Is it Authentic?

This post was inspired by a recent post over on Dinged Corners. The debate going on over there is about the statements about authenticity that the card manufacturers put on the back of their relic cards. I have bought a number of relic cards over the past few years because, frankly, they are dirt cheap on eBay. The earliest relic cards I own are from 2000. Most cards in the 2000-2005 time frame that I have have statements similar to this 2000 Absolute Memorabilia Rookie Premier Materials. "The enclosed piece of pant was cut from Authentic Pants personally worn by Josh Beckett in an Official Minor League Baseball Game. The Authentic Game-Worn pants were obtained and are guaranteed by the Playoff Corporation". That's pretty straightforward. Josh Beckett wore these pants in an official game and we determined that this was so.

But even then there were some cards which had vaguer statements, like this 2001 Bowman's Best Franchise Favorite Relic.
Congratulations! You just received an authentic game-worn Franchise Favorites uniform card of Craig Biggio from 2001 Bowman's Best Baseball." Did this piece of fabric come from something actually worn by Craig Biggio? That's certainly the impression. They clearly say it came from a uniform worn during a game, but was it an Official MLB game?

This 2003 Fleer Box Score World Piece Game Jersey card has more odd language.
"The piece of memorabilia contained in this card is from a jersey worn in an official MLB game played by Francisco Rodriguez pitcher for the Anaheim Angels". Ok, the jersey was worn in an official MLB game and Rodriguez played in the game. Did he wear the jersey? I'll concede that a player probably wore the jersey, rather than a fan or a member of the grounds crew, since it didn't say "worn at an official MLB game".

The wording started to change dramatically in 2006. Only about half of the 15 relic cards I have from 2006, specifically say that the player pictured actually wore the jersey. I have over 40 relic cards from 2005, and 32 of them say the relic came from a uniform specifically worn by the player pictured. Then we have this 2006 Bazooka Rewind Relics card.
"The relic contained on this card is not from any specific event, game or season." You might be lead to think that the relic was from a Future's Game, but the disclosure on the back makes it sound like probably not.

The wording reaches new hights of weasel wording on this 2006 Flair Showcase Stitches card.
"You have received a Richie Sexson Game-Used baseball card. On the front of this card is a piece of memorabilia that has been certified to us as having been used in an official Major League Baseball game". Did Richie Sexson wear this jersey or whatever the piece is from? What is the difference between used and worn? I could imagine that this was from a rag used by the clubhouse guy to wipe down the dugout benches before the game. And Fleer completely disavows claiming authenticity of this piece. Hey, we were told it's authentic.

I have 17 relic cards from 2007 and 13 from 2008, of these, only 1 from each year makes any claim that the relic came from a uniform actually worn by the player on the card. Pretty much the language looks like that on this 2008 Upper Deck Spectrum Retrospectrum Swatches card.
"You have received a Mike Piazza Game-Used baseball card. On the front of this card is a piece of memorabilia that has been certified to us as having been used in an official Major League Baseball game". Which is the same language on the 2007 Fleer card. The 9 Upper Deck relic cards I have all have the same language. My Chris Capuano Topps Retail Relic, is the only card to make a specific claim, which says "The piece of authentic uniform embedded in this card was worn by Chris Capuano during an official MLB game".

2000 Stadium Club Clear Shots Chrome

Transparent baseball cards.

Card companies have played around with different materials for many years. If you look around you can find baseball cards made of cloth, plastic, wood, tin, steel, and aluminum.

Clear acetate has been a popular medium. Think about Topps Tek and EX.

This card was an insert in 2000 Topps Stadium Club Chrome. There was a refractor version as well.

This is perhaps my favorite example of a clear card. Although it is hard to tell in the scan, the background of the card is transparent. The printed player photo and the black area with the player name at the bottom are printed on both sides, although they let the "Clear Shots" logo show through in reverse on the back.

What I really like is that the front of the card shows the front of Ken Griffey, Jr. and the back of the card shows his back.

There were 10 cards in the set. All have posed standing shots like this one. It takes a brave man to allow his butt to be plastered on a baseball card. I can think of some players who probably shouldn't appear on a card like this. Cecil Fielder comes to mind. Maybe Prince Fielder as well.

Someone recently posted another Griffey card where he was smiling. He's smiling here as well.

Holy kangaroo, Batman, it's a Cardsupial!

When Steve put out an invite to write for Things Done To Cards, I figured "What the heck?" I wasn't wasting enough time on my own blog. By the way, I'm Cliff, aka Capewood over at Capewood's Collections. I'll try not to shameless promote my own blog while I'm here.

What to make of Cardsupials? These were an insert set to 2000 Crown Royale. I've gotten 2 of these now in repacks. This one features Scott Rolen (a Phillie, so good for me). Next to Scott you see Ruben Mateo. This is actually a Cardsupial Mini Card and is tucked into a little pouch
on the main card. Get it, it's tucked into a pouch. Hence the play on words.

The mini card is 1 3/4 inch high and 1 1/4 inch wide.

I've seen a lot of baseball card designs in my time and I often wonder about the creative process. Where do baseball card design ideas come from? I've actually considered making a list of design elements. So what's this card got? High gloss finish? Check. Gold foil? Check. Landscape orientation? Check. Fuzzy background? Check. Pouch? Let's add that to the list.

Ok, so once they've got the design, the next choice is what players to include. This is only a 20-card insert. I've got Scott Rolen and Nomar Garciaparra. Rolen had a good 1999 season with the Phillies hitting 0.298 with 26 HR and 89 RBI. Garciaparra hit 0.357 with 27 HR and 104 RBI with the Red Sox. Both good choices for a short insert set. The rest of the set is rounded out by the usual cast of characters you'd expect to see on an insert set in 2000. Ripken, McGwire, Gwynn, Bonds, etc.

But with this set, the designers had to come up with a second player to go with the main player. Mateo was paired with Rolen and Richie Sexson was paired with Garciaparra. Mateo hit 0.238 in 32 games in 1999, his first year in the majors. I'm not that familiar with him but someone must have thought he had potential. He hit 0.291 in 52 games in 2000, which was pretty much his best season. He was gone from major league baseball after the 2004 season. Sexson had 31 HR in 1999, his third season. He's still a regular player and has had a decent career. If the choice for the mini-card was meant to be solid, second-tier players, then Sexson was a good choice, Mateo not so good.

The third choice was who to pair up? And here is where I have a problem with this set. Why pair Scott Rolen and Ruben Mateo? Were Rolen and Mateo twins separated at birth? Is Rolen Mateo's mother (which is carrying the marsupial analogy way too far)? Was Rolen a mentor for Mateo? Probably not, they played in different leagues. They both wear red batting helmets? Let's see, Garciaparra and Sexson are wearing blue batting helmets, so helmet color it is!

It you made it this far, thanks for reading.