Author Topic: Are these people NUTS???  (Read 958801 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline RawGoo

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2800 on: May 25, 2023, 09:54:39 AM »
Did you mean Ono or me? 🤔

Ono, of course!!  I know you collect beautiful, graded examples!

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2801 on: May 25, 2023, 10:13:58 AM »
Ono, of course!!  I know you collect beautiful, graded examples!

I actually have a lot of nice ungraded baseball cards too. With the exception of 1972 all of my baseball sets contain both. With the size of these sets trying to get a million commons graded just doesn’t make financial sense anymore, if it ever did.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2802 on: May 25, 2023, 10:30:40 AM »
I changed my mind, I will talk about Jim Hickman whether Doc cares or not! 😂

The Hickman card is in the same sheet column as cards like Don Sutton, Ollie Brown and Bob Locker. There appears to have been a run of this sheet that had some problem with the color yellow. Shown below are some examples of these cards, both the way they normally are, and as the result of this yellow error. The Ollie Brown especially shows green areas that the error renders as yellowish (the green oval surrounding his name).

I’m sure this is the cause of the Hickman “variation.” It is not a variation like the other four Cubs cards, which were set up as green by mistake, and then reset later. Rather, this is a production error.

Hickman:



Sutton:



Locker:



Brown:




Offline drono

  • Posts: 1437
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2803 on: May 25, 2023, 12:35:30 PM »
Ono, of course!!  I know you collect beautiful, graded examples!

No, I don't collect graded cards.  I have a few Wacky Ads that are 5s and 6s because they were all I could find in the large perforation at the time, and no one else bid on them, so I got them for about $5 each.  I also have a 2010 Sportkings Kerri Walsh 10 just because I wanted a 10 of something, and I run a beach volleyball web site, so it made sense.  I think I paid $10 for it years ago, and it's probably not worth much more now.

Offline drono

  • Posts: 1437
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2804 on: May 25, 2023, 12:37:59 PM »
I changed my mind, I will talk about Jim Hickman whether Doc cares or not!

I didn't know the story behind the Hickman, only that I have the green version.  I did know about the other four Cubs from the 1st series, the Joe Niekro, and the 3rd-6th checklists variations, and I do have them.  Trading Card Database doesn't recognize the variations on Sutton, Brown, and Locker, and I didn't really see any differences in the ones you posted. 
« Last Edit: May 25, 2023, 12:41:23 PM by drono »

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2805 on: May 25, 2023, 12:44:19 PM »
I didn't know the story behind the Hickman, only that I have the green version.  I did know about the other four Cubs from the 1st series, and I do have them.  Trading Card Database doesn't recognize the variations on Sutton, Brown, and Locker, and I didn't really see any differences in the ones you posted.

I’m not suggesting the Sutton, Brown and Locker are variations. Just that they are from the same root cause as the Hickman, which is only considered a “variation” because it’s a Cubs card, and there are four legit Cubs variants. None of the cards I posted are variations, they are all just printing errors.

If you look closely at the ones I posted, you will see yellow bleeding, the grass is yellow tinged, etc. Look at the upper left of the Sutton and Locker, Sutton’s right leg, etc. They are all from the same sheet column and no other cards come like this. So you are free to seek a yellow Hickman, but I’m just telling you it is nothing more than a print error like the rest of these.



« Last Edit: May 25, 2023, 12:49:16 PM by Paul_Maul »


Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2807 on: July 27, 2023, 05:31:07 PM »
Not wackys, but this is the nuttiest thing I’ve seen in awhile.

This card sold in a Heritage auction….it has a PSA 10 population of 8, and would usually sell for about $300-400. Meanwhile, I submitted mine and got a PSA 9, so including grading fees I paid around $10 for it.

$10 for my PSA 9 vs. $18,600 for this PSA 10.



« Last Edit: July 27, 2023, 05:34:05 PM by Paul_Maul »

Offline quas

  • Posts: 1839
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2808 on: July 27, 2023, 05:52:43 PM »
And if you want it now, you can "make offer to owner" for $27,900 and possibly get it.
Marc

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2809 on: July 27, 2023, 05:56:06 PM »
And if you want it now, you can "make offer to owner" for $27,900 and possibly get it.

I’m sure the offers are pouring in as we speak!

Offline drono

  • Posts: 1437
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2810 on: July 27, 2023, 08:05:10 PM »
This card sold in a Heritage auction….it has a PSA 10 population of 8, and would usually sell for about $300-400. Meanwhile, I submitted mine and got a PSA 9, so including grading fees I paid around $10 for it.

$10 for my PSA 9 vs. $18,600 for this PSA 10.

