- Get link
- Other Apps
Barry Larkin
Year: 1997
Brand: Topps Stadium Club
Parallel set: Matrix
Card number: 17
The Matrix parallel cards are actually a partial parallel (Topps only included parallels of the first sixty cards in each of the two '97 Series). Luckily for me (as a Larkin collector), Barry's #17 in the set was low enough to make the cut for a Matrix parallel. Originally, the parallels were seeded 1:12 packs making them fairly rare - especially if you wanted to try and complete the 120 card parallel set!
As for this particular card, I have to admit it's kind of cool. The Matrix technology that Topps used is sort of a cross between a refractor and the diamond foil stuff they used back in 2011. I do like the fact that the card is labeled "matrix" which helps let you know you are holding a parallel (something that is more important many years later when you find a card like this while sorting a large stack of assorted cards).
For as much as I like the front though, the back is quite disappointing. Topps had a good idea but the end result was way too many numbers in way too small of an area. It's virtually unreadable in my opinion. Even so, I like the card quite a bit - definitely a nicer parallel then a lot of sets have had!
Year: 1997
Brand: Topps Stadium Club
Parallel set: Matrix
Card number: 17
The Matrix parallel cards are actually a partial parallel (Topps only included parallels of the first sixty cards in each of the two '97 Series). Luckily for me (as a Larkin collector), Barry's #17 in the set was low enough to make the cut for a Matrix parallel. Originally, the parallels were seeded 1:12 packs making them fairly rare - especially if you wanted to try and complete the 120 card parallel set!
As for this particular card, I have to admit it's kind of cool. The Matrix technology that Topps used is sort of a cross between a refractor and the diamond foil stuff they used back in 2011. I do like the fact that the card is labeled "matrix" which helps let you know you are holding a parallel (something that is more important many years later when you find a card like this while sorting a large stack of assorted cards).
For as much as I like the front though, the back is quite disappointing. Topps had a good idea but the end result was way too many numbers in way too small of an area. It's virtually unreadable in my opinion. Even so, I like the card quite a bit - definitely a nicer parallel then a lot of sets have had!
Comments
Post a Comment