1962 Topps - A painful set!

qualitycards

I was scanning some '62 Topps today, and I couldn't get over how many horrible shots are in the set. Many of the players are hat-less and have a pained look on their face, and some aren't even facing the camera at all. Maybe Topps got lazy and put together the set in a hurry and quality control wasn't an issue. When you have no competition, anything will sell. Its a riot to look through the cards and instead of seeing posed pictures, it appears many were blind-sided w/ a candid camera shot...jay

murcerfan

reminds me off that old Jeff Beck song titled "constipated duck"

Machodoc

Jay,

I have always thought the 1962 set is the ugliest of all time - yuck! It outranks the almost equally ugly 1961 set (dark design and dark attitude) and 1968 ("canvass" borders? At least they disguise wear well) sets as the worst designs of the 1960's.

In the 1960's, give me the 1964, 1965, and 1967 sets any day of the week.

SW

goodriddance189

....'nuff said

murcerfan

actually Mr. Eberhart turned me around on my appreciation of this set.
many of the star cards are "classic".....the design may not be a real "love at first sight"
................then again how many of us really are ?

point being, this is a set that perhaps takes some time to appreciate.

now the '62 topps football is another story altogether...........evrebody loves those beauties.

you get hooked at card #1 and it only gets worse (better).

mikeschmidt

I dunno - he looks pretty happy to me




perhaps TOO happy....

qualitycards

MS - Ya want some happy campers, here ya go!
These guys look like they are on Death Row awaiting execution.

Your playin' pro ball, you get to see Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente,
Musial etc... up close, and your gonna be on a baseball card...SMILE!

highend

having been the last 60's set i finished i have to agree with MURCERFAN in that the set does grow on you . the high numbers and variations are a challenge in true exmt-nm or better. the set starts out as a task but with completion becomes a pleasure to behold. despite some of the hideous "mugshots" the maris, koufax, mays, gibson, yaz and mantle are IMO some of the nicest cards of the 60's

mudflap02

Dick Donovan just looks straight confused- he looks like he thought he was supposed to be on a t206 and dressed the part, and showed up and now he's disappointed that he's 50 years too late.

minibeers

Awesome thread! I love this stuff. That Anderson card is classic.
thanks
minibeers

toppsgun

Does Don Cardwell look a little bit like Harrison Ford to anyone else but me?

MorrellMan

Having been there, I remember being disappointed at first by that very thing when I opened my first packs in '62 - huge hatless faces - vas is zis? zees ah ballplayahs? The wood design put me off too; the whole issue just seemed too modern. Then I pulled the Koufax card

- truly awesome; the beauty of some of the shots and the fact that these were the only game in town eventually brought me around. Today, it's one of my favorites.

joedel

Jay,

Great thread. What I see with the cards that you scanned is that you got ripped off on the grades. They all look like vending quality MINT condition cards to me. There is absolutely no chipping on any of the edges!!! This is similar to some of the 1971 Topps baseball I received back, a few dozen 9's, but alot of 8's that sould be in 9 holders.

About threeyears ago, when I began sending in straight from vending commons, the ratio on grades was 70% PSA 9's, 20% PSA 8's, 10% PSA 10's.

Lately it has been 50% PSA 9's, 48% PSA 8's, 2% PSA 10's.

These cards were from the same overall sampling. All cards were dead centered beauties, as I had previously weeded out the o/c's.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but PSA is really frustrating right now.

But, according to management (spoken about in another thread) their grading standards haven't changed.

Yeah, right!



joe

Fabfrank

PSA is really frustrating right now

Joedel- If you want to get rid of any of those 1971 frustrating PSA 8's, LMK

miami3

Great Post!

62' used to be my favorite set....not for the awesome head shots and strange photography, but more for the reason that I loved the challenge of trying to put together the whole set in psa 8 or 9 grade.

I eventually came up 26 cards short of having the whole set done in psa 8 and 9 and just recently sold off the set so that I could make my wife happy with a new kitchen.

I think that 62 will always hold a special place in collectors hearts and will continue to rise in price as PSA appears to be getting tougher on their grading which will in turn push up the value of the really nice stuff out there.

MorrellMan

<< <i>About threeyears ago, when I began sending in straight from vending commons, the ratio on grades was 70% PSA 9's, 20% PSA 8's, 10% PSA 10's.

Lately it has been 50% PSA 9's, 48% PSA 8's, 2% PSA 10's.

These cards were from the same overall sampling. All cards were dead centered beauties, as I had previously weeded out the o/c's.

