![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I also hate it when I have to go to a dictionary to find out what someone here is talking about
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've always considered Ts all the way to Goudeys in their own individual category, and I've always though of 50s-75 as vintage. However, now that I'm only collecting "vintage" I am thinking that 50s-65 should be vintage. I know everything until 73 was in series. But commons from like 66-75 (the end of what I used to consider vintage) are next to worthless. You can get them for like 10 cents apiece nowadays.
__________________
Anyone on Twitter? Here's my new handle @et_cardcollectr Also just created a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...t_cardcollectr |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No. I never said anywhere I could get high #s for that. I can get commons for that. High #s aren't considered commons, or at least I don't think they would be considered that.
__________________
Anyone on Twitter? Here's my new handle @et_cardcollectr Also just created a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...t_cardcollectr |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
They are common players. I find it odd your cutoff. I always found 1964 and 1965 much easier than 1966 and 1967. 1968-73 seemed even more plentiful. By the time you get to 1974, you can buy nice sets under 200.00 and I don't ever see much appreciation.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, I put together a 1974 Topps set in probably Ex to NM condition for the most part. After I completed it, I checked to see what I could get a set for in the same condition. They were selling for $90-$110. I spent $80 to get all the cards but 3 in 2 big lots. Then I traded for the Ryan, Winfield and Aaron. So, I spent $80 and a couple of months putting it together when I could've spent $15 more and just bought it outright.
After I saw the values, I decided to break it up because I thought it just wouldn't hold value over time. I've the stars put away (for now) and am trading all the other HOFers, commons, teams, rookies, whatever for late 1950s-early 1960s stuff. That's where I think I"m going to concentrate my collection on and not so much into the early 1970s.
__________________
Anyone on Twitter? Here's my new handle @et_cardcollectr Also just created a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...t_cardcollectr |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
70 and 72 Hi #'s are more popular than 68, 69 or 71. But to me, a hidden scarcity in filling the 65 sets are the 284-370 series, those are always harder than the hi #'s in that year Rich
__________________
Look for our show listings in the Net 54 Calendar section |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My bad, Al - I should have just opined that vintage had always been perfectly happy as just a noun and should never have been misappropriated for use as an adjective in our hobby.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Determining autographs on signed bats | t206wagner | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 2 | 09-23-2017 02:51 PM |
Need help determining year and some players on two postcards | btcarfagno | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 10-25-2016 06:54 PM |
Determining Value?? | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 1 | 01-19-2008 04:27 AM |
Why isn't Rarity the No.1 factor in determining a card's value? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 07-06-2006 06:59 PM |