- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Featured Post
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Barry Larkin
Year: 2000
Brand: Bowman's Best
Card number: 20
The 2000 Bowman's Best brand reminds me much more of a Pacific set than it does a Bowman set (and in my world, that's actually a good thing)! The front of this card features a pair of images of Larkin - and whole lotta gold/yellow. The backside gives some weird statistics based on pitcher ERA (who could have ever guessed that Larkin hits better against lousy pitching)? I do actually like the "best against" bit near the top/center of the card though. Terry Mulholland is a name I haven't heard in quite some time!
All things considered, I actually kind of like this Bowman card (shhh, don't tell anyone I complimented Bowman). Of course, that leads me to report that this is one of the few Bowman sets that isn't loaded with parallels...because why would you make parallels of a set with a decent design?! Oh well, I'm still happy to have this one in my collection...a collection that is now closer to 1,000 unique Larkins than it is to 0 Larkins!
Year: 2000
Brand: Bowman's Best
Card number: 20
The 2000 Bowman's Best brand reminds me much more of a Pacific set than it does a Bowman set (and in my world, that's actually a good thing)! The front of this card features a pair of images of Larkin - and whole lotta gold/yellow. The backside gives some weird statistics based on pitcher ERA (who could have ever guessed that Larkin hits better against lousy pitching)? I do actually like the "best against" bit near the top/center of the card though. Terry Mulholland is a name I haven't heard in quite some time!
All things considered, I actually kind of like this Bowman card (shhh, don't tell anyone I complimented Bowman). Of course, that leads me to report that this is one of the few Bowman sets that isn't loaded with parallels...because why would you make parallels of a set with a decent design?! Oh well, I'm still happy to have this one in my collection...a collection that is now closer to 1,000 unique Larkins than it is to 0 Larkins!
Comments
I don't recognize this set! Love seeing sets from this timeframe that are new to me.
ReplyDelete