1974 Laughlin Old-Time Black Stars - A Set Ahead of its Time

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Bumping this classic thread up. I just graded a raw set I bought last year on eBay. Got some really nice results including a PSA 9 Cool Papa Bell, which is a pop 1 none higher. This is such a fun set to collect and you can even find signed versions now and then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

One of each of the sets got very strong prices in REA for raw cards. The first set went for $2,160 and the second set went for $1,380. That's 72 cards for $3,540.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

One of each of the sets got very strong prices in REA for raw cards. The first set went for $2,160 and the second set went for $1,380. That's 72 cards for $3,540.

The last REA auction had 2 of the 1978 sets. One was graded and one wasn't. The ungraded set actually sold for more even though they both were high grade sets. That is strange since there's significant risk and cost associated with getting the ungraded set graded and hoping it ends up grading higher than the set that was already graded.

[Exhibitman]

Optimism. Those raw cards are tens! Gotta be!

[archgator]

I've recently purchased some of both the 1974 and 1978 Laughlin Black Stars cards, 8 raw and 2 graded. In looking at them there does appear to be some inconsistency in the top to bottom/vertical sizing of the cards. The left to right/horizontal sizing does seem consistent with the cards I have.

While always a chance some of the cards are trimmed, is the sizing of these two sets known to have production (non-human altered) inconsistencies?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by archgator

I've recently purchased some of both the 1974 and 1978 Laughlin Black Stars cards, 8 raw and 2 graded. In looking at them there does appear to be some inconsistency in the top to bottom/vertical sizing of the cards. The left to right/horizontal sizing does seem consistent with the cards I have.

While always a chance some of the cards are trimmed, is the sizing of these two sets known to have production (non-human altered) inconsistencies?

I can't tell you the why, but I can back up inconsistent sizing. I have collected these for years and grab them when they pop up. I assumed personally that the short cards were likely top or bottom of the sheet.

[archgator]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I can't tell you the why, but I can back up inconsistent sizing. I have collected these for years and grab them when they pop up. I assumed personally that the short cards were likely top or bottom of the sheet.

Thank you, @JustinD!

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by IgnatiusJReilly

Bumping this classic thread up. I just graded a raw set I bought last year on eBay. Got some really nice results including a PSA 9 Cool Papa Bell, which is a pop 1 none higher. This is such a fun set to collect and you can even find signed versions now and then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I dig around I have a Cool Papa Bell that is signed multiple times on the front. I have a few other auto'ed ones as well.

[paleocards]

That was my (3rd duplicate) graded '78 set in REA. I too was surprised that the raw one sold for more. C'est la vie.

On a brighter note, I landed a grail from fellow Net54 member Matt (1956toppsguy). This incredible card is now a centerpiece in my collection and I couldn't imagine another signed Satch I'd rather have. It's a Pop 2 with none higher, enjoy!

paige74f_auto9_PSA7.jpg

[Spunker22]

Wow! That Paige is fantastic. Congratulations