<< <i>dabig do not ask him too many questions at one time, Im still waiting for him to answer his claim that the AL has a higher ERA between 1924 and 1941 because of the DH.
Sd >>
Wow WP how many different threads are you going to bring up that fact that I missed the years you menioned? Geez and you call me argumentative.
<< <i>
How is watching a DVD at home the same as watching a movie in the theater? Watching a movie requires you to actually get dressed and "go out." You know, as in doing something with someone else as part of an evening. People watching movies becaues of the giant screen, the theater and the fact you watch it IMMEDIATELY! You don't have to wait 4-5 months for it to come out on DVD. People watch movies with friends and discuss the movie with co-workers the next day.
At least with watching a game on tv, I get to see everything the person at the game is watching (sometimes more with replays). >>
Uhm how is it the same? Well if you have this HDTV as you claim to, you'd say it's probably a better experience at home than in the theater. No $10 ticket to get in; no $20 popcorn and soda to buy, and a better picture. No stupid people on cell phones, no people kicking your chair, and if you need to get up to use the bathroom, you can pause it.
And immediately? What's not immediate about going to blockbuster and renting a disc and playing it? How is that not immediate? Or do you mean the slave to the idea that you have to see a new movie right away to enjoy it? That there can be possibly no way to enjoy a movie that was out in the theaters a few months back?
And you can't discuss a movie with friends and family after it's out of the theater? You mean that the only ones people want to talk about are the ones playing right now? I've found my best movie discussions to be ones that have been on video for a long time (actually had a great conversation with a friend today about 'Swingers' and Vince Vaughn).
Watching a movie at home on DVD (to me, obviously not you) a replacement experience to watching a movie in the theater (and usually more fulfilling). Watching games on TV instead of at the event is nowhere (again, to me) as good.
One more thing...the experience (the sights, smells, and aura) of being in a cathedral of a stadium cannot be duplicated by any tv, I don't care how expensive, or how high of resolution you go. You may see all the plays of the game on tv, but so many of the little things are lost (7th inning stretch, talking with fans around about the game, mid-inning activities, etc. etc)
So let's just agree to disagree on this one? You and I obviously have vastly different insights as to what makes an entertaining day.
There is no substitute for live baseball, in my opinion. I love a good HDTV sports broadcast, but give me a seat at the park on a warm summer afternoon or evening any day of the week.
Saving that, I still love baseball on the radio. When I am traveling, I always try to have a game on - seems to be a perfect fit for radio. Right now, the Mets broadcasters on WFAN in NY do a perfect job of baseball play-by-play.
<< <i>There is no substitute for live baseball, in my opinion. I love a good HDTV sports broadcast, but give me a seat at the park on a warm summer afternoon or evening any day of the week.
Saving that, I still love baseball on the radio. When I am traveling, I always try to have a game on - seems to be a perfect fit for radio. Right now, the Mets broadcasters on WFAN in NY do a perfect job of baseball play-by-play. >>
I agree 100%. There is no substitute for watching something live or doing something live, but there are *viable* alternatives, and that was my point with Axtell. If I'm not at the game, being able to watch the game on HDTV on my own couch with plenty of drinks and snacks is not all that bad. Not having to pay $7 for a beer is pretty cool and not having to wait an hour in the parking lot after the game is even better!
I remember $7 beers, they went away about the same time Chan Ho and Driefort and Kevin Brown got fat contracts to do nothing. Last week they switched to only the bigger size beer for $12. The price of going to games has got way out of hand, but baseball is still much cheaper than other sports. I"ve opted to see less games, but have better seats at those games- otherwise I'll agree that, to a certain extent, it's better to watch on tv.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Anybody who doesn't recognize that it's a thin line between an MLB .300 hitter and an MLB .250 hitter isn't seeing the whole picture. Noboby's saying there is no difference, just that the difference is more subtle than the average fan would think. Call me naive, but a big league ballplayer plays the game in a class of his own, I don't care who you're talking about. To get that far takes a lot of talent. I was a pretty good ballplayer in my day, but I have no doubt that my MLB average would be a solid .000.
