Some impressive sets, but so what!?! No one can see the sets or the cards in them. PSA says it's for privacy issues. Well if someone is that paranoid about privacy don't participate in the Registry or at lest exempt them from awards. If you were #2 in a set and they were #1, and you want to compete, you can't see what cards you would need to get to move up. I think closed sets go against the spirit of camraderie and ccompetition that is The Registry
Fab - you don't need to see someone else's set to know what you would need to beat them. All you have to find out is what card upgrades or additions would give you a higher GPA than they have, and that's based purely on your own set (and the pop report, to a lesser extent).
Card collecting, while fun, is a hobby full of jealousy ego. I wouldn't want other registry participants to bid on cards that I need, not because they need the card for their own sets, but merely because they are trying to prevent me from owning one.
NickM- I didn't join the Registry to get a math degree, I do it for fun. On smaller sets you can probably figure out what card you need, but what about the larger sets? I don't have the time to figure out what combination of cards and grades I would need to try to catch up to someone when I can't see what's in their set.
Koby- I guess I'm just naive. I've been outbid on cards, but I've never looked at it from the perspective that someone wanted to prevent me from catching them on a set. Every card that I've been outbid on, from my knowledge, has been because that person needed the card for their set. They just were willing than me to pay more. Not because they wanted to block me from getting it.
Closing ones set and winning an award is like giving someone the Oscar for "Best Picture", but not allowing anyone but the Oscar committee to see the film. Imagine the public outrage if that happened? I can hear the Oscar committee now "Trust us, this picture deserved the Oscar. It was really good"
<<NickM- I didn't join the Registry to get a math degree, I do it for fun. On smaller sets you can probably figure out what card you need, but what about the larger sets? I don't have the time to figure out what combination of cards and grades I would need to try to catch up to someone when I can't see what's in their set.>>
Even if you can see their sets, on a larger set there are so many ways to catch up (any combination of added rating points works) that seeing their set doesn't make it that much simpler for you.
Here is a formula for this: Total number of points available in the set (which PSA was nice enough to provide in many cases) multiplied by (other person's set rating minus your set rating). That is the number of rating points you will need to add.
There is a little issue of rounding error that can creep in here, but unless you get almost the same GPA as the other person, there will never be a problem.
<<Koby- I guess I'm just naive. I've been outbid on cards, but I've never looked at it from the perspective that someone wanted to prevent me from catching them on a set. Every card that I've been outbid on, from my knowledge, has been because that person needed the card for their set. They just were willing than me to pay more. Not because they wanted to block me from getting it.
Closing ones set and winning an award is like giving someone the Oscar for "Best Picture", but not allowing anyone but the Oscar committee to see the film. Imagine the public outrage if that happened? I can hear the Oscar committee now "Trust us, this picture deserved the Oscar. It was really good" >>
So it's sort of like the Oscar for best Foreign Language Film.
The registry is a great place to keep track of and display your collection. When it starts getting to be a contest and a p*ssing match is when we as collectors need to look in the mirror. Sure everyone would love to have the best set but its not always an obtainable goal. Especially when someone with a larger budget is also building the same set. I say more power to our deep pocket breathren but make your sets viewable so we can ogle at their exceptionality. Let's enjoy the registry while we have it because sooner or later it's going to be ruined by that ugly green monster called jealousy.
<< <i>Fab - you don't need to see someone else's set to know what you would need to beat them. All you have to find out is what card upgrades or additions would give you a higher GPA than they have, and that's based purely on your own set (and the pop report, to a lesser extent).
Nick >>
Nick, why would "beating" someone even be in the equation?
Well, if you're competing, beating the other person is generally part of the goal. The registry is designed to promote competition - including handing out awards.
I don't worry much about it - the only ones of my registry sets that are #1 have low completion percentages and basically no competition, but it's still fun to break into the first page on a set or o pass someone (although on my HOF set, I've prodded other people to stay ahead of me because their sets were more impressive, and mine was simply going to have more registry points.
