieth anniversary, we know it to be too true of a certain sports trading card company, controlled and cruelly engineered as it is by a Senior Brand Manager named Jason Masherah.

[Shakes head in disgust]

But we find it all too evident in The Hobby as well, where only the truly elite collectors can achieve the ultimate prize, there underlies an ugly truth. As we were raised with the fiction that any man could grow up to be president, we now have learned that only those capable of backroom eBay dealing and deception can possibly collect a full base set of 2009 Upper Deck Series One baseball.


This previously un-announced David Price gimmick card - arrogating a persona which bespeaks liberty, valor and righteousness - in reality stands in a decided, deceitful, calculated counterpoise.

You, Mister Shaderah, sir, were quoted by Beckett that "This (David Price) variation will help create some additional interest without compromising the integrity of the base set.”

[Looks up at camera]

Additional Interest?

Without compromising the integrity of the base set?

Have you not learned the mistakes of your rival and their misadventures in similar gimmicks? Did your tin ears not hear the outrage that blossomed across The Hobby at the Johan Santana fake no-hitter card? Or the "Jon" Smoltz variation in last year's Topps Heritage? The upside-down Evan Longoria rookie card in TU&H?

Did the anger over Kosuke Fukudome, Kazuo Uzuki, and Poley Walnuts not reach the echo-chambers of 5909 Sea Otter Place?

[Looks across at camera]

The answer to that question is obvious, and as such, we the collectors ask of you in reply:

WHY?

Why do you feel the need to do this?

Do you really think baseball card collectors, the people who pay your salary, and without whom this industry would cease to exist, are this guillible? Do you have any respect for your best customers? Do you even care what collectors actually want anyway? Judging by recent UD baseball releases, I think we all know the answer to those.

[Pounds fist on desk, shaking head in disgust]

If you, Mister Masherah, sir, are reading this, I will give you the same advise I recently gave to your competition. Follow closely, and take note if needed.

SHOW SOME FUCKING RESPECT FOR THE HOBBY, FOR COLLECTORS, AND (most importantly) FOR YOURSELVES! Cards like the stealth David Price variation, are slowly gimmicking away two decades years of history and tradition, and for what?

Is it too hard to tell us, your customers and the people who pay your salary, EVERYTHING THAT IS IN YOUR PRODUCT BEFORE YOU RELEASE IT? For some reason, you did that with the Joe DiMaggio and Jordan/Griffey cards -- both of which are listed on the upperdeck.com website. But not the Price variation -- until now.

[Looks up at camera]

I leave you with this, if the main drawing card (no pun intended) of a particular product (any product) is a gimmick, then what does that say about the rest of the product?

If you, Mister Shaderah, sir, continues to feel that Upper Deck's annual flagship needs a gimmick, then what does that say about the rest of Upper Deck Baseball?

And so this ends Stale Gum for this, the 11,266th day I've been actively collecting baseball cards. Good night, and good luck.

[Crumbles up script into a ball and tosses it at the camera]

(inspired by, and portions of text ripped off of, KSK)

We Have A Winnah...

Russ of The House of Cardboard, congratulations. You're a winner.



(h/t Hand Collated)

I Spent $15,000 on Yankee Tedium Lunacy Cards...

... and all I got was this lousy baseball card.



Yeah, I'm jealous.



And yeah, Yankee Tedium Lunacy is still stupid.

Guess That Gimmick!

We're just a few weeks away from the first series of 2009 Topps baseball. And we all know what that means....

So what do you say we have some fun with it. In the comments, take a guess what the gimmick in 2009 Topps Series One is. If you can accurately guess what it is, you'll win...

... something. (Prize to be determined at a later date.)

START GUESSING, DO IT NOW!

So, what is this?

Ummm, nevermind. (UPDATE #2)

UPDATE #2: A second upside-down Jay Bruce RC has shown up on eBay; however, no other gimmicks the likes of which we saw in Topps 1 & 2, A&G, BowChro, or Heritage have yet to appear. All of which leads to the question: Should I consider these gimmick cards? Stealth variations? Or actual error cards?

Or do you even care either way?

---

UPDATE: The Cardboard Junkie thinks that these two error cards may not be legit. After further review, and until more of these begin to make their way onto eBay, I yield to The Junkie's judgment.

