Friday, September 24, 2010

2010 Topps Triple Thread Temptation!

Ack! The temptation begins! I have this ridiculous tendency to covet high-end product. My first swaree into high-end was with 2008 Sweet Spot, which eventually eventually my gateway drug into Ballpark, 2009 Sweet Spot, Topps Tribute, and Topps....somethingerather from this year where you got two packs and a couple rookie patches. Must have been really memorable stuff.

I got burned in the past with 2009 Triple Threads. I wanted to treat myself to something nice for my burfday, and the shop owner gave me a prince of a deal on his way inflated price. Translation: I probably still overpaid by about 20 bucks on a box. No words can really describe the euphoria of being on a roller coaster, nor describe the incredible disappointment when you don't hit a white whale, or other 1:1, or a patch booklet of multiple materials made into some insane phrase. While initially in the gutter about my hits, I have made some amount peace with the packs. If you would like to take a gander, the posts are located here and here.

I am 98% sure that I won't ever take a stab at 2010 Triple Threads. My love of minis has caused a nice little distraction from all products not containing minis. Never say never though, and with some of these cards, can you blame me?

J Hey! I still believe that his Ginter auto is one of the nicest cards OF THE YEAR.

Jersey patches....(drooooooool)

A couple of happy-go-lucky Giants.





1/3 patch PLUS jersey PLUS bat? Droooooool.....




Forget an auto, a bat-knob book would just be sick! These hits are ridonkulous!

Oh hey....it's......Chris Getz.......it has...um, and on-card auto and some jersey....its sorta nice.....nah, i'm over it!




2 comments:

  1. Man that Braun would look sweet in my player collection. To bad I don't want to sell my kidney to pay for it. I'm tempted to try a half box but man I can buy a whole jumbo update for the price of one pack.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eh, they do look quite a fair bit better than in years past at least.

    ReplyDelete