December Pick ups

[jason.1969]

A mark near the top took this card all the way down to $15.
Traynor_1935_DS.jpg

[jason.1969]

And thanks to a fellow N54 member, two more for my Top 100 collection.

[Jason Carota]

The start of a new player collection:

[jchcollins]

Say Hey!! Always loved the '55 Bowmans. But how many people really had "color" TV's back then?

[ALR-bishop]

Bowman in a last ditch effort tried to tie it's product to new technology. Color TV sets began selling in 1954. But the marketing ploy was ahead of it's time. Very few had color TVs in 1955. I think that even by 1957 the numbers were still below 200,000

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

it's a shame psa wont touch proofs.

I've seen 67 Topps Maris Yankees proofs in PSA slabs., for example Do you mean that they won't assign a number grade?

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Jason Carota

The start of a new player collection:

That's a nice looking 3 Jason. Hodges is a nice player to collect. Arguably HoF numbers without the HoF pricing ( in most cases ). Along with F Robinson, Hodges is a great value imo.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Bowman in a last ditch effort tried to tie it's product to new technology. Color TV sets began selling in 1954. But the marketing ploy was ahead of it's time. Very few had color TVs in 1955. I think that even by 1957 the numbers were still below 200,000

If I recall the history, color sets were available in the mid-50's, but it was a good decade if not later before most shows began to be broadcast that way (Andy Griffith was late '60s before it was shot in color).

It may have been a last ditch effort for Bowman, but I've always loved these cards and the theme. Also you can get most stars and HOFers at a bargain in comparison to other 1950's sets. Anyone want to guess what a '55 Topps Mantle would go for if they had made one? A lower-grade '55 Bowman Mantle can still be had for a couple hundred bucks in most cases. And what's better than a 24 year-old Willie Mays fresh off of his first MVP season and "the catch" the previous October? I was thrilled to be able to pick this one-up. Facing facts anymore that if I want to wait to spend the type of money required for really "nice" cards that I want from this era (PSA 6 or above) that it's just really going to take a long time. That being said, I'm happy to pickup lower grade cards from more affordable sets for bargains. '58 Topps is another. No love for '58s in comparison to '55 - '57 Topps. But they are colorful cards and the set is packed full of stars.

I digress...let's hear it for the '55 Bowman TV sets!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Jason Carota

The start of a new player collection:

Nice card Jason, and cool shot of Gil at 1B with that great Ebbets Field scoreboard in the background!

[Kurri17]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Say Hey!! Always loved the '55 Bowmans. But how many people really had "color" TV's back then?

A nice pickup of a great card. This one has grown on me, and my LCS has a PSA 5 that has been calling my name. As you noted lated in this thread, hard to beat mid-grade like this one. Congrats.

Have been after this one for a while. Little OC but was able to use my 10% off ebay coupon so got it at a fair price

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74

Have been after this one for a while. Little OC but was able to use my 10% off ebay coupon so got it at a fair price

Nice card. Finding that one centered well is quite a chore, I've learned after nearly 30 years of collecting. I once had an example that was a solid NM or better, but centered L-R probably a tad worse than yours. Mainly because of that, I didn't hang on to it. Years later, I kind of wish I had because the color on it was really beautiful, and in my old age I'm trying to be a bit more tolerant with things like centering for my personal collection. (It's staggering this day in age when you can quickly look at many different examples of a single card for sale on eBay just how damn many of them are centered poorly - in some cases it's like 80% of the cards for sale outside of PSA 8's and above...and anymore those aren't always even centered that nicely unqualified for some issues). Anyhow - always thought the '57 Mick was one of the neater looking ones - but they are indeed a bear to find centered (and diamond cuts are pretty common too...) or without at least some type of moderate print damage.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Kurri17

A nice pickup of a great card. This one has grown on me, and my LCS has a PSA 5 that has been calling my name. As you noted lated in this thread, hard to beat mid-grade like this one. Congrats.

Thank you. I don't have a local card shop anymore. In some cases that's good, as my frequency of impulse purchases is way down without that "instant gratification" factor...but I do miss the experience of walking in, seeing the eye candy all in one place, smelling the nostalgia literally through thousands of old cards that were stockpiled in the back - and being able to work out a deal for a piece of history with the owner right then and there.

Again I do think that on the whole, the '55 Bowmans are under appreciated and great bargains (the Mays being a prime example) to add HOFers at a decent price. A '57 Topps or even a '59 Topps Mays in similar condition would have cost me probably $50 more, I'm willing to bet.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Nice card. Finding that one centered well is quite a chore, I've learned after nearly 30 years of collecting. I once had an example that was a solid NM or better, but centered L-R probably a tad worse than yours. Mainly because of that, I didn't hang on to it. Years later, I kind of wish I had because the color on it was really beautiful, and in my old age I'm trying to be a bit more tolerant with things like centering for my personal collection. (It's staggering this day in age when you can quickly look at many different examples of a single card for sale on eBay just how damn many of them are centered poorly - in some cases it's like 80% of the cards for sale outside of PSA 8's and above...and anymore those aren't always even centered that nicely unqualified for some issues). Anyhow - always thought the '57 Mick was one of the neater looking ones - but they are indeed a bear to find centered (and diamond cuts are pretty common too...) or without at least some type of moderate print damage.