And as long as my mouth is open and there's still room for another foot, I'll chime in that I don't believe managers belong in the Hall of Fame. And I don't think the original voters thought so either. Connie Mack, who was swept in by acclaim as a manager in 1937, had received all of one vote in 1936. Here's the list of managers so far:
Walt Alston 1983 Veterans Committee Sparky Anderson 2000 Veterans Committee Leo Durocher 1994 Veterans Committee Rube Foster 1981 Veterans Committee Ned Hanlon 1996 Veterans Committee Bucky Harris 1975 Veterans Committee Miller Huggins 1964 Veterans Committee Tommy Lasorda 1997 Veterans Committee Al Lopez 1977 Veterans Committee Connie Mack 1937 Veterans Committee Joe McCarthy 1957 Veterans Committee John McGraw 1937 Veterans Committee Bill McKechnie 1962 Veterans Committee Wilbert Robinson 1945 Veterans Committee Frank Selee 1999 Veterans Committee Casey Stengel 1966 Veterans Committee Earl Weaver 1996 Veterans Committee
Almost without exception, every one of those guys did more than win championships. They came to represent something bigger than just a manager. I don't really know what Durocher and Lopez are doing in there, but I suppose there should be weak choices enshrined in the manager's wing just like there are in the player's wing. At this point in time, I think Torre would qualify as no better than another weak choice. There are several better managers working right now - Dusty Baker and Felipe Alou come to mind.
Mark (amerbbcards)
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
nice pickup on the torre - are all opc cards "graded on a curve" since they have those rough cuts? kinda cool to see the history of cutting, but i could make a cleaner cut with my cereal spoon.
no replacement to watching baseball live, but i agree about hdtv. movies are different imo... part of going to a baseball game is the interaction and just being there, one day i'd love to catch a fly ball, and cheering loud is homefield advantage - moreso in football and bball though. i've got a 53" sony with hdtv and i haven't been to the movies since i was 13, no having to put up with bad viewing angles, cell phones, talking, and ridiculous prices... funny story - leno reported that bill gates was recently seen sneaking candy into the movies - sad when the richest guy ever still won't pay those prices
<< <i>Uhm how is it the same? Well if you have this HDTV as you claim to, you'd say it's probably a better experience at home than in the theater. No $10 ticket to get in; no $20 popcorn and soda to buy, and a better picture. No stupid people on cell phones, no people kicking your chair, and if you need to get up to use the bathroom, you can pause it.
And immediately? What's not immediate about going to blockbuster and renting a disc and playing it? How is that not immediate? Or do you mean the slave to the idea that you have to see a new movie right away to enjoy it? That there can be possibly no way to enjoy a movie that was out in the theaters a few months back?
And you can't discuss a movie with friends and family after it's out of the theater? You mean that the only ones people want to talk about are the ones playing right now? I've found my best movie discussions to be ones that have been on video for a long time (actually had a great conversation with a friend today about 'Swingers' and Vince Vaughn).
Watching a movie at home on DVD (to me, obviously not you) a replacement experience to watching a movie in the theater (and usually more fulfilling). Watching games on TV instead of at the event is nowhere (again, to me) as good.
One more thing...the experience (the sights, smells, and aura) of being in a cathedral of a stadium cannot be duplicated by any tv, I don't care how expensive, or how high of resolution you go. You may see all the plays of the game on tv, but so many of the little things are lost (7th inning stretch, talking with fans around about the game, mid-inning activities, etc. etc)
So let's just agree to disagree on this one? You and I obviously have vastly different insights as to what makes an entertaining day. >>
I'm saying watching the game at home is a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to watching a game live. You're saying it's not and YOU ARE WRONG! I never said it replaced watching a game live or that it was just as good as watching a game live.
Maybe you don't mind waiting 6 months for Lord of the Rings or Star Wars or Spiderman to come out on DVD, but I like watching it the first few days of its release. Call me crazy. I just don't like waiting half a year for certain things.
In addition to this Joe Torre card being a "one and only" PSA 9, there is something interesting about these 'rough cuts' (other than, I guess, being cut with a lawn mower!).
I have a others simular to this "cut". PSA may just be grading these "roughies" via the curve. I have a hundred or so "pack fresh" pulls (i.e., OPCs). Many are rough cuts. My problem is knowing the difference between a NM, NM-MT, or Mint. Those "unsmooth OPC edges" cloud my limited ability to regognize a mint card. Regular Topps "smooth-edged" issues are far more easier for me to grade.
My spin, why many are not sending OPCs to PSA for grading (besides being scarce to begin with and in addition to so many being printed off-centered),? Is most do not regonize a "mint rough cut" when they see it!
So, I guess like me, these mint OPCs wind up being "salted away" in team bags and card boxes and not sent to PSA for grading! LOL!