I saw someone asking on a forum the other day if he should buy a 1971 Ted Simmons PSA 9 Rookie Card for the $60K offer the seller made on eBay vs. the $63.75K asking price.  1971 Topps are notoriously hard to find well centered, but this card ungraded lists for $200 in NM.  The NM 9 population is 21, the latest selling price is just $4.4K, and PSA lists it as $3K. 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/266052854981

Of course, someone replied, "what are you smoking to even consider it?"  I guess those with more money than sense will buy what they want.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2811 on: July 27, 2023, 08:55:26 PM »
That seller of the Simmons card is notorious for his idiotic pricing. I never even look at his auctions.

And 21 9s is a pretty high population for this set.

I gave up on collecting the 1971 set. I have a few really perfect 9s that I hope to cash in on to support my other sets.



« Last Edit: July 27, 2023, 09:02:32 PM by Paul_Maul »

Offline Plastered Peanut

  • Posts: 745
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2812 on: July 27, 2023, 11:52:54 PM »

Of course, someone replied, "what are you smoking to even consider it?"  I guess those with more money than sense will buy what they want.

Amen to that.   Now that I'm in my retirement years, I probably could afford a grand for a Ratz or a Cracked Animals; there is just a sense in my being that refuses to pay 4 figures for a trading card.   I'm happy with my repros on those 2 titles!
Send me your borderless wackys!

Offline drono

  • Posts: 1437
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2813 on: July 28, 2023, 03:32:05 AM »
I gave up on collecting the 1971 set. I have a few really perfect 9s that I hope to cash in on to support my other sets.

I'm two cards (534 Jim Hickman yellow and 734 Frank Robinson Traded) away from finishing my 72 set.  Other than the traded cards, I'm not going to go after the 6th series; it's just too expensive at $5-12 for a common.  My next set would be the 71, but it would probably cost around $5K to complete it, so I'm thinking about moving to 71-72 basketball instead - less cards (233 vs. 752) but not not much cheaper (4K vs 5K).  It depends on whether I can get a good deal on a partial starter set.

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1161
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2814 on: July 28, 2023, 05:27:43 AM »
I'm two cards (534 Jim Hickman yellow and 734 Frank Robinson Traded) away from finishing my 72 set.  Other than the traded cards, I'm not going to go after the 6th series; it's just too expensive at $5-12 for a common.  My next set would be the 71, but it would probably cost around $5K to complete it, so I'm thinking about moving to 71-72 basketball instead - less cards (233 vs. 752) but not not much cheaper (4K vs 5K).  It depends on whether I can get a good deal on a partial starter set.
I never could wrap my head around how some of these releases were done.  Low numbers / high numbers vs whole set at once, inclusion of a traded subset as opposed to none, were the traded cards mixed with regular packs or issued separately (I think I’ve seen some available boxed), and on and on.  Or were they a mail-away extra to a set?  I guess there’s a Benjamin guide or some book that explains it all...

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2815 on: July 28, 2023, 05:58:14 AM »
I never could wrap my head around how some of these releases were done.  Low numbers / high numbers vs whole set at once, inclusion of a traded subset as opposed to none, were the traded cards mixed with regular packs or issued separately (I think I’ve seen some available boxed), and on and on.  Or were they a mail-away extra to a set?  I guess there’s a Benjamin guide or some book that explains it all...

The cards were released one series at a time through 1973. After that, they were released all at once.

As for Traded cards:

1972: there were only seven cards, part of the regular final series of the set.

1974 and 1976: there was a separate traded set of 44 cards, but they were included within normal packs for at least part of the release

I believe starting in the 80s, Traded cards were handled differently, but I had stopped collecting by then so I’m not sure.

Offline drono

  • Posts: 1437
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2816 on: July 28, 2023, 12:28:56 PM »
The cards were released one series at a time through 1973. After that, they were released all at once.

The last series (high numbers) were always the hardest to find because they would come out so late in the season that the next sport had already piqued interest, and the kids would start buying those instead.  Many were probably returned to Topps and destroyed. 

The interesting thing about the series releases is that series 1 would have the series 2 checklist to give the buyers a preview of what cards would be in the next release.  So series 2 would have both the series 2 (with a number between 1 and 132) and series 3 checklist.  Consequently there were only 131 "new" cards instead of 132 on the 2nd sheet and so on.  In the 1972 set, it led to printing variations in the checklists between releases.

Traded and rookie sets started coming out separately in the 1980s, but I don't know the exact year - maybe around 1984 or 1985.  I believe they were sold as boxed sets and were never in the packs.  Sometime around that timeframe "rookie" cards became all the rage, so those sets were very popular and demanded high prices in coming years if a player in the set made it big.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 12:31:52 PM by drono »

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2817 on: July 28, 2023, 12:42:11 PM »

The interesting thing about the series releases is that series 1 would have the series 2 checklist to give the buyers a preview of what cards would be in the next release.  So series 2 would have both the series 2 (with a number between 1 and 132) and series 3 checklist.  Consequently there were only 131 "new" cards instead of 132 on the 2nd sheet and so on.  In the 1972 set, it led to printing variations in the checklists between releases.


