1956 Topps Hocus Focus Lot - Legendary
 

Does anybody happen to know the winner of this lot? I was the underbidder - I'm hoping the winner is willing to part with the Jackie Robinson.

Those that are familiar with the lot - how much do the non-sports cards usually go for?

I know that the Ted Williams strip in the lot was bought by the Dreier's for just under $1k, but wasn't really sure on the rest of the lot - wondering if I should have put in a higher bid (was going to resell everything and just keep the Jackie)

Price seems about right but will point out if it's the large cards 96 is a complete set not a partial.

Considering there are 15 of the small "1955's" in the lot, it's a freakin' steal. Anything above #96 is a small card and they are scarce.

If anyone won this lot here and has front and back scans of the #'s above 96, please PM me.

Always in the market for another boxer from the issue...

Boxers
 

Adam---how many boxers are in the 55 and 56 issues ? Do you find the 55s much tougher than the 56s ? That has been my experience on the baseball subsets

Dave --I had not realized there were some 55s in the lot...any baseball subjects ? I still only have 1/2 of that set, which I think is the hardest of all the actually issued Topps sets to assemble. Fortunately Shaun, I do have the Robinson, although it is not in tip top shape

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1336329051

Al-my research shows anything above #96 is a small card. The overall set number (in the black circle), I am 99% certain, matches on both sizes from #1-96, although the subset numbering varies.

I still need to see a few reverses on the smalls from three subsets to determine if 126 is the end point, which I now think it is based upon this auction listing.

Al,

Were you the winner of the lot? If you have a duplicate Jackie, I'll take it if it is for sale, regardless of condition.

Regarding the numbering: According to Lemke, the are 5 more baseball subjects in the 1955 series, and I'm assuming that there were more subjects in other subsets that year, which would give it 30 more cards than there were in the 1956 set.

Legendary had in their description that some of the cards were trimmed.. perhaps they got mixed up, and believed that the smaller 1955 cards were those that were trimmed? The Amelia Earhart (#113) is clearly smaller in the scan than the others. The Teddy Roosevelt (#58) is also smaller, though I'm not sure if that number corresponds with the 1955 set.

Babe Ruth, who is only in the 1955 set, is card #117.

Sure wish I knew that there were '55s in there, I would have kept bidding - silly on my behalf not to fully research it when I saw it come up for auction.

Al, I believe that the Moore was a 1955-only card as it is a high number. The Marciano was in both sizes.

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...20Marciano.JPG
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...re%20front.jpg

Looks like the Archie Moore was part of the Legendary lot as well. Hope you are able to get it Adam.

Marciano too. It was a large one. Like to have that for sure. If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, there is no large Moore card.

Does anyone else here besides me think it was kinda dumb to sell the cards from this set in one big lot? I'd have gone hard after the Marciano but didn't even bother bidding on the overall lot. Or at least do a set/lot bid and some individual lots and see what ends up making more money.

Adam-you are correct-there should be no large Moore card or for any card from #97 up.

The lot definitely should have been broken down, I would have sold the smalls in a single lot, with any athletes separate and the panels as well. I think maybe if that had happened, some lots may have been too low valued for the auction but it still would have made a lot of sense to do so.

The auction though, has let me determine the subset totals in the small set. I have more at my blog http://toppsarchives.blogspot.com/2012/09/lucky-13.html but this is what I came up with:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...h46/hfsubs.jpg

Hocus Focus
 

Good info , Dave. Thanks for sharing