October pick ups [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Exhibitman

10-01-2012, 09:05 PM

Why is October after September when octo is 8? Edd was wondering...

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/Rouch_%20Edd%201960%20Fleer.jpg

ALR-bishop

10-02-2012, 05:43 AM

Probably for the same reason 11 is called eleven instead of onety one.

Nice example of Edd

glenv

10-02-2012, 07:47 AM

Because in the Roman calendar September was the 7th month and October was the 8th month.

BruceinGa

10-02-2012, 09:20 AM

Because in the Roman calendar September was the 7th month and October was the 8th month.

+1

nolemmings

10-02-2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by glenv View Post
Because in the Roman calendar September was the 7th month and October was the 8th month.

+another. The same reasoning applies to November and December--months nine and ten.

David W

10-02-2012, 11:52 AM

Because in the Roman calendar September was the 7th month and October was the 8th month.

And to add to it, Julius Ceasar and Augustus Ceasar thought they were "Special" and added two months to the Roman calendar, because they could.

Hence July and August bumped everything back 2 months......

doug.goodman

10-02-2012, 01:52 PM

Here's a vote for Dougtober...

doug.goodman

10-02-2012, 01:54 PM

On second thought "Al-tober" might be better

skooter

10-02-2012, 04:08 PM

The two months were added to the Roman calendar because with only ten months the seasons were eventually not occurring in the same months. (For instance autumn was staring in June.)
The astrologers added July and August. In order to be sure there would never be a need to add any months in the future, February was to include one extra day every four years.

mintacular

10-03-2012, 01:04 AM

My new woody willie

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/nollpm/Willie55Bowman.jpg

Volod

10-03-2012, 02:32 PM

Nice woody Willie. Love the 55 Bowmans. Hey, I keep clicking my remote on it, but the channel doesn't change.;)

Brianruns10

10-05-2012, 09:21 PM

I'm really, really proud of this one, for my '52 set. Paid a fair bit over SMR for it, but totally worth it. I don't know WHAT PSA was thinking...perfect, original colors, sharp corners, dead centered, no gum stains, and not a hint of creasing. The picture doesn't show it, but the gloss is outstanding. It utterly mystifies me they graded it a 6...I've got 7.5s that aren't this good. I'll probably crack and resubmit, once I have a few more worth sending in. I think it'll get at least a 7. Just goes to show, buy the card, not the plastic!

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p140/Brianruns10/CroweObv.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p140/Brianruns10/CroweRev.jpg

brob28

10-06-2012, 06:35 AM

Just got this one yesterday.

brob28

10-06-2012, 06:36 AM

My new woody willie

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/nollpm/Willie55Bowman.jpg

Great looking 5!

Big Six

10-06-2012, 10:59 PM

My first Red Man and one of my favorite baseball personalities...

ALR-bishop

10-07-2012, 07:52 AM

Nice card Matt. But you should follow the directions and cut off that ugly bottom part. Be sure to stay on the dotted line :)

Big Six

10-07-2012, 08:48 AM

Nice card Matt. But you should follow the directions and cut off that ugly bottom part. Be sure to stay on the dotted line :)

Now don't go startin' trouble, Al!!! :D

Iwantmorecards77

10-09-2012, 12:34 PM

Two new rookies to the collection (actually, the Brock is an upgrade):

almostdone

10-09-2012, 06:09 PM

Very nice Aparicio. Always loved the '56 set.
Drew

Volod

10-09-2012, 08:53 PM

My brother and I did cut off those premium tabs in 1952 and mailed them in. We got - wow, gee whiz - Boston Braves and Philadelphia Phillies caps after waiting anxiously for a month. I think the caps lasted about one summer before falling apart.

97manoftroy

10-09-2012, 09:03 PM

Great Cards all around. The art work on the Red Man cards always amazes me.

novakjr

10-10-2012, 03:19 PM

Not exactly baseball..But close enough..

ALR-bishop

10-10-2012, 03:33 PM

Dave---I have the 48 MP baseball subset, and the Bendix is the only non baseball card I added

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img148.jpg?t=1339344759

novakjr

10-10-2012, 04:37 PM

Al, I had seen you post that once before.. Honestly, I didn't even know about the card until you mentioned it. I decided that I wanted to include it in my own collection and have kept my eye out for one since then.. Thank you for that. Just another reason I love this board. :)

doug.goodman

10-10-2012, 08:00 PM

Not exactly baseball..But close enough..

