What Am I Just Not Getting?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

It says in the listings title 124 cards. And all 124 are shown in the photos

I read it as 124 pages not cards and I didn't look at the pictures that carefully, but you're right, it is 124 cards. Now definitely seems like an overpay to me. Good luck to the buyer trying to get the cards off the paper.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I read it as 124 pages not cards and I didn't look at the pictures that carefully, but you're right, it is 124 cards. Now definitely seems like an overpay to me. Good luck to the buyer trying to get the cards off the paper.

Hope springs eternal! We all love a little roll of the dice now and again, and when it pays off, we find that our gamble was a brilliant one.

[jingram058]

I highly doubt those cards soak off, and if they don't, with paper loss they are ruined to me. I don't collect that kind of cards. But to each his own. And I most certainly ended any desire for these when they began receiving frenzied bids for what to me is junk.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I highly doubt those cards soak off, and if they don't, with paper loss they are ruined to me. I don't collect that kind of cards. But to each his own. And I most certainly ended any desire for these when they began receiving frenzied bids for what to me is junk.

"One man's trash is another man's treasure."

Although since my mother is a hoarder, she'll take it all.

[jchcollins]

I liked the idea of the '67 set and the difficult high numbers and all, but in reality found that I wasn't willing to pay $100 or north for players like Cookie Rojas, Norm Cash, or Mike Shannon. I had accumulated most of the stars and even the Seaver and Carew RC's - didn't mind paying up for those high numbers - but it was what I perceived as the ridiculous prices for the lesser names that stopped me on the set. I'm currently about halfway through 1972 Topps, which yes also has the high number issue - but not nearly as egregiously on the price.