MOSH has now moved into mainstream FB. For the last few months, I have watched him buy some supplemental sets and recently three high end mainstream sets. He is certainly paying very high $ for cards he wants. It seems the guys he buys from love him. People that are competing against him don't seem to have the same affection. His sets are all closed. Unlike my buddy Frank...... I don't care. I can do the math if it matters. But honestly, it doesn't. This is a part-time hobby for me and I have only dipped my toe in recently after being gone more than a year. But like Frank, if I need it, I will buy it and if I don't, I don't bother. I re-read this thread has it popped back up tonight. I noticed the word "conditions" on the first page regarding some Maravich cards. I would be very interested in what those conditions were as it might explain something else that has happened. When Paul Lemm's 63 Fleer FB set (ranked #2 and a very fine set) was sold, it disappeared. It was not retired. A few days later a MOSH set was in it's place with a slightly higher GPA. I thought it odd that having had a #2 set, you would choose to delete it and leave no memory. Then Skinsfans 66T and 67T FB sets were sold, again then were deleted and not retired. So I checked Carlos's 85 set he mentioned on this thread. Same thing. Now I don't know if it is coincidence or not, but in connection with the word "conditions", it is suspecious. If you are buying sets, great .... more power to you. If a "condition" is that the memory of anothers accomplishment is erased. Way not cool. I do not know how these deals worked but if any of you with FACTS please share. The only reason I can imagine for this is to make one's own accomplishements seem bigger somehow. Again, I don't know if this is the case or not and am looking for anyone who does know to share what they can. The only conditions that I put on a sale is... if I pay for it, I expect to receive it. Thought that was the way it is suppose to be. Frank, Since I heard Art's sets were for sale I made a print out of what was in them before they disappeared. Now if I looked correctly Art's 66T FB set had a 1 of 1 Gilchrist in it. Until a second was recently graded, I won it last night for a very lofty price for a semi-star card in 9 from the set listed as a 1 of 2. Guess who the under bidder was ?? Interesting anyway. Jeremy (FB Card Store), I know your gave glowing praise of them a few months ago and will not ask how you feel now. But if these people are what is right with the hobby, it is pretty clear that I'm on the wrong side. Also I would one know if they had anything they could use since we cant' see there sets.
I have turned my sets of anywhere this guy shows up as a competitor. No disrespect Frank. In fact, I have updated and turned on my 65 Philly where you and I are competing. And if you ever want to know what is in any of my sets Frank, just let me know, I'll gladly tell. But MOSH bid me up last night on a card that I don't think he needed but I did. No problem, but my sets will stay of accordingly. Fuzz
Wanted: Bell Brands FB and BB, Chiefs regionals especially those ugly milk cards, Coke caps, Topps and Fleer inserts and test issues from the 60's. 1981 FB Rack pack w/ Jan Stenerud on top.
But MOSH bid me up last night on a card that I don't think he needed but I did. >>
I hear that all the time. "If he wants it, its going to COST him." "I didn't win it, but I made him PAY." Registry participants running up the cost for other registry participants. Part of the competition, I guess, but not very nice.
I have been informed by a well trusted source that the transaction on the Gilchrist was done in error. I believe the source completely. Certainly I have made that error before as well. Apologies to those concerned. Fuzz
Wanted: Bell Brands FB and BB, Chiefs regionals especially those ugly milk cards, Coke caps, Topps and Fleer inserts and test issues from the 60's. 1981 FB Rack pack w/ Jan Stenerud on top.
I think the thing about the MOSH that bothers me is that he keeps all the sets hidden yet will still outspend anyone for what ever card he wants. SO - since he's going to outspend everyone anyway what's the point of keeping the sets hidden ?? Maybe it's just me
During the three years that I've competed for some of the cards MOSH has bid on, I've never known him bid on anything he doesn't need. He will pay some big buck for cards he wants and will sell some really nice cards he's upgraded from time to time.
Just wanted to let everyone know that I've never witnessed MOSH bid on anything he didn't need or already had. From what I've experienced, he's not that type of collector. He just happens to have some deeeeeep pockets.
Happy collecting to all, Peter
Currently collecting
Vintage golf, 1981-82 Donruss golf, and a few other odds and ends.