---

Well, that didn't take long.





(H/T Holy Hitter of SCU)

Why I Have No Problem/A Huge Problem with the Topps Sarah Palin Card(s).

I guess it was inevitable -- especially after yesterday's announcement that UD will insert into SP Authentic parody cards of the VP candidates -- that Topps would include into Updates & Highlights a Campaign '08 insert of Sarah Palin. Many of you may be surprised to read this, but I have no problem with it. If only to provide "closure" to the set, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate serves a purpose and is a welcome addition to '08TU&H. (For the record: A Campaign '08 card Joe Biden was inserted into Series One packs.)

And an "attah-boy" for giving The Hobby a heads-up with a press release. The only thing that has been worse than Topps use of "gimmick" cards, has been the lack of transparency concerning these cards. Card companies have an obligation to inform collectors as to what exactly is in a product before he/she buys it.

With that said, there is one thing that really, really, annoys me about the Sarah Palin Topps insert. It's this....

Topps is going to produce not one, but two different Sarah Palin inserts. The more common one will feature the hockey mom/governor we've all come to know and love. (At least that's what Topps is infering, as they've yet to produce an image of what this card will look like.) The other, more scarcer one is, this, thing.....

Seriously Topps: WTF? None of the other candidates have had two cards, so why start now?

And why just Governor Palin? If Topps is going to start making gimmicked inserts of the candidate's previous indiscretions, then dammit Topps be consistent! I WANT A CARD OF OBAMA WITH A ROLLED-UP $100 BILL UP HIS NOSE! I WANT ALL FIVE OF THE KEATING FIVE! I WANT A JOE BIDEN/NEIL KINNOCK DOUBLE CUT-SIGNATURE AU! (Maybe those are the stealth gimmicks of '08TU&H?)

So, thumbs up to Topps for Sarah Palin: Governor of Alaska; thumbs down to Sarah Heath: Miss Wasilla 1984.

And Topps, Meanwhile, Continues Its Grim Slide.

Here we go again with another "Chris bitches about the latest Topps bullshit gimmick" post.


Another Topps product, another bullshit gimmick card. Who cares, right?

I'm curious to know (and for all you dealers out there, I'd appreciate your feedback), if the gimmicks really have stimulated demand for Topps wax. (Or not?)

And for all you Favre collectors (why you'd be reading a baseball card blog, I don't know), does this make you want to go out and rip a wax box of 2008 Bowman? Or were you planning on buying (or not buying) a box of Bowman anyway?

UMMM, IIIIII..... WANT TO HEARRRRR...... FROM YOU CARD COLLECTORS!!!!

SHOW ME YOUR LIGHTNING BOLT! GIMMICK CARDS!

(Rome Clones may, or may not, get that last reference.)

If you actually believe that this isn't a gimmick, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

I suppose that it's apropos that on the day my boycott of Topps begins its fourth month, that this story breaks.

I don't know how Trader Crack and the Orlando Sentinel found this out before I did, but Topps has come up with an explanation regarding the Kosuke Fukudome Bowman Chrome "error" card.

Recall, that this is the KosFu card that appears to have been designed for Fukudome to autograph as A) it has no facsimile autograph on the front; B) the "CERTIFIED AUTOGRAPHED ISSUE" logo that has been on just about every Topps autographed card for the last decade is printed on the front, and C) a white box with the words "NOT VALID WITHOUT STICKER" is on the reverse side. Of course, there is no autograph on the card.

(The "Not Valid" box is where the now-familiar black hologram sticker Topps uses for authentication purposes on autographed cards and some gamers. If you have one of these cards and peel off the sticker you'll see the "NOT VALID" phrase.)

The party line is that Topps "inadvertently inserted a Bowman Chrome Kosuke Fukudome Autographed Rookie Card (which is not autographed) into packs of the recently-released 2008 Bowman Chrome Baseball. A total of 1900 copies were issued. Fukudome is not a subject on the Autographed Rookie Card checklist nor was he ever solicited as one."

If all this is true, then it begs these questions: If Topps never had intended to include an autographed KosFu BowChro card, why did they produce a card that appears to have every intention of being autographed by KosFu? And why did this card magically appear in packs of BowChro? And why did Topps wait until two weeks after BowChro's release to notify The Hobby about this card? And how do they know exactly how many packed out?