Only one man's opinion, but that is absolutely a baseball card. I'm with Al.

Doug

savedfrommyspokes

10-10-2012, 09:07 PM

I came across this 1973 53 Topps "reprint" recently....hopefully there are no known reprints of this reprint, as this appears to be similar stock compared to other early 70s Topps issues The lines are from my scanner and thankfully not on the card. According to the VBC bible, there may have only been 300 of this 1973 53 Reprint set produced...is there any truth to this? It is hard to believe only 300 sets exist.

ALR-bishop

10-11-2012, 08:12 AM

An interesting Topps "set". What was it's purpose ? There were 8 cards and 3 are incorrectly identified. That seems ridiculous on such a small issue. Were they favors at a Topps Banquet or event ? A test for future Archive issues ? ( The 53 set was recreated in 1991) Were they released on a limited retail basis in Brooklyn ?

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img154.jpg?t=1339601165

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img156.jpg?t=1339601032

Furillo is really Bill Antonelli. Rosen is actually Jim Fridley. And McCullough is actually Vic Jancowicz

Volod

10-11-2012, 05:26 PM

Interesting, indeed. I've not seen those. Do the cards have any identification marks on the reverse - such as company name, or trademark?

ALR-bishop

10-11-2012, 07:13 PM

They are a Topps specialty issue, from 1973. I can post the backs

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img155.jpg

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img157.jpg

ALR-bishop

10-11-2012, 07:35 PM

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img157-1.jpg?t=1350005654

savedfrommyspokes

10-11-2012, 08:54 PM

That is a great looking set Al...I would not have minded if Topps had indeed issued a set in this format(however, accurately depicting the players in the set).

Chris Counts

10-12-2012, 02:56 PM

Here are a couple of type cards from the 1950s I recently picked up, a 1953 Stahl-Meyer Franks and a 1953 Glendale Meats. For what it's worth, before I busted them out of the slabs they came in, both cards received a "3" by the grading companies ...

ALR-bishop

10-12-2012, 07:42 PM

Nice cards Chris

CharleyBrown

10-13-2012, 08:12 PM

Upgrade!

Added this:

http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/CharleyBrownWLT/The%20Jackie%20Robinson%20Collection/1947-bond-bread-white-shirt-sleeves-jackie-robinson-SGC50.jpg

to replace this:

http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/CharleyBrownWLT/The%20Jackie%20Robinson%20Collection/1947-bond-bread-white-shirt-sleeves-jackie-robinson.jpg

Volod

10-13-2012, 09:19 PM

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img157-1.jpg?t=1350005654

Thanks for that, Al. It's pretty odd that a Topps issue (that does read T.C.G. on the close-up, doesn't it? My eyes aren't what they used to be) would have three cards so grossly misidentified. The mixups seem to based on superficial similarities, such as, Janowicz and McCollough - both backup catchers on the Pirates; Antonello and Furillo - both Dodgers with similar names; Fridley and Rosen - both Indians and sharing a facial resemblance. So, did some Topps employee or friend of a friend with only a passing knowledge of players somehow get access to the press plates and run these off for some personal purpose? Were Topps higher-ups alerted and the set stopped at eight? The imagination runs riot. :eek:

10-20-2012, 03:21 PM

The '48 Williams is pretty recent. No wrinkles or creases, so it's surprising it only graded VG 3 by PSA. The card is an interesting color variation, too, with an almost fuschia color in the background instead of orange. The Koufax rookie arrived this week. Great pickups, everyone!

bcbgcbrcb

10-20-2012, 05:50 PM

Chuck:

Very nice Koufax Rookie.

ALR-bishop

10-20-2012, 06:34 PM

Very nice

Paul S

10-25-2012, 09:48 PM

Tough grade on that beautiful Williams. I'd give it more. Could be surface wear and a couple of scratches and maybe browning on the borders. Nevertheless, I don't grade cards.
On the other hand that is a terrific Koufax. 55Ts tend to retain their gloss and "whiteness".
Congrats!