Quote:
Originally Posted by jingram058
When did 1967 Topps get to be the greatest thing in baseball cards, the poster boy set for Topps?
|
It never did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jingram058
I thought that was 1952.
|
Sorry. That one's ugly too. It's the 1954 set that might draw my vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jingram058
Several cases in point, and not to out or try to embarrass anyone, but what is up with this? 16 raw, common cards for $650? Really? Did someone put the decimal point in the wrong place? High numbers, short prints, perhaps so. But $650 seems insane to me:
https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=358940 |
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jingram058
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? |
Have you tried this method?