Great analysis of the 57 Mick, and jives with my experience as well. As someone who's been collecting pretty much only Mantle basic cards for a year now, I'm continually amazed by how his cards across the board are so often poorly centered, or with specific print defects, making nice ones very hard to find-- in any grade.

For every ten examples I see of a given Mick...sometimes zero are centered. For the 57, few are focused with crisp print, for that 1960 card, whew, a slew of print issues alongside centering, the 67 has that red dot on almost every example above the 'S' in YANKEES, the 53B and 54B cards feel like they show up centered .00000001% of the time, LOL, we've discussed the 51B here, which is infamously hard, the others all have their similar issues-- it all makes assembling a nice run quite the challenge.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Matt is a perfectionist, but for me I can live with centering like this with the right color and print quality.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by MattyC

...the others all have their similar issues-- it all makes assembling a nice run quite the challenge.

And here I thought the biggest challenge in assembling a nice Mantle run was how freaking expensive all his cards are!

[MattyC]

That specific PSA 7 of the '57 Mantle pictured up there is pretty much as good as it gets for that card, in my experience, in terms of the centering and print combo.

For comparison, there are a few PSA 8s and even a PSA 9 pictured on the PSA Registry Basic Mantle site, and in my opinion none of those higher graded examples with pictures are superior to that 7-- in terms of overall eye appeal.

It seems sharp corners carry that card to a high technical grade to the graders, but its centering and print woes remain-- for my money, corners take a back seat on that card in favor of print clarity, crisp focus, and centering. Great example, Peter!

[jason.1969]

Loving the Hodges, Mays, and Mantle recently posted. Learned over drinks that my boss loved Chris Chambliss as a kid. Picked him up this (hopefully real) autographed photo. Much appreciated if you can positively ID the other players shown...occasion is his huge HR in the 1976 ALCS. (Am assuming Munson and Carlos May, who was on deck, but let me know.)

Chambliss.jpg

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Matt is a perfectionist, but for me I can live with centering like this with the right color and print quality.

Yep! The greenish blue hue of the stands behind Mantle is what I was talking about. The nice ones have blue in them, but all too often this card even in high grade has the green and then blackish-brown due to the difference in print variation. My '57 Mantle that I sold probably a decade ago looked like your PSA 7, Peter. Though centering considerations on mine may have rendered it only a 6, if graded.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Great analysis of the 57 Mick, and jives with my experience as well. As someone who's been collecting pretty much only Mantle basic cards for a year now, I'm continually amazed by how his cards across the board are so often poorly centered...

Thanks. Equally good analysis of the run as a whole being difficult, with each set and card having its own particular quirks and idiosyncrasies. My centering score (though I didn't know it at the time; I didn't care about centering as a kid...) was the '56 Mantle gray back I picked-up and have had since I was about 14 years old (about 1990). It's only about a VG-ish card (corner wear, including some paper loss) - but besides being about 0.00002% diamond cut left to right if you look very closely - it is centered perfectly. It is a good example of a mid-grade card that retains a ton of eye appeal because even though it certainly has it's fair share of issues from the technical grading perspective - the color remains bright and that 50/50 centering all the way around just really sets it off. The one Mantle I have held onto since I was a kid because of what it means to me...

[gemmint77]

Got a few more!!

[gemmint77]

Last two for the year.

[rjd1]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Loving the Hodges, Mays, and Mantle recently posted. Learned over drinks that my boss loved Chris Chambliss as a kid. Picked him up this (hopefully real) autographed photo. Much appreciated if you can positively ID the other players shown...occasion is his huge HR in the 1976 ALCS. (Am assuming Munson and Carlos May, who was on deck, but let me know.)

Attachment 215537

Huge Chambliss fan...
Autograph looks good to me
It was Munson and I'm pretty sure Sandy Alomar on deck

[mintacular]

Nice clementes, you done well sir!

[Jason Carota]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

That's a nice looking 3 Jason. Hodges is a nice player to collect. Arguably HoF numbers without the HoF pricing ( in most cases ). Along with F Robinson, Hodges is a great value imo.

Thanks! I'm still amazed he's not in the HOF.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Nice card Jason, and cool shot of Gil at 1B with that great Ebbets Field scoreboard in the background!

That is the best part of the card! Sometimes I forget he's in the foreground.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Jason Carota

I'm still amazed he's not in the HOF.

