Royal Card of the Day 5/19/13 The Mis-Concepcion of Value

1983 TOPPS #52 ONIX CONCEPCION - Beckett Value: $.15



Photo: 5/10

How am I supposed to judge the photo when there's two photos!?! Here's how I did it. I gave the action photo a fat ZERO and the mini photo in the bottom left a fat TEN. The action photo really isn't that bad and would probably be given a pretty high score if it was shot with today's cameras, but the low quality brings it way down. We can clearly see Onix's bushy hair sticking out of the helmet and his glistening forearms, but the only people in the crowd look like off-duty extras from Poltergeist.

I gave the small portrait a high score for many reasons. First of all, how can you NOT reward that smile? Second of all, it's no coincidence that Return of the Jedi also came out it 1983...


Onix Concepcion or Onix Calrissian? You be the judge.

Design: 5/10

I like the intent behind this design. We get an action shot plus a portrait with a simple border. It would have been perfectly acceptable if not for the addition of purple. No baseball item should ever involve the color purple, especially when the team has never included it in any logo or uniform. This isn't a hate on any specific team, it's just a stupid color.

Card Back: 4/10

Bleh. I doubt you even read the back of the card. I know I barely did. Talk about boring! Don't get me wrong, the design is mostly okay but there's nothing here to catch my attention. Cards were SOOOO mass-produced in the 1980's that Topps, Donruss and Fleer seemed to implement the unwritten rule that if they couldn't throw it together in 15 minutes, then it was overdone.

Something caught me off guard here. Onix lived it up in Florida bouncing between Single A Ft. Myers and AA Jacksonville before an odd trip across the country to Bakersfield, California in 1979. Does anyone remember the Royals having an affiliate in Bakersfield? I didn't either so I did some quick research and found out that no one had an affiliate there. The Bakersfield Outlaws were an independent team playing an the otherwise affiliated Single A California League. After reading up on the Outlaws I learned that they were shit. I mean reallllly bad. In 1978 the team allowed 7.84 runs per game. The '79 team wasn't much better.

I'm curious to know if Onix was sold to Bakersfield for the season or if the Royals could have somehow assigned him? In other words, did they retain his rights? Does anyone know how a relationship like that would have worked?

Overall Score: 4.5/10

Concepcion's 1983 Season:

Most Royals fans do remember Concepcion fondly for his fun name and few highlights, not to mention that he played for some damn good teams. A quick look at his numbers shows that he was pretty much terrible. He spent the entire 1983 season with the Royals but failed to make much of an impact over his 240 PA. His triple slash was .242/.282/.320 for a -.4 WAR. Onix's true value came from his versatility in the infield, splitting nearly equal time between 3B, SS and 2B. In true spork fashion, he wasn't very good at any of them.

Nonetheless, Onix, we salute you for your badass name and your glorious head of hair.

5/18/19 A New Lough

This FanPost was written by a member of the Royals Review community. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the editors and writers of this site.

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Royals Review

You must be a member of Royals Review to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Royals Review. You should read them.

Join Royals Review

You must be a member of Royals Review to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Royals Review. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.