Yes…and that is also why the 1972 set has 787 cards instead of 792 (6x132). Those last  five series checklists taking up a spot on the previous series’ sheet.

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1161
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2818 on: July 28, 2023, 03:27:11 PM »
Thanks for all the insights.  Becomes second nature when you collect these early Series I guess.  I only have a small batch of ‘71 thru ‘74 because of my older brothers dabbling in them.  I didn’t start collecting in earnest until the 1975 set, which was a little schizophrenic with those random color combinations.  I do have a bunch of the 1976 traded so I always assumed they were mixed in with the regular packs.  Had those catchy little newspaper headlines :”Yankees take a Gamble on Oscar.”  Great stuff.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2819 on: July 28, 2023, 04:25:21 PM »
Ah yes…the classic “fro card.” 😂

Offline drono

  • Posts: 1437
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2820 on: July 28, 2023, 06:45:19 PM »
I do have a bunch of the 1976 traded so I always assumed they were mixed in with the regular packs.  Had those catchy little newspaper headlines :”Yankees take a Gamble on Oscar.”  Great stuff.

That's the only headline I remember from the set.

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1161
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2821 on: July 28, 2023, 09:13:10 PM »
That's the only headline I remember from the set.
It was definitely the most memorable.  I vaguely remember one about ‘Mick the Quick’ Mickey Rivers, who came over from the Angels with Ed Figueroa.  Can’t remember who was sent to the Angels in exchange, but those two were key parts of the team’s success in late 70’s.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2822 on: July 29, 2023, 04:03:13 AM »
It was definitely the most memorable.  I vaguely remember one about ‘Mick the Quick’ Mickey Rivers, who came over from the Angels with Ed Figueroa.  Can’t remember who was sent to the Angels in exchange, but those two were key parts of the team’s success in late 70’s.

Bobby Bonds

Offline BattleCaps

  • Posts: 312
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2823 on: July 29, 2023, 12:10:19 PM »

Traded and rookie sets started coming out separately in the 1980s, but I don't know the exact year - maybe around 1984 or 1985.  I believe they were sold as boxed sets and were never in the packs.  Sometime around that timeframe "rookie" cards became all the rage, so those sets were very popular and demanded high prices in coming years if a player in the set made it big.

Topps Traded Sets (in the box) started in 1981.

Fleer Update Sets started in 1984 (I passed on it at release because dealers wanted an obscene $30 for it)   :]

Donruss started their Rated Rookies sets after that, maybe in 86?



  It's crazy how much a card's value now is derived from being in a piece of plastic. Everything  beyond the mid 70's in baseball in in ample supply and what's really the difference between a 8, 9, or a Gem Mint 10 grade? Not much unless you need an ego boost in a registry set.

 
  At some point, the encapsulated market will crash by 50%+ 

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1161
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2824 on: July 29, 2023, 12:10:52 PM »
Bobby Bonds
That’s what I thought, but then I also thought Bonds was possibly on the NY roster into early ‘77 before being dealt.  Maybe it was someone else, maybe Kingman.

Offline BattleCaps

  • Posts: 312
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2825 on: July 29, 2023, 12:13:15 PM »
It was definitely the most memorable.  I vaguely remember one about ‘Mick the Quick’ Mickey Rivers, who came over from the Angels with Ed Figueroa.


I liked how Mickey Rivers twirled his bat after he fouled off a pitch.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2826 on: July 29, 2023, 12:26:04 PM »
Kingman was a Met until the 1977 trade deadline. He was then on three other teams in rapid succession, finishing the year with the Yanks (but ineligible for the playoffs). Then went to Cubs for ‘78.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2827 on: July 29, 2023, 12:37:23 PM »

It's crazy how much a card's value now is derived from being in a piece of plastic.


I don’t want to start this up again, but the value is in the condition and knowing the card has not been doctored. Not the plastic.

Everything  beyond the mid 70's in baseball in in ample supply and what's really the difference between a 8, 9, or a Gem Mint 10 grade? Not much unless you need an ego boost in a registry set.

There is a big difference between 8 and 9, not so much between 9 and 10, which is why the Al Oliver price is ridic. But hey, if you’re happy with EX-MT cards, you should avoid PSA except for vintage mega stars…unless you’re OK with trimming, recoloring, etc.