I've exchanged emails with Gayle (or was it BJ??) about this matter. No arguing just a sharing of opinions. I felt that if MOSH (or anyone for that matter) wanted to particpate in the Registry but wanted to hide their set, it was fine. But they shouldn't be eligible for awards. It was an unfair advantage to those who shared their sets. At least make them open their sets for 1 month prior to when awards are given. PSA quoted privacy issues, which brings us back to square one. If you are worried about privacy, than don't participate in a public forum/registry. In all the advertisements praising the Registry one of the key points is to "see all the great sets" put together by PSA collectors. How can you see great the sets if they are closed!
If MOSH is what is "right with the hobby" - then I guess I am confused as well. How does conducting business in this fashion (which turns off many participants to the Registry) equate to a good thing? I think much the same way Frank does - I bid on what I need, and I don't bid on what I have. If I see someone getting a great deal on a card who is competing against me, I am happy for the other collector. I have no reason to hide my sets (yet), after all, that is the point right? Share and view the hobby's top collections? And finally, I want to compete against other collectors (singular form) , and not museums.
Sure - you guys would like it better if MOSH's sets were not hidden. But do you rather see the placeholder than nothing at all? There are numerous collections out there worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that are not on the Registry at all. I prefer the snippet of information to nothing at all. If the high grade populations are low, and there are a bunch of players on the Registry - it is often not hard to back into what a hidden set may contain.
How is competing against a collector any different than competing against a museum? This isn't a museum that has infinite resources. Heck - I would rather compete against a museum than compete against:
A) Major-league ballplayers with multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts Lawyers who represents significant classes or individuals and get paid on contingency C) Lawyers who represent Hollywood clients D) Bankers/Oil brokers who own significant energy resources, esp. at a time when oil has been steady over $50.
Oops, wait. I just described the vast majority of the top ten PSA collectors - and they all have budgets that have many zeroes more than mine.
~ms
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
<< <i>I've exchanged emails with Gayle (or was it BJ??) about this matter. No arguing just a sharing of opinions. I felt that if MOSH (or anyone for that matter) wanted to particpate in the Registry but wanted to hide their set, it was fine. But they shouldn't be eligible for awards. It was an unfair advantage to those who shared their sets. At least make them open their sets for 1 month prior to when awards are given. PSA quoted privacy issues, which brings us back to square one. If you are worried about privacy, than don't participate in a public forum/registry. In all the advertisements praising the Registry one of the key points is to "see all the great sets" put together by PSA collectors. How can you see great the sets if they are closed! >>
Wow you seem obssessed with this point!
The guy (or guys, depending on your particular theory of who he is) has assembled a massive, incredible collection. He/they wish to keep the contents under wraps (maybe for the unveiling of the museum if/when it opens)? Have you ever thought that through? Perhaps he/they wish to overwhelm people with the live showing of cards, instead of it just on pages.
Yes it's a huge outpouring of money, but it's also the unending drive to get the very best cards and sets, of the most important collections. If they want to keep the contents under wraps, so be it.
And YES, they should absolutely eligible for rewards. How is it 'unfair' for those who do share? Do those share because (a) they want to reward everyone else their collection, or (b) to show off and flaunt their collection(s)? I think that most show off their collections for the 'flaunt' factor.
I know I keep my sets public because I enjoy the friendly competitions that the set registry has become. I think there is a small percentage who take it way too seriously, but who cares.
<< <i>If MOSH is what is "right with the hobby" - then I guess I am confused as well. How does conducting business in this fashion (which turns off many participants to the Registry) equate to a good thing? I think much the same way Frank does - I bid on what I need, and I don't bid on what I have. If I see someone getting a great deal on a card who is competing against me, I am happy for the other collector. I have no reason to hide my sets (yet), after all, that is the point right? Share and view the hobby's top collections? And finally, I want to compete against other collectors (singular form) , and not museums. >>
Not sure where you were headed with this...as much as anyone spends on cards/grading, there will always be someone who can and will spend more. So what if it's a museum? What if you knew you were going up against Alex Rodriguez, who came out and said he was going to spend millions annually on graded cards?
Axtell. Mikeschimdt- You guys are missing the point. Never once was money mentioned. It's not about money and who can spend more. It's about showing your cards on the Registry. Wasn't that why the Registry was created? Isn't that what PSA promotes in their advertisements about joining the Registry?
Axtell, believe I'm not obsessed about this. I try to change the things that need changing and don't sweat the things I can't. This is one of those things that PSA doesn't want to change. That's fine, not fair, but fine. It's their sandbox and they make the rules.
