Friday, September 12, 2014

Managing My OCD

I think all of us collectors have a little bit of OCD; it's just the nature of the beast.

After all, all of our collections have little rules and idiosyncrasies if you stop and think about it.  I only collect Topps, I only collect this particular team, I only collect cards of Tim Wallach...

The list goes on and on but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.  It's what makes our collections different and interesting and what drives our passion.

So, today I'm going to discuss one of my OCD tendencies, one that I often have to suppress with my Cubs All-Time Roster Collection.

This card here is a perfect example:

Nothing particularly odd here, right?  A 1985 Topps manager card of Jim Fanning; it is a high-number (#759), but otherwise nothing really notable about it.  I found it on Ebay for change (gotta love free shipping).

But why is it in my CATRC?

Yes, I collect cards of all the men who have been saddled with managing the Cubs as well as the players.  But, you'll find that Jim never managed the Cubs.  In fact, he only managed 1 full season and 2 partials in the majors, all with Montreal.

He is much more notable for serving as the GM of the Expos for their first 8 years and various other positions in their front office.

Besides all that, he also had a brief playing career as well.  Therein lies the answer.

Jim earned a cuppacoffee for four consecutive seasons in the majors, all with the Northsiders, from 1954-57.  Mostly because the Cubs were just terrible in that decade.

In 149 ABs, he batted .170 with 0 homers and just 2 XBH as a backup catcher.

Fanning with the Cubs in 1957, his last in the Majors

With his time in the majors being so short and insignificant, Topps never included Jim in any of their sets.  I have yet to find an oddball release from the time period that used his likeness either.  I think it's safe to assume there is not a baseball card that features Jim during his playing days.

This poses a problem for my CATRC.  I would absolutely prefer a player card for all those who played for the Cubs and a manager card for all those who managed the Cubs.  But, this is simply not possible.

So, though it may bother me a touch, I must compromise and include Frank's 1985 Topps release in my binder so that I can cross his name off of my checklist.


Jim isn't the only example of this dilemma in my collection either.   Although, the circumstances are a bit different for Mr. Loviglio here.

Short though it may be (1981-83), Jay's playing career saw not 1, but 2 Topps releases, plus at least one TCMA minor league card that I am aware of.  His Cubs career consisted of a single at-bat in 1983, resulting in a strikeout.

While Charlotte was have been a Cubs affiliate at the time, why do I use a managerial card when player cards are available?

Well, both cards that Topps put out featuring Jay are multi-player "Future Star" cards, including the only one I've been able to locate thus far:

Topps are certainly not soothsayers.

The problem here is that this card also features Reggie Patterson.  Reggie pitched minimally for the Cubs from 1983-85 in addition to a cameo with the Southsiders in '81.  He's most notable for giving up the Pete Rose's Cobb-tying hit in September of '85.

This is the only card of Reggie I've been able to find so far, although I know he was included in Fleer's 1986 set.

So, I had one card for two players - a bonus OCD trigger!

Therefore, when I discovered the manager's card of Loviglio in a box of nothing but Line Drive at my LCS (BTW - awesome box to dig through!), I picked it up.

It may be a manager's card, but at least it allows me to feature both Jay and Reggie separately in my CATRC binder.  A lesser of two evils situation.

Meanwhile, I'm still on the lookout for Reggie's '86 Fleer card.  When I find that, I should be all squared away.

Have you seen this man?

As you can plainly see, OCD is prevalent throughout are great hobby and I am certainly no exception.  Managerial cards, multi-player cards & player scarcity are constantly driving me up a wall.

But, as I stated earlier, "there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.  It's what makes our collections different and interesting and what drives our passion."

Yes, I am quoting myself in my own blog post.  Big whoop; wanna fight about it?

No comments:

Post a Comment