Maybe I'll spend some time in the future and go thru my raw OPCs and compare them to various PSA mint examples that I own?
When and if I get a better handle on understanding OPC graded material (rough cuts and all!), I may "cull-out" some raw material and send them to PSA?
Bob, not only are OPC found with rough cuts but many Topps cards can be found that way as well. shown here is a nmnt 8 mars attacks card with a ruff cut. i have many 61 topps with a similar cut.
I also have a 1980/81 run of opc hockey all with no ruff cuts.
Steve you're right; '60 and '61 Topps are rampant with rough cuts, almost always on the long side, although I have a couple that are rough on the short side. I've gone through thousands and thousands of '60 and 61 cards, and I find rough cuts most often in the first 2 series of 1960 and the third and fourth series of 1961. The rough cut process is evident throughout all series though. You show a rough cut 1962 Mars Attacks and I have some rough cut 1962 Topps Civil War News cards, but, oddly enough, I can't recall seeing many '62 Topps baseball rough cuts.
Mark (amerbbcards)
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Mark Maybe it's just me...but I think those are great looking cards.
The trend over the last 15 yrs for PSA 10s appears to become feverish! Most all cards that come out of a pack in those days had something interesting about it.
The rough cuts are just part of the charm and feeling of the cards. That's why I'm leaning more and more towards raw sets except for the occasional small PSA set.
thanx for taking the time to post the scans - I like Ike!!! mike
the stock that the 61's are on is really thick for a 60's issue (if i am correct)....the 62 baseball paper was thinner then the non sports cards of the same year. that could possibly be a reason for that. what do you guys think?
<< <i>the stock that the 61's are on is really thick for a 60's issue (if i am correct)....the 62 baseball paper was thinner then the non sports cards of the same year. that could possibly be a reason for that. what do you guys think?
sd >>
Steve I think, much like my lawnmower, they need to sharpen the blades!
oh i agree mike. what i was trying to say is that those 3 issues are on the thicker stock and the cutters got duller faster. if you notice 61 topps (as well as 62 mars and civil war) all have that fiberous thick paper. the 62 topps was on that thinner stockand with that wood grain perhaps those in the cutting room checked the cutters more often? those three issues also have white boarders so a visual look at the cuts arenot as abvious as the wood grain,,,,(during quality control)
Comments
<< <i>dabig do not ask him too many questions at one time, Im still waiting for him to answer his claim that the AL has a higher ERA between 1924 and 1941 because of the DH.
Sd >>
Wow WP how many different threads are you going to bring up that fact that I missed the years you menioned? Geez and you call me argumentative.
<< <i>
How is watching a DVD at home the same as watching a movie in the theater? Watching a movie requires you to actually get dressed and "go out." You know, as in doing something with someone else as part of an evening. People watching movies becaues of the giant screen, the theater and the fact you watch it IMMEDIATELY! You don't have to wait 4-5 months for it to come out on DVD. People watch movies with friends and discuss the movie with co-workers the next day.
At least with watching a game on tv, I get to see everything the person at the game is watching (sometimes more with replays). >>
Uhm how is it the same? Well if you have this HDTV as you claim to, you'd say it's probably a better experience at home than in the theater. No $10 ticket to get in; no $20 popcorn and soda to buy, and a better picture. No stupid people on cell phones, no people kicking your chair, and if you need to get up to use the bathroom, you can pause it.
And immediately? What's not immediate about going to blockbuster and renting a disc and playing it? How is that not immediate? Or do you mean the slave to the idea that you have to see a new movie right away to enjoy it? That there can be possibly no way to enjoy a movie that was out in the theaters a few months back?
And you can't discuss a movie with friends and family after it's out of the theater? You mean that the only ones people want to talk about are the ones playing right now? I've found my best movie discussions to be ones that have been on video for a long time (actually had a great conversation with a friend today about 'Swingers' and Vince Vaughn).
Watching a movie at home on DVD (to me, obviously not you) a replacement experience to watching a movie in the theater (and usually more fulfilling). Watching games on TV instead of at the event is nowhere (again, to me) as good.
One more thing...the experience (the sights, smells, and aura) of being in a cathedral of a stadium cannot be duplicated by any tv, I don't care how expensive, or how high of resolution you go. You may see all the plays of the game on tv, but so many of the little things are lost (7th inning stretch, talking with fans around about the game, mid-inning activities, etc. etc)
So let's just agree to disagree on this one? You and I obviously have vastly different insights as to what makes an entertaining day.
