View Full Version : What card(s) did you have to spend...
mintacular
08-17-2011, 08:03 PM
,,,big $ for to complete a set but you really didn't want to...For me it is the Lucky Penny, Bakep error, and Checklist cards for my '57 BB set...Silly cards to spend $ on but it has to be done....oh yes, it has to be done...
brob28
08-17-2011, 08:26 PM
'56 topps checklists, I hate paying big $ for checklists!
The 1952 Topps Ed Mathews. I think it's one of the dullest looking cards in the 1952 Topps set and a PSA 1 still cost me $1200. Unfortunately it's kind of tough to have a complete 1952 Topps HOF set without it. :mad:
ALR-bishop
08-18-2011, 07:12 AM
In addition to the Lucky Penny card, I bought one of the Lucky Penny send aways itself....penny in a round metal pendant on a chain
But those 8 checklists with the Blony and Bazooka variations were a major pain
Volod
08-19-2011, 12:33 PM
I started collecting boxing cards back in the '80's and after quickly putting together an EX/MT near set for around $1 per common, $5-20 stars, suffered some serious buyer's remorse after shelling out $75 for a '51 Ringside Murphy card - a fighter I had never heard of. But, man, I really craved that last, scarce beauty that took five years to find.
Brianruns10
08-19-2011, 05:00 PM
The 1952 Topps Ed Mathews. I think it's one of the dullest looking cards in the 1952 Topps set and a PSA 1 still cost me $1200. Unfortunately it's kind of tough to have a complete 1952 Topps HOF set without it. :mad:
It's funny you mention this. At first I felt the same way...to me Matthews looked like he was blushing or running a high fever, and I kinda felt he was an anticlimactic way to end the set, with so many lovely cards...always thought Nuxhall would've been a nice capper, or one of the horizontal cards.
But lately I acquired this card myself, a PSA 5 dead centered, and it's started to grow on me.
My vote for worst card that costs the most will be the day I have to get the 52 Pee Wee Reese for my set. He looks so weird! I haven't seen the original photo, but I strongly suspect they pasted his head on another player's body, cause he just looks mishapen and out of proportion, and it's one of the few cards in the set that I think was botched and it's easily the worst HoF card in the set.
ALR-bishop
08-19-2011, 05:30 PM
It's funny you mention this. At first I felt the same way...to me Matthews looked like he was blushing or running a high fever, and I kinda felt he was an anticlimactic way to end the set, with so many lovely cards...always thought Nuxhall would've been a nice capper, or one of the horizontal cards.
But lately I acquired this card myself, a PSA 5 dead centered, and it's started to grow on me.
My vote for worst card that costs the most will be the day I have to get the 52 Pee Wee Reese for my set. He looks so weird! I haven't seen the original photo, but I strongly suspect they pasted his head on another player's body, cause he just looks mishapen and out of proportion, and it's one of the few cards in the set that I think was botched and it's easily the worst HoF card in the set.
In 1982 when the Cardinals played the Brewers for the World Sries, Reese was a spokesperson for H&B, a company in which my wife and her family were large shareholders. We met Reese and he gave us tickets to 2 of the games in St Louis
JasonL
08-19-2011, 09:05 PM
and a funny one to try to answer.
This phenomenon is why I am not interested in collecting sets (checklists!), and it is also the number one trigger for when I switch collecting focus from time to time...for instance-it's why I stopped collecting HOF Rookies. I stopped that endeavor because I got so sick of spending money on cards and players I didn't care for...like the Rollie fingers, Hunter, Mazeroski, etc...
gotta collect what you like and limit the extraneous purchases!
almostdone
08-20-2011, 06:01 AM
Years ago I put together a Topps 1955 set. When I was down to the last card I was so impatient I dot into a biding war with someone over it. I won the card but lost my mind. I don't even remember who the player was but I know I paid more than double high book value for an ungraded vg common.
Drew
northsidebaseball
08-22-2011, 07:44 PM
The spirit of this topic is exactly why I am almost positive that I will never attempt to assemble a vintage complete set, as I do not think I could stomach paying the price checklists and high numbered commons command. I have far too many other things on my wish list. Best of luck to all that tackle this endeavor though, it is a daunting task I'm sure. BTW thanks Patrick for checking out my 1955 bowman banks, I lost out on a couple of them I wanted over the course of a few months previously and they do not show up all that often in good shape. Very happy with the one I ended up with though.
scmavl
08-22-2011, 08:30 PM
'56 topps checklists, I hate paying big $ for checklists!
