TOP TEN HOCKEY CARDS FROM THE 1960s

[camaro69]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

So money is the only criteria?

I read it as the top 10 players that started their career in the 1960's(rookie cards).
If not we would certainly include a lot of players that were really at their peak in
the 60's even though they began their NHL career in the 50's,Payers like
Howe(really the 40's), Plante,Sawchuck,Horton,Beliveau, and the list goes on.

[brian1961]

It is obvious you value a player's rookie card above everything else. That seems to be the mindset of virtually all Canadian collectors, as well as a penchant for autographed cards. Now please, this is not a criticism, rather an observation I have noticed from years of collecting. I feel it would be better to include the word "rookie" in your thread's title.

All the best to you, sir. Happy collecting. --- Brian Powell

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by brian1961

It is obvious you value a player's rookie card above everything else. That seems to be the mindset of virtually all Canadian collectors,

CORRECTION: It is the mindset of MOST collectors (not only Canadians!) Go look at the Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby by Joe Orlando - an amazing book - and you'll see that most of the cards are rookies. Go look at the want-lists online and you'll see that most cards are rookies. People want rookies!

Now again, there is no such thing as a perfect list and everything can be debated. However, if somebody is going to tell me that a $15 card should have made the list - a card that no hockey collector gives a crap about except for him - then I am going to disagree.

If somebody tells me that the 1963 Parkhurst #55 Gordie Howe should have made the list, a non-rookie, then that's a pretty good pick! Here is the card, by the way:



This card is both beautiful and popular.

Thank you for your comment

[samosa4u]

The list has been updated*

[brian1961]

Sir, you are absolutely correct. Among my fellow American collectors, the far majority of them put a player's rookie card at the top of the list for value and importance. I do not share their belief in a rookie's importance, but I acknowledge that this trend, which grew in the late 1970s in the mainstream hobby, has become firmly established. As I stated in my previous post, this is not meant to be a criticism, but an observation. Though I do not share their valuation for the rookie, that's beside the point. Moreover, it means I will not be competition for them in their struggle to secure those rookie cards that they so feverishly desire.

Have a swell day, friend, and a blessed and meaningful Resurrection Day celebration. Since you named him first, maybe some time I will tell you of the time I purchased 2 1966-67 Bobby Orr rookie cards for the non-princely sum of about a dime each. As Maurice Chevalier sang, "Yes, I remember it well."

---Brian Powell

PS---I sincerely congratulate you, buddy, for your ultra-beautiful 1963-64 Parkhurst Gordie Howe. Gord never looked better. Thanks for sharing that baby us; what a beauty!

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Since you named him first, maybe some time I will tell you of the time I purchased 2 1966-67 Bobby Orr rookie cards for the non-princely sum of about a dime each. As Maurice Chevalier sang, "Yes, I remember it well."

WHAT??? Please share it with us, sir.

Originally Posted by brian1961

PS---I sincerely congratulate you, buddy, for your ultra-beautiful 1963-64 Parkhurst Gordie Howe. Gord never looked better. Thanks for sharing that baby us; what a beauty!

This card is beautiful, popular, expensive, etc. I should have added it to the list before! Anyhow, if there are any big cards from this decade which you think I missed out on, then please do let me know. Somebody on this forum did mention to me that I should have added the Topps TEST Bobby Orr rookie, but man, I just don't know ... It is a test card, and I'm not sure if I want to go in that direction.

[brian1961]

1) I wouldn't be too concerned about the Topps 1966-67 Bobby Orr test issue. For one, so little is known about how these were issued, as well as the fact the front of the card is precisely the same as the common Canadian Topps. I think maybe super collector Keith Olbermann had written some significant things on the test issue, but if it appeared somewhere on the boards, I'm sorry to say I do not recall that.

2) A top 10 could be expanded to top 25 easily. There's several of those 1964-65 Topps tall boys that I find terrific in appearance --- Hull, Mikita, Sawchuk, though Howe looks horrible with a huge unsmiling head shot and a bandaid on his forehead, as I recall.

I also like the design of the 1967-68 and 1968-69 Topps. The Bruins particularly look classy with that deep pinkish-purple background, and their black home uniforms, respectively.

One of my personal favorite cards of Bobby Hull, for instance, is the 1961-62----the pose, the striking design of the card, and the combination of that deep blue background with Bobby's home uniform, and particularly his grinning face looking right into our eyes----PERFECTION. The almost impossible part is finding an example that is dead-centered. That beauty is an ABSOLUTE BEAST to find dead-centered. It was also the year after the Hawks' lone Stanley Cup, as well as the first year Bobby scored 50, tying him with The Rocket and Geoffrion.

3) In the mid-60s, I was a tween growing up in Arlington Heights, Illinois. I had become a rabid hockey fan, particularly of the Black Hawks. But I was a strange fan, as I admired the stars from all the other teams. Hockey cards were NOWHERE to be found in my northwest Chicago suburb. We got all the baseball, except for the last series, it seemed. We also got most of the non-sport and football---no problem. But hockey---forget it!

To deal with my 7th series baseball frustration, I happened upon an ad for some mail order dealers. I soon noticed that The Trading Card Company in Farmington Hills, Michigan carried hockey cards. My first batch would have been the 1965-66 Topps. I ordered most of the Black Hawks and the stars I liked, which were considerable in number.

Come 1966-67, many of the kids at school (junior high school for me) were talking about this 18-year old phenom playing for Boston. My dear father talked to a neighbor down the block who had Hawk season tickets. He wanted to take me to a game. In theory, the great Hawks of 1966-67 were playing the lowly Boston Bruins. It was about March 23, and my dad, mom, and I went to the old Chicago Stadium. It was a great game. Bobby Hull scored, and it was indeed deafening when he did. Fans were screaming with delight and joy! Yet it seemed the Bruins were making a game of it ALL BECAUSE OF THEIR 18-YEAR OLD ROOKIE, BOBBY ORR. He seemed to be in every play, and made it difficult for the Hawks to get close to the Bruin net. He was all over the place, wreaking havoc for this great Hawk team. Of course, I was watching Bobby Orr all the time, mesmerized by his play.

So, about this same time, I sent off my order of Topps 1966-67 hockey cards to The Trading Card Company. All cards were only about 8-10 cents apiece. That's right, Hull and Orr cost the same as a bench-warmer. I bought 2 of Bobby Orr, for some reason. I wish I can tell you I still have them; alas, no. One got lost, and the other I sold for about $1,300 in the early 1990s. I miss that card, of course, but there's another Bobby Orr I would love to get if the opportunity ever arises, and I'm well fixed enough with discretionary funds to buy it, or do the auction dogfight for.

This has brought back some great memories. Most of all, it was a special time with my dear father and mother. My poor dad would lose his life a little over a year later in a helicopter crash, working on assignment as an NBC News motion picture cameraman.

So, that's my story. Wish it ended better, but I wish other things ended differently, as you can imagine. My dad's death was a shattering blow for our family.

Again, all the best to you, sir. Best regards, Brian Powell