On the surface the "Gil belongs in the Hall" arguments seem to make sense - he was a very recognizable figure for a long time because he played for the perrineal pennant-winning Dodgers, and was always in the spotlight. Unfortunately however offensive stats for Hall consideration are typically tallied by position, and 1B is a tough position when trying to get in line with those numbers. While Gil's certainly aren't terrible - they also aren't among the top for that position in the Hall (think Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, etc.)

Gil could have benefited from about 150 more lifetime HR's and 20 points or so on his lifetime average (.273) for solid HOF consideration. And also, though he finished with respectable MVP votes in a good number of seasons - he never won one.

[jason.1969]

I would add that he managed the Miracle Mets and was #1 in RBIs and #2 in HRs for the 1950s.

Yes, another 20 points in batting average was needed. Or as the modern fans would argue, "If only he'd walked more!"

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

I would add that he managed the Miracle Mets and was #1 in RBIs and #2 in HRs for the 1950s.

Yes, another 20 points in batting average was needed. Or as the modern fans would argue, "If only he'd walked more!"

Yeah, I wish the Hall worked different than it does. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing both Gil and Roger Maris enshrined. It's a shame that the standards aren't more even by position - look at some of the relatively weak by comparison hitting middle infielders and shortstops in particular (Reese, Rizzuto, Doerr) who were great defensively and big team leaders - who are in the Hall. 3rd base is another anomaly. Don't get me started on the injustice of Ron Santo and how long that took...

[Samsdaddy]

Not to get this thread off topic even more but in my opinion, the Hall of Fame is watered down. There are several good or very good players who played a long time and built up some decent numbers because of their years of longevity who should not be enshrined.

In my opinion, the Hall of Fame is reserved for the VERY BEST players of their era at their position. Guys you know when you were seeing them play, you were watching the best.

Anyway, back on topic, I sure like those Clemente cards. Very sharp!

[Beatles Guy]

.273 is not shabby when you see names such as Schmidt, Reggie, Killebrew and Mathews lower than that. Granted, those guys hit more HRs, but as was mentioned, Hodges was one of the premier power guys of his decade.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Samsdaddy

In my opinion, the Hall of Fame is reserved for the VERY BEST players of their era at their position. !

I would agree the best players of their era, but with the caveat that anymore that does NOT just mean the best players of all time. There are those out there that believe the HOF is only for the biggest names (Cobb, Mathewson, Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Mays, Williams, Aaron, etc.) and that simply is not true. You saw this argument a few years back on Ron Santo and some people claiming well sorry, he simply wasn't "the best of the best." The by position analysis and especially throwing in things like SABR-type stats would argue well...if someone like George Kell is in the Hall (Bill James ranked him at like the 30th best 3rd baseman of all time) then why is Santo who is by their rankings the SIXTH best 3rd baseman of all time not? If the argument is that the Hall is only for the elitist of the elite, then we would have to go back to the 1940's and earlier and kick a bunch of people out. That's simply not historically what the Hall has ever been about.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Beatles Guy

.273 is not shabby when you see names such as Schmidt, Reggie, Killebrew and Mathews lower than that. Granted, those guys hit more HRs, but as was mentioned, Hodges was one of the premier power guys of his decade.

Yes, but this proves the point exactly. All of those other guys have more than 500 home runs. If Gil had 500 on the nose, he would have been in the Hall decades ago. That's one of those milestones that is pretty predictable. Why did it take Duke Snider so long to get in? I would argue the fact that he was shy of 500 played a big factor for a long time...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Baseball reference metrics.

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 2 (622), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 128 (141), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 83 (230), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 32 (275), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS First Base (36th), 45.0 career WAR/34.3 7yr-peak WAR/39.6 JAWS

[Peter_Spaeth]

On this list of best players not in the Hall, Hodges is only ranked 38th.

http://baseballpastandpresent.com/20...e-version-4-0/

[KCRfan1]

Loved the article Peter, thanks for sharing!

[JollyElm]

A HOF'er that's a tough high number in absolutely beautiful shape…

1972wilhelm.jpg

Soon, Hoyt will be added to my 1972 Graded High Numbers for Trade thread in the B/S/T.

[jason.1969]

Keeping the Dodgers run going...not technically a pickup but I finally framed my 1956 Topps Dodgers set.

There are four blanks that will soon be filled with artist versions of four players from the 55 WS roster who Topps did not include as Dodgers in 56. My artist finished Hoak, but it may be a while before Kellert, Meyer, and Shuba follow.

[MattyC]

Jason, that is AWESOME!!!

Love those Clementes up earlier as well.

[jason.1969]

I decided to make my own temp versions of the missing three. The Shuba didn't really work out, but it'll do till the real one comes.

[almostdone]

Very nice display Jason. I know how hard you worked on it this year and I think it came out great. Very nice. Congrats!
Drew

[jason.1969]

And courtesy of N54 Secret Santa...a major haul!! The Ashburn and Aaron were on my Top 100 Want List...getting close!

[Samsdaddy]

Very nice stuff Jason!