What Am I Just Not Getting?
 

Now seems appropriate for one of my timely rants...

When did 1967 Topps get to be the greatest thing in baseball cards, the poster boy set for Topps? I thought that was 1952. Case in point: this. I don't know about you all, and we've certainly had fun discussions about soaking, but my experience is split between success and failure. I have had 100 percent success soaking pre-war, and 100 percent failure soaking post-war cards:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/376039440804

I don't like this for several reasons. First, what can be done with these other than soak? And if they don't soak off, they're ruined, in my humble opinion. Second, and not to cause trouble, lots of folks have discussed this particular seller. But all nice cards, glued firmly in, or so it would seem. So why the feeding frenzy over these? Just due to Mantle and Clemente and the gamble they will soak off?

Oh well. Just is what it is, I guess.

It never did.

Sorry. That one's ugly too. It's the 1954 set that might draw my vote.

Hmmmm. And they're not even pack fresh cards. I suppose we all have a right to dream, but hopefully that seller's dreaming wasn't the result of some form of self medication.

Have you tried this method?

https://images-prod.dazeddigital.com.../4/1094438.jpg

:confused:

Based on recent sales it seems to me that 1967 Topps high numbered cards and especially short prints in that high number series are selling at very strong prices.

$80 seems like a bargain right now. Even a Poor (Paper loss on back) Mantle and Clemente with those fronts would sell for at least $200 total, plus you've got a lot of extra value.

With the rise in prices at the top of the market to ludicrous levels, there’s a lot more buyers who are feeding at the bottom of the market, and are willing to accept condition issues. For some people, they might even just cut these out and leave them.

Front still looks good! Just don’t look at the back…

That sums it up at this stage.

It will become a much bigger 'problem' if and when the price skyrockets. Hope is a very dangerous thing...especially when possibly non-water soluble adhesives are entered into the equation.

The 67 set was already very popular when I got into the hobby for real in late 77.

Kids tended to collect for roughly 3-5 years, so the "best" set would often vary depending on the age of the collector. The popularity also revolved around things like the high numbers being more difficult than usual.
52 - First big cards from Topps, nice design, bigger set than Bowman, and really tough High numbers.

57 - Popular for its lack of fancy design so you get more of the picture.

67 (oddly I can't think of one between those) Similar clean design to 57, and fairly tough to very tough high series depending on where you lived.

71 or 72 depending on what you like. 71s look great when new and are sort of clean design, 72s are much fancier but have a fairly difficult high series.

By the late 70's there were no additional things like high numbers, and the design had gotten pretty stagnant. The big 5x7 sets in 81 were popular but not in a lasting way.

Truth!

That's why the two Topps sets that I like the most are the 1959 and the 1960 sets. I was well aware of these cards in the schoolyard but I didn't have deep enough pockets to actually collect them. I bought a few packs in 1961 and then dozens in 1962 and 1963. My card collecting buddy/partner and I then quickly assembled whatever 1964 and 1965 cards were sold in our neck of the woods (the first three series actually). By the summer of 1963 though any pre-1961 cards were as tough to find as hen's teeth.

My favourite Topps Baseball sets are therefore heavily skewed to the years I've mentioned. In rough order:

1959
1960
1963
1954
1958
1962
1957
1955
1965

The 1956, 1961 and 1964 sets just don't appeal to me.

:)

There's something nice and simplistic about the '67 set that just works. Plus it has the whole high # thing going for it, and two incredible high # RCs to boot. I also think it benefits from being surrounded by mostly crappy sets, particularly 66, 68, and 69. The cards have a classic look to them.

The eBay lot of 1967s glued to scrapbook pages ended up selling for $553.88. It wasn't clear from the listing how much of the set was there or if it included the Seaver and Carew cards. Seems like a lot to pay on the hope that they can be removed from the paper without damage.

It says in the listings title 124 cards. And all 124 are shown in the photos

I read it as 124 pages not cards and I didn't look at the pictures that carefully, but you're right, it is 124 cards. Now definitely seems like an overpay to me. Good luck to the buyer trying to get the cards off the paper.

Hope springs eternal! We all love a little roll of the dice now and again, and when it pays off, we find that our gamble was a brilliant one.

I highly doubt those cards soak off, and if they don't, with paper loss they are ruined to me. I don't collect that kind of cards. But to each his own. And I most certainly ended any desire for these when they began receiving frenzied bids for what to me is junk.

"One man's trash is another man's treasure."

Although since my mother is a hoarder, she'll take it all.

I liked the idea of the '67 set and the difficult high numbers and all, but in reality found that I wasn't willing to pay $100 or north for players like Cookie Rojas, Norm Cash, or Mike Shannon. I had accumulated most of the stars and even the Seaver and Carew RC's - didn't mind paying up for those high numbers - but it was what I perceived as the ridiculous prices for the lesser names that stopped me on the set. I'm currently about halfway through 1972 Topps, which yes also has the high number issue - but not nearly as egregiously on the price.

67T is the last great set. Such a clean design, the entire card is a photograph and the photos are so clear. Beautiful cards.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

They are indeed a great looking set, front and back. But if people are willing to pay $550+ for cards glued to scrapbook pages, then I guess 1950s card value has migrated to the 1960s. I was living in denial.

Time to move on to the 70s, James!!

Either that or another set in the 60s that doesn’t have such a strong following. Maybe 68?

could be a shill bid too.

I personally knew a big local dealer who shilled all of his Ebay auctions

if it's too high to be true it may be

Great observation. So true about going back to collecting what you remembered as a youth. I first seriously collected the 72 to 74's as a kid so when I got back into it...those were what I worked on first. 67's have the clean design and the mystique of high numbers and Seaver and Carew Rookies that seem to always carry appeal to collectors.

Ricky Y