Saving that, I still love baseball on the radio. When I am traveling, I always try to have a game on - seems to be a perfect fit for radio. Right now, the Mets broadcasters on WFAN in NY do a perfect job of baseball play-by-play.
<< <i>There is no substitute for live baseball, in my opinion. I love a good HDTV sports broadcast, but give me a seat at the park on a warm summer afternoon or evening any day of the week.
Saving that, I still love baseball on the radio. When I am traveling, I always try to have a game on - seems to be a perfect fit for radio. Right now, the Mets broadcasters on WFAN in NY do a perfect job of baseball play-by-play. >>
I agree 100%. There is no substitute for watching something live or doing something live, but there are *viable* alternatives, and that was my point with Axtell. If I'm not at the game, being able to watch the game on HDTV on my own couch with plenty of drinks and snacks is not all that bad. Not having to pay $7 for a beer is pretty cool and not having to wait an hour in the parking lot after the game is even better!
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>Not having to pay $7 for a beer >>
I remember $7 beers, they went away about the same time Chan Ho and Driefort and Kevin Brown got fat contracts to do nothing. Last week they switched to only the bigger size beer for $12.
The price of going to games has got way out of hand, but baseball is still much cheaper than other sports. I"ve opted to see less games, but have better seats at those games- otherwise I'll agree that, to a certain extent, it's better to watch on tv.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Anybody who doesn't recognize that it's a thin line between an MLB .300 hitter and an MLB .250 hitter isn't seeing the whole picture. Noboby's saying there is no difference, just that the difference is more subtle than the average fan would think. Call me naive, but a big league ballplayer plays the game in a class of his own, I don't care who you're talking about. To get that far takes a lot of talent. I was a pretty good ballplayer in my day, but I have no doubt that my MLB average would be a solid .000.
And as long as my mouth is open and there's still room for another foot, I'll chime in that I don't believe managers belong in the Hall of Fame. And I don't think the original voters thought so either. Connie Mack, who was swept in by acclaim as a manager in 1937, had received all of one vote in 1936. Here's the list of managers so far:
Walt Alston
1983 Veterans Committee
Sparky Anderson
2000 Veterans Committee
Leo Durocher
1994 Veterans Committee
Rube Foster
1981 Veterans Committee
Ned Hanlon
1996 Veterans Committee
Bucky Harris
1975 Veterans Committee
Miller Huggins
1964 Veterans Committee
Tommy Lasorda
1997 Veterans Committee
Al Lopez
1977 Veterans Committee
Connie Mack
1937 Veterans Committee
Joe McCarthy
1957 Veterans Committee
John McGraw
1937 Veterans Committee
Bill McKechnie
1962 Veterans Committee
Wilbert Robinson
1945 Veterans Committee
Frank Selee
1999 Veterans Committee
Casey Stengel
1966 Veterans Committee
Earl Weaver
1996 Veterans Committee
Almost without exception, every one of those guys did more than win championships. They came to represent something bigger than just a manager. I don't really know what Durocher and Lopez are doing in there, but I suppose there should be weak choices enshrined in the manager's wing just like there are in the player's wing. At this point in time, I think Torre would qualify as no better than another weak choice. There are several better managers working right now - Dusty Baker and Felipe Alou come to mind.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
nice pickup on the torre - are all opc cards "graded on a curve" since they have those rough cuts? kinda cool to see the history of cutting, but i could make a cleaner cut with my cereal spoon.
no replacement to watching baseball live, but i agree about hdtv. movies are different imo... part of going to a baseball game is the interaction and just being there, one day i'd love to catch a fly ball, and cheering loud is homefield advantage - moreso in football and bball though. i've got a 53" sony with hdtv and i haven't been to the movies since i was 13, no having to put up with bad viewing angles, cell phones, talking, and ridiculous prices... funny story - leno reported that bill gates was recently seen sneaking candy into the movies - sad when the richest guy ever still won't pay those prices
brian
Turn down the TV volume, turn off the AC, open the window, pop a Bud, crank up the grill and let your wife yell in your ear for a couple of hours!
Oh, and don't forget to sing: "take me out to the ballgame....."