My last point on this subject. How popular would the Registry be if everyone closed their sets?
I'm with Frank on this one, i think all sets should at LEAST be visable. Privacy issues? What's private about buying cards from ebay? On ebay we even know what a particular collector PAID for the card. And Mosh's ebay ID is Museum_of-Sports_History....No hiding there...
All of my sets are open to the public, to include scans of each and every card. The competition is secondary to me. #1 is the cards, the collection. I can view my cards no matter where I am in the world, because they are just a click away. It also helps keep track of what I've got and what exactly I need to complete a set.
If you don't want to spend the time to put up scans, fine. But at least show us what you've got. I like to see top notch collections simply for the "Wow" factor. And when you have a set that is 100% complete and a full 1.00 rating above the 2nd place set..Why not show it then???The excuse about getting bid up is null at that point...
Just my opinion of course..
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Ok, I admit I know nothnig of the person(s) in question here because up until last night (I finally got a PSA membership) I was simply an outsider looking in. Sure I've looked at certain sets on the registry, but not being a participant, I can only look at it from a viewers perspective. First of all, I like to look at cards, so registry sets without scans are of no importance to me, no matter how high they are rated. Looking at numbers in columns just isn't that interesting. So, the sets that are kept "private" really do nothing for me. I would rather look at scans of actual, even if lower graded, cards than a bunch of numbers. When I finally get a round tuit and get some of my cards graded and in the registry, I will include scans of each and every card, regardless of the grade.
Football collector 1948-1995, Rams oddball cards & memorabilia, Diamond match. Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variationsUpdated 2/13/05
Comments
61 Topps (100%) 7.96
62 Parkhurst (100%) 8.70
63 Topps (100%) 7.96
63 York WB's (50%) 8.52
68 Topps (39%) 8.54
69 Topps (3%) 9.00
69 OPC (83%) 8.21
71 Topps (100%) 9.21 #1 A.T.F.
72 Topps (100%) 9.39
73 Topps (13%) 9.35
74 OPC WHA (95%) 8.57
75 Topps (50%) 9.23
77 OPC WHA (86%) 8.62 #1 A.T.F.
88 Topps (5%) 10.00
Groucho Marx
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Koby- I guess I'm just naive. I've been outbid on cards, but I've never looked at it from the perspective that someone wanted to prevent me from catching them on a set. Every card that I've been outbid on, from my knowledge, has been because that person needed the card for their set. They just were willing than me to pay more. Not because they wanted to block me from getting it.
Closing ones set and winning an award is like giving someone the Oscar for "Best Picture", but not allowing anyone but the Oscar committee to see the film. Imagine the public outrage if that happened? I can hear the Oscar committee now "Trust us, this picture deserved the Oscar. It was really good"
Even if you can see their sets, on a larger set there are so many ways to catch up (any combination of added rating points works) that seeing their set doesn't make it that much simpler for you.
Here is a formula for this:
Total number of points available in the set (which PSA was nice enough to provide in many cases) multiplied by (other person's set rating minus your set rating). That is the number of rating points you will need to add.
There is a little issue of rounding error that can creep in here, but unless you get almost the same GPA as the other person, there will never be a problem.
<<Koby- I guess I'm just naive. I've been outbid on cards, but I've never looked at it from the perspective that someone wanted to prevent me from catching them on a set. Every card that I've been outbid on, from my knowledge, has been because that person needed the card for their set. They just were willing than me to pay more. Not because they wanted to block me from getting it.
Closing ones set and winning an award is like giving someone the Oscar for "Best Picture", but not allowing anyone but the Oscar committee to see the film. Imagine the public outrage if that happened? I can hear the Oscar committee now "Trust us, this picture deserved the Oscar. It was really good" >>
So it's sort of like the Oscar for best Foreign Language Film.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
jmo, Bob
61 Topps (100%) 7.96
62 Parkhurst (100%) 8.70
63 Topps (100%) 7.96
63 York WB's (50%) 8.52
68 Topps (39%) 8.54
69 Topps (3%) 9.00
69 OPC (83%) 8.21
71 Topps (100%) 9.21 #1 A.T.F.
72 Topps (100%) 9.39
73 Topps (13%) 9.35
74 OPC WHA (95%) 8.57
75 Topps (50%) 9.23
77 OPC WHA (86%) 8.62 #1 A.T.F.
88 Topps (5%) 10.00
<< <i>Fab - you don't need to see someone else's set to know what you would need to beat them. All you have to find out is what card upgrades or additions would give you a higher GPA than they have, and that's based purely on your own set (and the pop report, to a lesser extent).
