Filed under: MLB, Topps, Upper Deck | Tags: Autographs, baseball cards, O-Pee-Chee, Topps, Upper Deck
Upper Deck released preview images and set information for its upcoming 2009 O-Pee-Chee baseball set that will arrive in June.
A 600-card parallel set utilizes the 1971 O-Pee-Chee (and Topps) design. While Upper Deck owns the rights to the O-Pee-Chee name, it’s unclear how the design rights are held as the Topps and O-Pee-Chee designs were essentially the same from 1965 to 1992.
A Topps official declined to comment on the product.
Each 36-pack box will contain 36 short-print subset cards, 36 1971 OPC Retro parallels, nine 1971 OPC Mini variations, one 1979-80 OPC Retro hockey update card and one New York, New York card.
The six-card packs carries a suggested retail price of $1.59.
The basic set will consist of 600 cards — 100 of those short printed Rookies, League Leaders, Team Checklists and Moments cards — while OPC Signatures and triple-jersey OPC Materials cards will be found six per 12-box case (four jerseys, two autographs)
Also included will be one Upper Deck 20th Anniversary Memorabilia card per case and one 1971 O-Pee-Chee buyback card per case. Some of those will be autographed.
Chris Olds has collected sports cards and memorabilia since 1987. Before coming to Beckett Media, he wrote about the hobby for the Orlando Sentinel on his blog, SportsStuff, and for the San Antonio Express-News and The Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News. Do you have a comment, question or idea? Send e-mail to him at colds@beckett.com.
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment
im really happy about this. i love the old school designs
Comment by marco February 13, 2009 @ 8:04 amI love the design, being a card collector from Toronto, these are the baseball cards we got when I was young. I wonder if they will have french on the back, so they will really kick it old school.
Comment by Dave February 13, 2009 @ 11:50 amyou might be happy.. but I bet you Topps isn’t ;)
Comment by soxbigdog February 16, 2009 @ 3:58 amCertainly looks better than ’09 Topps
Comment by Anonymous March 1, 2009 @ 2:01 pm