What Am I Just Not Getting?

[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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by steve B

Kids tended to collect for roughly 3-5 years, so the "best" set would often vary depending on the age of the collector.

Truth!

That's why the two Topps sets that I like the most are the 1959 and the 1960 sets. I was well aware of these cards in the schoolyard but I didn't have deep enough pockets to actually collect them. I bought a few packs in 1961 and then dozens in 1962 and 1963. My card collecting buddy/partner and I then quickly assembled whatever 1964 and 1965 cards were sold in our neck of the woods (the first three series actually). By the summer of 1963 though any pre-1961 cards were as tough to find as hen's teeth.

My favourite Topps Baseball sets are therefore heavily skewed to the years I've mentioned. In rough order:

1959
1960
1963
1954
1958
1962
1957
1955
1965

The 1956, 1961 and 1964 sets just don't appeal to me.

[Kutcher55]

There's something nice and simplistic about the '67 set that just works. Plus it has the whole high # thing going for it, and two incredible high # RCs to boot. I also think it benefits from being surrounded by mostly crappy sets, particularly 66, 68, and 69. The cards have a classic look to them.

[Rickyy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Great observation. So true about going back to collecting what you remembered as a youth. I first seriously collected the 72 to 74's as a kid so when I got back into it...those were what I worked on first. 67's have the clean design and the mystique of high numbers and Seaver and Carew Rookies that seem to always carry appeal to collectors.

Ricky Y