Nick >>
Nick, why would "beating" someone even be in the equation?
I don't worry much about it - the only ones of my registry sets that are #1 have low completion percentages and basically no competition, but it's still fun to break into the first page on a set or o pass someone (although on my HOF set, I've prodded other people to stay ahead of me because their sets were more impressive, and mine was simply going to have more registry points.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
I re-read this thread has it popped back up tonight. I noticed the word "conditions" on the first page regarding some Maravich cards. I would be very interested in what those conditions were as it might explain something else that has happened. When Paul Lemm's 63 Fleer FB set (ranked #2 and a very fine set) was sold, it disappeared. It was not retired. A few days later a MOSH set was in it's place with a slightly higher GPA. I thought it odd that having had a #2 set, you would choose to delete it and leave no memory. Then Skinsfans 66T and 67T FB sets were sold, again then were deleted and not retired. So I checked Carlos's 85 set he mentioned on this thread. Same thing. Now I don't know if it is coincidence or not, but in connection with the word "conditions", it is suspecious. If you are buying sets, great .... more power to you. If a "condition" is that the memory of anothers accomplishment is erased. Way not cool. I do not know how these deals worked but if any of you with FACTS please share. The only reason I can imagine for this is to make one's own accomplishements seem bigger somehow. Again, I don't know if this is the case or not and am looking for anyone who does know to share what they can. The only conditions that I put on a sale is... if I pay for it, I expect to receive it. Thought that was the way it is suppose to be.
Frank,
Since I heard Art's sets were for sale I made a print out of what was in them before they disappeared. Now if I looked correctly Art's 66T FB set had a 1 of 1 Gilchrist in it. Until a second was recently graded, I won it last night for a very lofty price for a semi-star card in 9 from the set listed as a 1 of 2. Guess who the under bidder was ?? Interesting anyway.
Jeremy (FB Card Store),
I know your gave glowing praise of them a few months ago and will not ask how you feel now. But if these people are what is right with the hobby, it is pretty clear that I'm on the wrong side. Also I would one know if they had anything they could use since we cant' see there sets.
I have turned my sets of anywhere this guy shows up as a competitor. No disrespect Frank. In fact, I have updated and turned on my 65 Philly where you and I are competing. And if you ever want to know what is in any of my sets Frank, just let me know, I'll gladly tell. But MOSH bid me up last night on a card that I don't think he needed but I did. No problem, but my sets will stay of accordingly.
Fuzz
<< <i>
But MOSH bid me up last night on a card that I don't think he needed but I did. >>
I hear that all the time. "If he wants it, its going to COST him." "I didn't win it, but I made him PAY." Registry participants running up the cost for other registry participants. Part of the competition, I guess, but not very nice.
Fuzz
anyone for what ever card he wants. SO - since he's going to outspend everyone anyway what's the point
of keeping the sets hidden ?? Maybe it's just me
J
During the three years that I've competed for some of the cards MOSH has bid on, I've never known him bid on anything he doesn't need. He will pay some big buck for cards he wants and will sell some really nice cards he's upgraded from time to time.
Just wanted to let everyone know that I've never witnessed MOSH bid on anything he didn't need or already had. From what I've experienced, he's not that type of collector. He just happens to have some deeeeeep pockets.
Happy collecting to all,
Peter
Vintage golf, 1981-82 Donruss golf, and a few other odds and ends.
In all the advertisements praising the Registry one of the key points is to "see all the great sets" put together by PSA collectors. How can you see great the sets if they are closed!
How is competing against a collector any different than competing against a museum? This isn't a museum that has infinite resources. Heck - I would rather compete against a museum than compete against:
A) Major-league ballplayers with multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts
C) Lawyers who represent Hollywood clients
D) Bankers/Oil brokers who own significant energy resources, esp. at a time when oil has been steady over $50.
