Friday, March 21, 2014


Common. Adjective or Noun?

The collecting world uses the word as a noun, much the way it's been used to describe the non-ruling class; those who weren't born with the blue blood (or in the case of sports- they weren't the blue chip prospects). They're the antithisis of the superstar; the Mario Mendoza's of the world; the Rafael Belliard's on the diamond.

As a collector, I often think of the term as an adjective- referring to that which occurs frequently or is widespread. Unfortuanately, this type of use can lead to frustration for the collector.

I've been chasing many-a-'common' for a few years now, totally stumped why they weren't so readily  available. They're commons, after all!

So, I did what any self-respecting noble would do: I sought after these peasants to serve the land of their lord (and reside in the cardboard homes of Ye Old Card Chop).

Well, I recently acquired three of those plebeians. And, as I began thinking of what to write- something occurred to me. Noun. I couldn't find them as easily as I thought because I'm thinking in terms of adjectives. The use of the word, in both the price guides and the vernacular, doesn't refer to a copious supply of cardboard.

 Perhaps that's why Walley's, Wohlers' and Junior's pilgrimage has felt so feudal futile. 


  1. I never need a "star" card for the final card for a set. It's generally someone I should have several of. And it's funny you mention Rafael Belliard...that dude haunts me. I've been an unintentional Rafael Belliard player collector for decades.

  2. one of these days we need to exchange want lists... I've got a metric tonne of Braves.... uh... not super star cards.

    1. I keep working on the lists and need to put on the blog; I just keep procrastinating. That, and I'm going through a process of trying to refine my collection. Trying to figure out just what I'm doing.