1960 Fleer Baseball - What's the deal?

[mferronibc]

Ok, what's the scoop with the 1960 Fleer baseball set? I didn't even know this set existed until I saw a Cy Young 8 (OC) going for under under $10 which seemed completely bizarre compared to even 1960 Topps commons that often go for at least that much. Obviously it is a commemorative set with HOFers long retired by 1960 which I am sure lowers its drawl to collectors, but these are still cards over 50 years old with renditions of greats like Ruth, Gehrig, etc. I am shocked they go for so little. They're not the most attractive cards, but not the worst and some seem to have pretty cool coloring from what I've seen. I saw on the boards a complete set in good condition recently sold for only $150 which blew my mind. What am I missing here?

[bnorth]

They are post career cards.

[jchcollins]

I think the draw to most vintage is that the cards are of the players while they were active players. Everyone in that set was retired (and some dead) when it was issued. Yeah they are ok, but not really a draw in comparision to tobacco or Goudey cards that show those players when they were actually active. There are a few exceptions to the "while active" rule that I can think of - the most notable being the 1948 Leaf Babe Ruth. Ruth was long retired at that point yes, but the rest of the set features active players (Honus Wagner is another exception) and it doesn't hurt that it's considered one of the toughest and most desireable early postwar sets out there.

[jchcollins]

Another super rare example would be the 1933 Goudey Nap Lajoie. Actually issued in 1934 to fill a number void that left collectors frustrated and writing the company to ask where the card was, Goudey issued the missing number the next year, inexplicably with the retired Napolean Lajoie as the subject. Lajoie hadn't played since 1916. That card is worth a tad more than '60 Fleer cards...

[Jerry G]

Hi, Matt. Welcome to the board. A constant mantra that you will hear around here is, if you want to get the most enjoyment out of your collection, collect what you like.

Most collectors are attracted to cards issued during the players playing days. This includes me but, I also love the '60 and '61 Fleer sets. I collected these as a kid because even then I appreciated baseball history and it's characters.

Now, after starting this post, I realize that I had never seen an "old card" (meaning pre-1958) in 1961. That had to add to the appeal to me. The first old card I ever saw came a couple years later. It was a 1952 Bowman Marlin Stuart. It was so little! I immediately had to trade for it. Then, in 1965, a classmate brought to school the first ever 1935 Diamond Stars I ever saw, Joe Medwick and Julis Solters and a Goudey 4 in 1 with Mel Harder. The trade was made as quick as we could get to my house.

In the mid to late 1960's, I decided to send one of my '61 Fleer doubles to Ted Lyons to sign. Don't remember why I chose him but, he responded and included a nice note with it. Over the years, I have picked up a total of 57 autographed 61's. Most recently added Gabby Hartnett and Earl Combs. So, I've enjoyed these sets for many years for several reasons.

I'm sure that's way more information than anyone cares for, but it goes back to my original point. Collect what you like. If you run across a bargain and the card doesn't grab you, forget about it. Save your money for something else.

[glynparson]

Low demand fairly high supply equals low cost. Now if you have one of the #80 backs those have good value

[ALR-bishop]

Agree with Glyn. Card 80 Martin back cost me a lot. There are 3 versions, mine is the Left Grove front . It was expensive. The other two versions, Collins and Tinker fronts, are really expensive. Any of the versions will cost more than the rest of the entire set several times over.

There are a lot of Fleer retro card sets between 1959 and 1980, in addition to the "current player" 1963 set

This great blog offers info on those Fleer sets, including the 1960 set

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ...QPb6RYK_O8spE-

[mferronibc]

Great thanks for the discussion guys. Jerry I appreciate your anecdotes, you’re totally right isn’t that what it’s all about!

[D.P.Johnson]

The 1960 Fleer set features Ted William's final card while he was still playing. That card is still fairly sought after.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by D.P.Johnson

The 1960 Fleer set features Ted William's final card while he was still playing. That card is still fairly sought after.

It's such a crying shame what an abomination that card turned out to be with the ridiculous amount of white space on front. It looks like Fleer threw the layout together in an awful hurry (same with Ernie Lombardi)...or someone in the art department was hitting the sauce a little early. Tsk tsk.

[ALR-bishop]

Good article on the Fleer 1960 set and the rare Martin 80 backs

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ...DXHvjdrNX4Gt0-

[brian1961]

As others have pointed out, aside from Ted Williams, they are all post-career cards. If you study the pictures used, many of them are downright raunchy, whether simply a bad pose, or a picture of the player shortly before his actual death. On the other hand, the '61 Fleer Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner were superb, in my opinion. However, if you want to consider an even better post-career set, try the 1961 Golden Press Hall of Fame. Many GREAT poses, and all of them are full-length body poses, which makes for a refreshing change. However, the set is but 33 cards--much like, and even better than the DeLong Gum series of 1933, the player selection is among the best.

Any of these sets is strictly for enjoyment, and not future investment.

--- Brian Powell

[D.P.Johnson]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's such a crying shame what an abomination that card turned out to be with the ridiculous amount of white space on front. It looks like Fleer threw the layout together in an awful hurry (same with Ernie Lombardi)...or someone in the art department was hitting the sauce a little early. Tsk tsk.

Yes. Don't recall ever reading an explanation as to why that Williams card was so poorly done. They must have had a million nice photos of him following the '59 set. It should have been a spectacular card...

[mrmopar]

When I was first collecting, the closest comparison I had were the TCMA/Renata Galasso sets. Not the same obviously, but it was neat to have a way to get cards of the old timers I had been reading about when I would otherwise not have been able to find or afford them otherwise. I really enjoyed those sets. I know I would have been a fan of the 60-61 Fleer had I been a kid then.

[brian1961]

As I remember those early days of my collecting baseball cards, the Golden Press HOF, and the '61 Fleer gave me a springboard into baseball's history and its great players.

I was very close to my first cousin. He was a couple years older than I, collected cards, and was a real positive influence on me. Anyway, there was something about the '61 Fleer Cap Anson he could not stand. I'm sure Cap's paraffin-sharpened mustache was the crux of the matter. Any that he got, Greg would tear up; he couldn't stand looking at the card. On the other hand, he marveled with admiration at the rippling muscled physique of "The Beast", Jimmie Foxx. Neither Fleer card did "Double X" justice, in my opinion; however, there was a photo in an old baseball history book we discovered at his local library of Jimmie swinging a bat with his shirt off. He was so impressed with his build. Much like I was when I saw the photo in NEWSWEEK of Chicago Black Hawk's star Bobby Hull pitching hay with his shirt off at his cattle ranch in Canada. Just reminiscing.....

--- Brian Powell