Oops, wait. I just described the vast majority of the top ten PSA collectors - and they all have budgets that have many zeroes more than mine.
~ms
<< <i>I've exchanged emails with Gayle (or was it BJ??) about this matter. No arguing just a sharing of opinions. I felt that if MOSH (or anyone for that matter) wanted to particpate in the Registry but wanted to hide their set, it was fine. But they shouldn't be eligible for awards. It was an unfair advantage to those who shared their sets. At least make them open their sets for 1 month prior to when awards are given. PSA quoted privacy issues, which brings us back to square one. If you are worried about privacy, than don't participate in a public forum/registry.
In all the advertisements praising the Registry one of the key points is to "see all the great sets" put together by PSA collectors. How can you see great the sets if they are closed!
Wow you seem obssessed with this point!
The guy (or guys, depending on your particular theory of who he is) has assembled a massive, incredible collection. He/they wish to keep the contents under wraps (maybe for the unveiling of the museum if/when it opens)? Have you ever thought that through? Perhaps he/they wish to overwhelm people with the live showing of cards, instead of it just on pages.
Yes it's a huge outpouring of money, but it's also the unending drive to get the very best cards and sets, of the most important collections. If they want to keep the contents under wraps, so be it.
And YES, they should absolutely eligible for rewards. How is it 'unfair' for those who do share? Do those share because (a) they want to reward everyone else their collection, or (b) to show off and flaunt their collection(s)? I think that most show off their collections for the 'flaunt' factor.
I know I keep my sets public because I enjoy the friendly competitions that the set registry has become. I think there is a small percentage who take it way too seriously, but who cares.
<< <i>If MOSH is what is "right with the hobby" - then I guess I am confused as well. How does conducting business in this fashion (which turns off many participants to the Registry) equate to a good thing? I think much the same way Frank does - I bid on what I need, and I don't bid on what I have. If I see someone getting a great deal on a card who is competing against me, I am happy for the other collector. I have no reason to hide my sets (yet), after all, that is the point right? Share and view the hobby's top collections? And finally, I want to compete against other collectors (singular form) , and not museums. >>
Not sure where you were headed with this...as much as anyone spends on cards/grading, there will always be someone who can and will spend more. So what if it's a museum? What if you knew you were going up against Alex Rodriguez, who came out and said he was going to spend millions annually on graded cards?
he has some nice stuff, but mostly in BK and FB and a huge piece of his collection is modern.
Do you guys really think he is one of the top 10 collectors in the hobby?
Groucho Marx
Axtell, believe I'm not obsessed about this. I try to change the things that need changing and don't sweat the things I can't. This is one of those things that PSA doesn't want to change. That's fine, not fair, but fine. It's their sandbox and they make the rules.
My last point on this subject. How popular would the Registry be if everyone closed their sets?
<< <i>It's not about money and who can spend more. It's about showing your cards on the Registry. Wasn't that why the Registry was created? >>
I thought the registry was created so Merkel, Fogel, etc. could see who had the better 1952 Topps sets...
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)
All of my sets are open to the public, to include scans of each and every card. The competition is secondary to me. #1 is the cards, the collection. I can view my cards no matter where I am in the world, because they are just a click away. It also helps keep track of what I've got and what exactly I need to complete a set.
If you don't want to spend the time to put up scans, fine. But at least show us what you've got. I like to see top notch collections simply for the "Wow" factor. And when you have a set that is 100% complete and a full 1.00 rating above the 2nd place set..Why not show it then???The excuse about getting bid up is null at that point...
Just my opinion of course..
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I would rather look at scans of actual, even if lower graded, cards than a bunch of numbers.
When I finally get a round tuit and get some of my cards graded and in the registry, I will include scans of each and every card, regardless of the grade.
Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
My worst nightmare!!
Scott
T-205 Gold PSA 4 & up
1967 Topps BB PSA 8 & up
1975 Topps BB PSA 9 & up
1959 Topps FB PSA 8 & up
1976 Topps FB PSA 9 & up
1981 Topps FB PSA 10
1976-77 Topps BK PSA 9 & up
1988-89 Fleer BK PSA 10
3,000 Hit Club RC PSA 5 & Up
My Sets