>>



Joe, just curious - but are you saying that the drop in grade ratio is for cards pulled from the same vending boxes? If I'm misunderstanding, please don't be offended, but it sounds like you sent the best cards in first and the drop in ratio simply reflects the lesser quality of cards left over.

1954

I fell in love with these cards back six years ago at a show. I saw some of the nicest/cleanest 1962 cards that I had ever seen. I began to make the set in all PSA 8/9 and then sold the beginning of the set to MR. Eberhardt. The dislike in the set before me trying to make it was that I always found really poor shaped cards from the set. My opinion it is the best 1960's set and is the hardest set to make in PSA 8/9.

1954

joedel

MorrellMan,

I had culled through over 100,000 cards from 1967 through 1971, and kept the best cards. The others were sold off.

The best cards were all centered, razor sharp beauties. These cards were all in numerical order (in CardSaver I's) within large vault boxes. I would send in hundreds of card at a time - sometimes thousands. I would take the first 10 cards or so (sometimes up to 30!!!) off the top of each number and submit them. There was not any cherry picking at this point because I had already scrutinized all those cards, not once, but twice! These were all well-centered, razor sharp beauties.

Check out this link to see the quality of the cards. At least two of those cards would have been PSA 9's several years ago.

The grading standards at PSA has definitely changed. There is no doubt about that fact.

dude

I collected the '62 set in raw form from the mid '90s to the late '90s. There are definitely some ugly cards in that set and the print quality seemed to be very suspect on a lot of the cards. I recall having some cards with a noticable green tint on the picture. On the positive side, there I had a few '62s in mint condition from the last series with an incredible high gloss finish and there wasn't a prettier card around in my opinion.

curmudgeon

I think Dick Donovan looks like Robert Mitchum.

I always had trouble finding attractive '62s, so I shied away. The hatless thing is a little bothersome, but is no excuse for me, since I collect 1961s, which have the same problem- both years being expansion years, Topps apparently played it safe, and put away the airbrush more often.

Not only is the photo selection so-so, I always thought the photo quality was substandard too. The cards seemed lackluster, the green tints were not a plus, and many of the cards seemed blurry. There are some really nice cards, though. For some reason, the Braves' big three look great--Aaron, Mathews and Spahn. They look crisper and sharper than most. Of course, since those are three of my favorite players, I'm probably a little biased.

I tip my hat to anyone who endeavors to collect this set in high grade.

jerster

Hey - that Joe Koppe card is alright -
He's my friend's dad so don't be too cruel...

Jerster

Buckwheat

<< <i>I have always thought the 1962 set is the ugliest of all time - yuck! <b>It outranks the almost equally ugly 1961 set (dark design and dark attitude)</b> and 1968 ("canvass" borders? At least they disguise wear well) sets as the worst designs of the 1960's.


SW >>



Machodoc: Them's fighting words!

Machodoc

I'm sorry Rob, I know the 61's are your baby. I just never warmed up to the set because to me the whole set just has this dark appearance to it. If it helps any, I do have the entire set raw, plus about 30 HOF'er and star cards in PSA 7 or 8. Also, feel free to take shots at me for collecting the 1973 and 1974 sets, which I have strictly due to sentimental value.

I do hope however that my 1956 and 1957 sets will redeem me at least a little bit in your eyes, however!


BTW are you going to the Richmond show next month?

MorrellMan

<< <i>MorrellMan,
The grading standards at PSA has definitely changed. There is no doubt about that fact. >>


You make a good case - I misunderstood you're initial description.

Mantlefan

Great thread Jay. What a set!

Great player photos:




Think your 1962 set is complete?...same number...different photos:





Even the 62 wax pack has an angry looking dude:

Buckwheat

OK Steve,

You are redeemed. And yes I will be at the Richmond show. We'll have to get together.

Rob

qualitycards

FRANK - The odd thing about the cards that you and I scanned, is that the players aren't looking towards the camera. Almost in protest they are looking off into the distance. The '62's inded have their own unique charm..jay

Machodoc

Maybe the 1962 set was the revenge of any of the ex-Bowman guys Topps hired in 1956. Maybe those ex-Bowman guys knew that wood grain belonged only to TV set designs back then and not to BB cards....

MorrellMan

I keep a high number blank back in my set as well as these two variations (and, thanks to this thread, I've decided to replace the batting pose #190 Wally Moon I sold years ago):

Mantlefan

FRANK - The odd thing about the cards that you and I scanned, is that the players aren't looking towards the camera.

Jay....Alusik was warned never to stare into a camera for fear of destroying the lens!