I'm taking this card out of the "Honest Mistake" column and into the "Bullshit Gimmick" one.

(Images lovingly ripped off from the Orlando Sentinel)

For the final time...

This is a legit error card.



This is a gimmick card.



And this... The jury is still out on.



Got it? Good.

The gimmick that blew up in Topps' face.

In the matter of 24-hours, this card went from yet another merely ridiculous gimmick, to an embarrassingly stupid gimmick.

Credibility, schmedibility.

Gimmickry to the Tenth Power

Well, I guess it was inevitable. Rather than one gimmick card of a non-existent player, or a card of a player commemorating a non-existent milestone, Allen & Ginter has a whole team's worth of non-existent bullshit!

Randomly inserted into packs are a ten card set of fake 19th Century players called "Team Orange." Apparently, this Team Orange has something to do with that equally idiotic "Crack the Code" promotion.

I already know what you're thinking: "Who the fuck cares anymore?"

---

And in a related story, the continuing boycott of all Topps baseball products by famed card collector and cardblogger Chris Harris is about to enter its third month.

Still "On Notice"

I have in my formerly nicotine stained hands (crunch, crunch, crunch) a press release from Topps. It appears that the 2008 Topps baseball factory sets will have a "bonus card" of Koskue Fukudome. Whether or not this "bonus card" will be numbered as part of the base set -- and therefore a true "rookie card" -- is unclear.

So let me get this straight. Topps posted to their website (and it's still there as of 7/14) that the second series of Topps baseball WOULD have a Kosuke Fukudome rookie card. Then, they pull the card at the last minute without bothering to tell anyone until after the fact. To add insult to injury, they stealthily insert into packs a gimmicked Fukudome card, and now they're finally getting around to issuing a Fukudome rookie (we think), but only in factory sets.

What a fustercluck.

If you're a collector, you have to be asking yourself: "Why did I buy those 2008 Topps waxboxes, again?"

And if Topps is going to pull a stunt like this next year -- and given their recent actions, you know they will -- why would anyone collect next year's Topps baseball?

Topps, it's because of crap like this I haven't bought any of your products in seven weeks. With this (and other) actions, I don't see myself collecting Topps anytime soon.

You are still "On Notice."

He's at it Again...

Take one guess as to who paid $401.99 for the Johan Santana fake no-hitter gimmick card?



(h/t bdj610 via Olbermann Watch)

Card #4

Well jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, get a look at this!



It's Kosuke Fukudome's first Major League Topps card! Of course, its STILL NOT A REAL ROOKIE CARD, but who cares, right?

OBTW, the checklist on topps.com still lists card #645 from the 2008 Topps baseball set as a non-existant Kosuke Fukudome RC. The boycott continues until the gimmicks and deceptive marketing practices cease.

This Just In from Our Irish Newsroom....

... Jay Bruce is the first of Topps "Red Hot Rookie" gimmick redemption cards.

Also, this just in...

THERE IS STILL NO KOSUKE FUKUDOME ROOKIE CARD IN 2008 TOPPS BASEBALL!

Kazuo Uzuki: Where Are They Now?

With all the controversy about Topps' multitude of series two gimmick cards, let's take a few moments to catch-up on the subject of Topps' series one gimmick card: Kosuke Fukudome's "compatriot," Kazuo "The Uzi" Uzuki.



This rather creepy video was uploaded by "kwatanabe52" (52, get it?) and shows "Uzuki" chilling out in New York's Central Park and signing an autograph for one of his "fans."

In the three months since it was uploaded this video has been played less than 600 times. (I guess that whole "viral marketing" idea didn't work, huh Topps?)

But who is Kazuo Uzuki? We may have found our answer.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Uzuki is actually Sensen Lin, a student at NYU Law School. According to the article, Topps paid Lin $500 for the picture and another $100 to appear in the aformentioned video.

And get this, Lin isn't even Japanese! He's an American of Chinese ancestry.

Upper Deck Lowers Their Standards (just a bit).

In my rage over Topps bait-and-switching the Kosuke Fukudome RC, I passed overlooked this.

