tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6893787306319909907.post3422183381983379937..comments2023-10-06T09:01:10.617-04:00Comments on This Way to the Clubhouse...: To Be or Not To Be (A Mets Card)Mark Kazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06742272751796497047noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6893787306319909907.post-69697651473208189522015-04-22T15:37:23.111-04:002015-04-22T15:37:23.111-04:00I hated when the card companies did this. Isn'...I hated when the card companies did this. Isn't second series and beyond for cleaning up this kind of mess?The Baseball Card Snobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11810899668654576874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6893787306319909907.post-58955832268602541762015-04-21T06:11:05.244-04:002015-04-21T06:11:05.244-04:00Great stuff, Stubby! I know exactly the Zim you&#...Great stuff, Stubby! I know exactly the Zim you're talking about, and I think you did the right thing. I have one of those on my vintage wish list for the exact reason!Mark Kazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06742272751796497047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6893787306319909907.post-40946491333204331292015-04-21T04:43:46.148-04:002015-04-21T04:43:46.148-04:00The one that I "had to have" was the 196...The one that I "had to have" was the 1962 Don Zimmer. Because the Mets were new, the early '62s were of the "big head no hat" variety. Zim was slated for a later series, so they had a gorgeous picture of him in Mets regalia. But, by then, he'd been traded to the Reds. So they kept the great picture, but changed the team designation. If I considered it a Reds card, rather than a Mets card, then Zim would have no Topps issued Mets cards. So, to me, its a Mets card. And my '62 Mets team set would not be complete without it. Demonstrating my inconsistency, however, they also used a Mets photo on Zim's '63 card (though the "NY" on the cap is not visible). That one, I do NOT consider a Mets card.Stubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07010142558613227433noreply@blogger.com