^ THIS. And the '56 Checklists aren't even numbered!
jb217676
08-22-2011, 09:00 PM
I paid about $125.00 for this 1977 Topps common to finish my PSA 9 1977 Topps Blue Jays set. Craziness!!!!!
brob28
08-22-2011, 09:13 PM
^ THIS. And the '56 Checklists aren't even numbered!
You said it Jarrod, insult to injury! :mad:
The spirit of this topic is exactly why I am almost positive that I will never attempt to assemble a vintage complete set, as I do not think I could stomach paying the price checklists and high numbered commons command. I have far too many other things on my wish list. Best of luck to all that tackle this endeavor though, it is a daunting task I'm sure. BTW thanks Patrick for checking out my 1955 bowman banks, I lost out on a couple of them I wanted over the course of a few months previously and they do not show up all that often in good shape. Very happy with the one I ended up with though.
That's why the only way I'm going to finish the '52 Topps set is just to buy a completed one. 96 high numbers at the prices they bring is just too much and I'm just talking about the commons, not the Mantle, Mathews, Robinson, Campanella, etc! :eek:
hangman62
08-23-2011, 06:32 AM
Heres an interesting wrinkle to "not" set collecting...
I think it would be easier/cheaper/faster/etc..to put short sets together..for ex- on 3 or 4 plastic sheets you display all or most of the cards in the 56T set - Mantle,Mays,Aaron,Aparicio,Banks,etc..Im sure you could fill up 3 pages..throw in a few Yanks,Dodgers, a WS card or two, a checklist,a wax wrapper,..etc., and you have a pretty strong represntn of the 56 set.
Then in one sitting,you could thumb thru 5 Topps sets all in one binder..and enjoy the meat of the sets
Heres an interesting wrinkle to "not" set collecting...
I think it would be easier/cheaper/faster/etc..to put short sets together..for ex- on 3 or 4 plastic sheets you display all or most of the cards in the 56T set - Mantle,Mays,Aaron,Aparicio,Banks,etc..Im sure you could fill up 3 pages..throw in a few Yanks,Dodgers, a WS card or two, a checklist,a wax wrapper,..etc., and you have a pretty strong represntn of the 56 set.
Then in one sitting,you could thumb thru 5 Topps sets all in one binder..and enjoy the meat of the sets
I've thought about taking a similar approach where you just collect your personal top 10-15 favorite cards in a set as opposed to the entire thing. It would be a lot cheaper plus save space for those of us confined to an apartment. :) If you lay those 10-15 cards out in a row I think it would give you a pretty solid representation of the set just like you mentioned and you don't end up tying money up in a few hundred commons that you could be spending on cards you actually want.
brob28
08-23-2011, 10:22 AM
Heres an interesting wrinkle to "not" set collecting...
I think it would be easier/cheaper/faster/etc..to put short sets together..for ex- on 3 or 4 plastic sheets you display all or most of the cards in the 56T set - Mantle,Mays,Aaron,Aparicio,Banks,etc..Im sure you could fill up 3 pages..throw in a few Yanks,Dodgers, a WS card or two, a checklist,a wax wrapper,..etc., and you have a pretty strong represntn of the 56 set.
Then in one sitting,you could thumb thru 5 Topps sets all in one binder..and enjoy the meat of the sets
That is exactly the approach I have been thinking of on any future sets I have an interest in. I'm currently 93% done with the '56 set so I'l see it through, but I'm not interested in building any other complete sets.
Exhibitman
08-23-2011, 11:26 AM
I rarely do sets because I hate 'wasting' money on commons. The sets I am working take a very long time because I am content to bargain hunt to find the commons.
GasHouseGang
08-23-2011, 01:35 PM
Talking about the 1956 checklists reminded me of the 1963 Fleer checklist. I passed on a mint one for $40 back in the 1980's at one of the Nationals. I had paid that much for the rarest card in the set Joe Adcock! Couldn't see that for a checklist. Now it's the only card I need for the set, and I doubt I'll ever get it because I don't want to pay what they are asking for it. Sets are overrated!;)
doug.goodman
08-23-2011, 03:20 PM
In addition to the Lucky Penny card, I bought one of the Lucky Penny send aways itself....penny in a round metal pendant on a chain
When I opened the package that my pendant came in, then showed it to my wife, the look on her face as she said "really?!" was worth the cost.
Doug
brob28
08-24-2011, 05:59 AM
That's classic Doug, did she buy you Legos for your next birthday! ;)
When I would buy a fairly expensive card I'd tell my dad "If you would have bought this same card when you were a kid it would have only cost you a penny plus you would have gotten a piece of gum, so technically it's your fault I had to pay this much because you weren't thinking ahead". He got me back by saying "I did buy baseball cards back then. I chewed the gum and then I put the card in my bicycle spokes to make motorcycle noises". :D