A few weeks ago up in Jax, I hit up Chuck (always great condition vintage including stars). I made a point to get a big need this trip.
The Willie Mays was the big one, not to take away from the Yaz (which was an upgrade), Garvey and Pops. I actually grabbed another Garvey and Stargell in my second deal with Chuck, just in lesser condition. Any guesses what these 5 cards cost me?
I am going to show a portion of the 2nd deal from Chuck to balance out this post. The rest make up a post all on their own. The 2nd deal all came from Chucks dollar boxes (paid .75 each) or the majority came from the .50 boxes and I paid a quarter a piece for those. I did not make the distinction in the scans.
Okay, definitely got some vintage from Chuck. Remember these last few scans (all but the first one) came from deal #2 which goes with the next post.
Drawing back to the start of this post regarding the 1970 Topps set: I need quite a few high numbers. Nothing less than EX in condition. Unless it is one of the big ones left, and I'll have to deal with those when I see them.
1971 TOPPS: 331, 400, 407, 449, 461, 469, 485, 527, 537, 543, 546, 549, 557, 559, 570, 572, 573, 574, 578, 603, 605, 606, 625, 630, 640, 642, 658, 661, 664, 665, 672, 688, 692, 698, 700, 709, 714, 715, 722, 727, 733, 737, 740, 744, 751.
The majority of my 71' set is EX-NM, nice for the most part. No writing, no creasing, decent corners, and centering. A few stars are more like the Mays up top and the Stargell. I don't need to upgrade those I am fine for the most part. I do have a short list of upgrade to NM listed on my website under the needs list.
75 cents for the 2nd Pops was a steal!
ReplyDeleteActually I pulled him out of the .50 box (paid even less)
DeleteSort of looks brown, I'd need a '79 black back next to it to compare.
ReplyDeleteI think I have one of your '70 wants, if it meets your condition standard. I'll add it to the Braves stack that I hope will go out next week.
It is definitely a brown back. TCDB didn't question that, just said they're not listing it.
Delete71's are definitely tough with the black border to find without wear on the black. I'm limited in my Hostess knowledge. I have a few of them but considering how much of their product I have consumed over those years I should have a lot more of their cards.
ReplyDeletePeople (i.e. bloggers) seem to care way too much about what the TCDB thinks about various things these days. Why, I do not know? It's just one card website in a sea of other card websites.
ReplyDeletethere are zero websites/data bank that show that card. My issue is much bigger than one card. I have millions of cards, and I have run into this situation at least a hundred if not two hundred times. I want my cards to count. I am anal that way, if 1 card does not show up the entire data bank is pointless especially if you're trying to get your entire collection in the web, digital. TCDB remarks as to it's just a rarity, well that makes it a SSP by todays collecting hobby.
DeleteVery weird that TCDB doesn't count that Hostess. I'm the furthest thing from being a TCDB expert, but my first impression was they added every thing to their database. Guess I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Those first five 1971's are in really, really nice condition. I'm sure you got a nice deal on them too.
TCDB is so fucking weird. They're arbitrarily anti-variation with old cards (I got denied a few times for a 1934 National Chicle which had a different team printed on the back) but then have zero problem breaking out every single variation in the copyright line on things like 1989 or 1990 Donruss. I keep giving up on using them to catalog my collection is that I can't organize things the way I want to organize them.
ReplyDeleteOh. And those Leafs are beautiful.