Thursday, June 4, 2015

2015 Archives: Checklist Distribution Rant

pic via
So, I ponied up and joined Nachos Grande's 2015 Topps Archives case break.  (You should, too!)

The checklist was released the other day and I just got done scouring the list for my team of choice: The Chicago Cubs.

I'm not arguing about the number of cards the Cubs have altogether.  Out of a 330 card set, each of the 30 MLB teams should have 11 cards on average and after five consecutive years of finishing in 5th place in the NL Central I'm pretty stoked about the Cubs having 10 cards in the set.  Some teams only have 5 or 6 cards in the set, while others 15+, but that's a different rant for a different blog.

Let me break this down for you real quick.

First, I'm a Cubs team collector who likes variety.

Secondly, this year's set features designs from 1957, 1976, and 1983.  All cards with numbers over 300 are short prints.

Cards 1-100 and 301-310 are modeled after 1957 and the Cubs have 2 base and 3 short prints.
Cards 101-200 and 311-320 are in the 1976 style and the Cubs have 2 base and 2 short prints.
Cards 201-300 and 321-330 have the 1983 template and the Cubs have 1 base and 0 short prints.

What I'm griping about is the distribution of the number of cards a team has over the three different styles.  Why can't Topps spread the Cubs cards out a little bit so that they get more than one card in the 1983 style?

Shoot.  Why can't they spread them out more evenly across the board?

I've taken the time to break down the distribution by team:

TEN teams have only one card from a particular design, while the Diamondbacks aren't represented in the 1957 design at all.   Some of the distributions don't make any sense at all like the Indians and Padres.

So what gives?

Is it simply laziness?  Or is it poor planning?  Or maybe Topps doesn't have the time, money, and/or foresight to have some schlup sit down for thirty minutes and disperse the chosen players more evenly throughout the checklist. 

Ugh. The whole thing just makes me nauseous.


  1. Yeah, it's like Topps doesn't even consider team collectors...I don't get it. I was happy to see that most teams were represented with the autograph checklist this year at least.

    PS: Thanks for the plug, only a few more slots to go!

  2. Topps just wants buzz from rookie autographs hitting eBay at outlandish prices. Distribution within the set really doesn't matter to them. That's way too much thought involved!

    I have to admit, though -- I don't get why Archives, and not Heritage, has the Presidential Chronicles subset. It doesn't fit Archives, in my opinion.

  3. The Yankees have 21 representatives but jack squat in terms of hits to show for it.
    When a MLB team lacks cards in MLB releases that usually means they're a small/mid market team that's not very good. On the flip side they tend to dominate checklists for prospect centered products. The D-Backs collectors can wipe their tears with the cards of the first overall pick they get later in the year.

  4. The Indians have 16 cards???? I know they mix in some old-timers, but I'm pretty sure I can't name 7 current Indians.

  5. I was hoping Archives would have something unique for the Pirates, but the only thing new is a Sid Bream in the Pirates uniform. I don't really recall Bream being a "fan favorite" especially since he is the one who scored the winning run when the Braves eliminated the Pirates.

    1. Yeah, I don't get some of the selections for the Fan Favorites.

  6. My biggest gripe is why they need to put 1968 Topps Game (my favorite vintage set) in there, when it would be due out in two years in 2017 Heritage anyways. Topps just isn't satisfied unless they are using their old designs so much that they no longer become special.

    1. Yeah, they keep kicking that same dead horse... over and over again.

  7. I think you should tweet your blog link to Topps with a FAIL hashtag.

    1. That require me to my blog out there, and I just don't want to deal with all the attention that might come my way.