<< <i>Uhm how is it the same? Well if you have this HDTV as you claim to, you'd say it's probably a better experience at home than in the theater. No $10 ticket to get in; no $20 popcorn and soda to buy, and a better picture. No stupid people on cell phones, no people kicking your chair, and if you need to get up to use the bathroom, you can pause it.
And immediately? What's not immediate about going to blockbuster and renting a disc and playing it? How is that not immediate? Or do you mean the slave to the idea that you have to see a new movie right away to enjoy it? That there can be possibly no way to enjoy a movie that was out in the theaters a few months back?
And you can't discuss a movie with friends and family after it's out of the theater? You mean that the only ones people want to talk about are the ones playing right now? I've found my best movie discussions to be ones that have been on video for a long time (actually had a great conversation with a friend today about 'Swingers' and Vince Vaughn).
Watching a movie at home on DVD (to me, obviously not you) a replacement experience to watching a movie in the theater (and usually more fulfilling). Watching games on TV instead of at the event is nowhere (again, to me) as good.
One more thing...the experience (the sights, smells, and aura) of being in a cathedral of a stadium cannot be duplicated by any tv, I don't care how expensive, or how high of resolution you go. You may see all the plays of the game on tv, but so many of the little things are lost (7th inning stretch, talking with fans around about the game, mid-inning activities, etc. etc)
So let's just agree to disagree on this one? You and I obviously have vastly different insights as to what makes an entertaining day. >>
I'm saying watching the game at home is a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to watching a game live. You're saying it's not and YOU ARE WRONG! I never said it replaced watching a game live or that it was just as good as watching a game live.
Maybe you don't mind waiting 6 months for Lord of the Rings or Star Wars or Spiderman to come out on DVD, but I like watching it the first few days of its release. Call me crazy. I just don't like waiting half a year for certain things.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
ROUGH CUT TORRE SCAN!
I have a others simular to this "cut". PSA may just be grading these "roughies" via the curve. I have a hundred or so "pack fresh" pulls (i.e., OPCs). Many are rough cuts. My problem is knowing the difference between a NM, NM-MT, or Mint. Those "unsmooth OPC edges" cloud my limited ability to regognize a mint card. Regular Topps "smooth-edged" issues are far more easier for me to grade.
My spin, why many are not sending OPCs to PSA for grading (besides being scarce to begin with and in addition to so many being printed off-centered),? Is most do not regonize a "mint rough cut" when they see it!
So, I guess like me, these mint OPCs wind up being "salted away" in team bags and card boxes and not sent to PSA for grading! LOL!
Maybe I'll spend some time in the future and go thru my raw OPCs and compare them to various PSA mint examples that I own?
When and if I get a better handle on understanding OPC graded material (rough cuts and all!), I may "cull-out" some raw material and send them to PSA?
rbd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
I also have a 1980/81 run of opc hockey all with no ruff cuts.
SD
you're right; '60 and '61 Topps are rampant with rough cuts, almost always on the long side, although I have a couple that are rough on the short side. I've gone through thousands and thousands of '60 and 61 cards, and I find rough cuts most often in the first 2 series of 1960 and the third and fourth series of 1961. The rough cut process is evident throughout all series though. You show a rough cut 1962 Mars Attacks and I have some rough cut 1962 Topps Civil War News cards, but, oddly enough, I can't recall seeing many '62 Topps baseball rough cuts.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Maybe it's just me...but I think those are great looking cards.
The trend over the last 15 yrs for PSA 10s appears to become feverish! Most all cards that come out of a pack in those days had something interesting about it.
The rough cuts are just part of the charm and feeling of the cards. That's why I'm leaning more and more towards raw sets except for the occasional small PSA set.
thanx for taking the time to post the scans - I like Ike!!!
mike
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
sd
<< <i>the stock that the 61's are on is really thick for a 60's issue (if i am correct)....the 62 baseball paper was thinner then the non sports cards of the same year. that could possibly be a reason for that. what do you guys think?
sd >>
Steve
I think, much like my lawnmower, they need to sharpen the blades!
sd
I was just tryin' to be funny.
Not sure why they rough cut? But, I do agree the stock on the 61T BB is thicker than 60T e.g.
It's been a long weekend!
Lot's of great commentary and I had sushi and chinese. Put up new blinds in the living room.
And just watched Dempster go in the Dumpster with his save in the Cubs v. Cards game!
otherwise
Have a great evening
Monday!
I noticed early on that PSA just flat out ignores rough cuts, lots of people get pissed and then start blaming DSL
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240