At some point, the encapsulated market will crash by 50%+

Not for vintage. For modern, it already has in many cases.

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1161
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2828 on: July 29, 2023, 01:48:37 PM »
Kingman was a Met until the 1977 trade deadline. He was then on three other teams in rapid succession, finishing the year with the Yanks (but ineligible for the playoffs). Then went to Cubs for ‘78.
Looked it up, was probably Jim Wynn I got confused with Bonds.  Played in a handful of games in the first half, released mid-season.  Was picked up by Milwaukee for remainder of season but 1977 ended up being his final year.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3341
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2829 on: July 29, 2023, 01:55:29 PM »
It is kind of strange that the Yankees traded the beloved Bobby Murcer for Bonds and then flipped him after only one season. And he had a good season for the Yankees in ‘75. Hit .270, 32 Homers, .888 OPS and 30 stolen bases. I guess they were trying to get younger, and Figueroa was good, but a bit of a puzzler.

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1161
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2830 on: July 29, 2023, 02:15:00 PM »
It is kind of strange that the Yankees traded the beloved Bobby Murcer for Bonds and then flipped him after only one season. And he had a good season for the Yankees in ‘75. Hit .270, 32 Homers, .888 OPS and 30 stolen bases. I guess they were trying to get younger, and Figueroa was good, but a bit of a puzzler.
And durable too, 145 games played.  I was not yet watching baseball consistently at 7-8 years old in 1975 so I don’t have any memories of Bonds, but can’t argue with the results, as Rivers and Figgy were cogs in three straight pennant-winning seasons to follow.

Felt bad for Murcer that the two championship seasons occurred while he played elsewhere.  Same for Oscar Gamble, another personal favorite of mine.

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 4759
  • http://www.wackypackage.com/
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2831 on: July 30, 2023, 06:57:25 AM »
Looked it up, was probably Jim Wynn I got confused with Bonds.  Played in a handful of games in the first half, released mid-season.  Was picked up by Milwaukee for remainder of season but 1977 ended up being his final year.
Didn't Jimmy wynn hit at home run his first at bat with the Yankees and it was like a decade til his next one?
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!  Visit my website http://www.wackypackage.com/

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1161
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2832 on: July 30, 2023, 07:48:53 AM »
Didn't Jimmy wynn hit at home run his first at bat with the Yankees and it was like a decade til his next one?
Although he had a long career mainly with Houston starting in the early ‘60’s, he did have decent HR totals most years.  His lone stint with the Yankees came in his final year, so you’re probably thinking of someone else, like I did with Bonds.  When going that far back I’m probably relying more on memories of baseball CARDS rather than actual recollections of the season in question.

When I found out a few years ago that the inaugural 1977 season of Mel Allen’s ‘This Week in Baseball’ was going to be offered for sale on DVD, I eagerly snatched it up and binge-watched in a couple sessions.  There was a regular season play that I definitely remembered watching in my early youth.  Yankees yielded consecutive inside-the-park HRs in a blowout loss to Texas.  Something like that is so unique and improbable that it would not be easily and quickly forgotten.  So my memory is not totally shot just yet.

When you mention a notable HR followed by years of not hitting any, most fans probably think of Bucky Dent I would imagine.  That and Ozzie Smith’s 1985 HR putting St L into the Series are probably two of the best examples of light-hitting players having the most timely and impactful long balls imaginable.

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 4759
  • http://www.wackypackage.com/
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Are these people NUTS???
« Reply #2833 on: July 31, 2023, 03:56:33 AM »
Although he had a long career mainly with Houston starting in the early ‘60’s, he did have decent HR totals most years.  His lone stint with the Yankees came in his final year, so you’re probably thinking of someone else, like I did with Bonds.  When going that far back I’m probably relying more on memories of baseball CARDS rather than actual recollections of the season in question.

When I found out a few years ago that the inaugural 1977 season of Mel Allen’s ‘This Week in Baseball’ was going to be offered for sale on DVD, I eagerly snatched it up and binge-watched in a couple sessions.  There was a regular season play that I definitely remembered watching in my early youth.  Yankees yielded consecutive inside-the-park HRs in a blowout loss to Texas.  Something like that is so unique and improbable that it would not be easily and quickly forgotten.  So my memory is not totally shot just yet.

When you mention a notable HR followed by years of not hitting any, most fans probably think of Bucky Dent I would imagine.  That and Ozzie Smith’s 1985 HR putting St L into the Series are probably two of the best examples of light-hitting players having the most timely and impactful long balls imaginable.
It was definitely Jimmy wynn, he hit home run his first a bat with the Yankees, i as being sarcastic it wasn't years later but it was like a hundred at bats till he hit his next home run
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!  Visit my website http://www.wackypackage.com/


 

anything