What Am I Just Not Getting?

[jingram058]

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.

[Balticfox]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[iwantitiwinit]

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.

[swarmee]

$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.

[raulus]

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…

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by swarmee

$80 seems like a bargain right now.

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.

[steve B]

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.

[Gorditadogg]

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

[jingram058]

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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jingram058

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?

[Grigsby]

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