I'm not as angry with Upper Deck with this one because, after the series one Hillary fiasco, I think we all were expecting that they'd pull a similar stunt. I'm also not as angry because, unlike the Kosuke Fukudome gimmick card (which, BTW, is still listed on topps.com as base set card #645), both versions of these cards were posted to the checklist on upperdeck.com. That and, again, unlike the Topps Fukudome, it does not compromise the integrity of the base set.

But just because I'm not as mad, it still doesn't mean I like it.

(h/t Orlando Sentinel's Sports Stuff)

On the other hand...

I'm more disappointed than angry over this one. Upper Deck has still not confirmed the existence of this variation. But I guess if you absolutely have to lower yourself to gimmicks, then short-printed variations (which do NOT compromise the base set) are the way to go.

Another Day, Another Bullshit Gimmick.

The Johan Santana card in this picture is card #661 in the 2008 Topps baseball set. (And to think, you actually thought there were only 660 cards in the Topps set?) According to the eBay auction -- the only one of this card offered so far -- card #661 "commemorates" the "no-hitter" that Johan Santana "pitched" for the Mets on September 28, 2008.

Yes, it says September 28, 2008.

(Today's date is June 2, 2008.)

Let the Topps hatred commence in 3, 2, 1...

Topps: Helping Spread Manbearpig Awareness.

Don't worry, it's not the real Manbearpig. It's only another bullshit Topps gimmick card -- this one of Al Gore.

For those not aware of the biggest threat to the human race as we know it, let the former Vice President explain.





(h/t Cardboard Mania)

Even More Stupidity from Topps.

You didn't think they'd stop at just one, did you?



This is Yasuhiko Yabuta, set-up man for the Kansas City Royals. And yes, Topps has decided to (stupidly) replace his legit Rookie Card with a gimmicked short-print.



Meet Alexei Ramirez, backup outfielder for the Chicago White Sox. Like Yabuta and Fukudome, he played in the 2006 World Baseball Classic -- only for Cuba. And just like Yabuta and Fukudome, there is no Alexei Ramirez rookie card in series two Topps. Only this gimmick card.



Ummm, wow. Mere words can not describe what I think of this card.

Memo to Topps:

DO YOU REALLY, REALLY, THINK CARD COLLECTORS ARE THIS GULLIBLE?

DO YOU REALLY, REALLY, THINK CARD COLLECTORS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO COLLECT THESE CARDS?

DO YOU REALLY, REALLY, THINK THAT CONSTANTLY APPEALING TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR -- ESPECIALLY IN SUCH A CYNICAL MANNER -- IS GOOD FOR THE HOBBY?

DO YOU EVEN REALIZE THE LONG-TERM DAMAGE YOU ARE DOING TO THE HOBBY WITH THESE GIMMICKS?

DO YOU EVEN CARE?

I know one thing, as long as the gimmicks continue, this collector will no longer be purchasing Topps baseball products.

Gimmicking away Topps' credibility, one card at a time.

Alex Gordon.

Alay Soler.

Derek Jeter (and friends).

Jacoby Ellsbury.

Poley Walnuts.

Kazuo Uzuki.

"Jon" Smoltz.

The Rip Master.

You can now add the name of Kosuke Fukudome to the list of Topps' bullshit gimmick cards.

There is NO, repeat, NO Kosuke Fukudome rookie card in Topps series two. Instead there's this...


... a gimmicked short-print.

Un-Fucking-Believable.

More info as it develops.

Yes, This Guy Is Real.

In an attempt to gimmick away what little relevance their Bowman brand still had with collectors, Topps has included autographed inserts of over 20 Major League scouts in their just-released 2008 Bowman. But some collectors have had questions about this particular scout card.



This is an autograph of the mysterious "Bowman Scout." Who is this guy? Is he even real? Or do we have another Kazuo Uzuki? Or "Rip Master?"

First off, yes, The Bowman Scout is a real person. He is an actual scout for an American League team who has worked as a consultant for Topps since the early 90s. According to a 2006 interview with Beckett, The Scout (who wishes to remain anonymous) says he attends 300-400 baseball games a year, ranging from high school to the Big Leagues.

Among The Scout's greatest "discoveries:" Mike Piazza (1992 Bowman), Jorge Posada ('94), Matt Holliday ('99), Jose Reyes and Justin Morneau (2001).

And despite his work with Topps, he says he doesn't collect baseball cards.

So now you know, and knowing is half the battle.