Late 1970's Sets, a few observations

basestealer

As many sets and cards as I've gone through assembling strict mint sets from this era, I should have been documenting some of my findings all along. I guess my question is, has anyone else bothered to do this? What I'm talking about specifically is "challenge" cards, or those cards where mint examples are either difficult to come by or downright impossible. I always see 2 or 3 from each set discussed in write-ups, but never the whole shebang. We all know that the '79 Smith Rookie is notoriously off-center, and Marc Hill has a smudge, and Molitor is difficult. But, that's not the whole story--

My method of set assembly has been mainly purchasing already assembled sets and cherrypicking the good cards and reselling the rest. Over and over and over again. I've probably gone through 20-40 sets of each year and still haven't completed the task for most years. Rack packs provide opportunities for gem star cards, and vending lots are also a source. However, one thing I noticed was that there'd be the same cards in each set I would go through that were almost always perfect. It's rather funny in a way--I'd get a really beat up EX set where a few cards were practically gem mint... and what do you know, those same cards are gem mint in every pile of leftovers I have laying around. They're gem mint in my album, too, of course. These cards are cards that you'd have to go hunting to find an imperfection. On that same token, there are more than 3 dozen cards that no matter how many I go through, I cannot locate one in gem mint condition. And last night I noted a couple cards that I had over 40 versions of that all had identical ink smudges in the exact same place. These were not mentioned in any write-up about that particular set, but in any comprehensive discussion they probably should be. I could kick myself for not writing all this down earlier. I doubt I'll find the time to do so now.

Has anyone done the work for us? If so, could you write a book and sell it on Amazon? I'll be your first customer. I just want to see what I've noticed validated in print. And maybe, if it's really true in your experiences as well, I can stop wasting money trying to fill my last 30 holes--I'll just admit defeat and stick any old turd in there. Because when I tell someone my '77 set cost me $10,000 to complete, and I'm still not done, I get laughed at if I'm lucky, and sometimes pitied. ($10,000 assuming I didn't resell the leftovers, but even doing that I cannot recover the money wasted on unopened material). I am working on both PSA and raw sets of the same quality.

And on a side rant, I'm tired of bulk-collated boxed sets being advertised as NM/MT when the centering alone wouldn't warrant anything above EX-MINT. The Beckett price guide is useless, because according to them, these sets are worth about $200 in near mint condition, and a card isn't near mint if it's centered worse than 70-30 or has gouges, horrible corner wear, ink blemishes and stains--a more appropriate price guide would price these sets in EX-MINT condition, or raise the value if they're truly pricing it for NM or better.

And how I got here was a long journey from 50's baseball to what I believed would be a much more affordable and easy task of 70's baseball. I completed my '59 set in MINT condition for a little over 4K many years ago, and did it relatively quickly. I figured I'd just have to buy maybe 2500 cards of each year from the 70's and be done with it. 100K cards later, I now realize that there isn't a decade more difficult to do than the mullet era.

sagard

The '77s seem like they were printed on paper mache. Add in the centering and printing problems and you have time consuming hobby. I haven't chased any commons but the Fisk, Munson, and Yount seem to have problems in most of the sets I've owned.

lostdart58

I can only speak for 72 Topps because that is what I collect. This set has it's share of cards that cannot be found centered. These particular cards are almost always off-centered the same way......I wondered why until I saw uncut 72 sheets. All of the tough to find cards were situated in the bottom right hand corner of the sheet. The closer a card was to the bottom right hand corner the higher the possibility that it was off centered.

I do not know how cards were cut, or how the sheets were made, but somehow as they got to the bottom right hand corner of the sheet the possibility of off-centeredness became more and more a probability instead of a possibility.

basestealer

How do you feel about cutting uncut sheets? I realize they are probably not market acceptable if done with home equipment, but what about finding a professional machine to do it for you?

lostdart58

I would not cut up an uncut sheet.

julen23

who has had success cutting a sheet on these boards btw?

julen

wolfbear

basestealer - your quest with 1970's baseball was similar to mine with 1970's football.

Five years ago, I would buy every raw set up on eBay and paintakingly go through them
comparing each card to the ones I had and upgrading when I could find a better example.
After a while though, I started to notice that it had become more of a chore than fun so I quit.

Started focusing on the 1960's issues instead.
Sorting through a 100 or 200 card set is enjoyable. Haven't tired of it yet.

Going through a bunch of 500 plus card sets ... not so much. I admire your patience ...

SOM

Not only that, but have you noticed how some players are produced in lousy condition, no matter the year, in the late '70's? How about Jay Johnstone? His cards always look like crap, you name the year. Rick Wise and Bernie Carbo come to mind, too.

Lesser profile guys include Marc Hill, Stan Bahnsen, Steve Dillard, Pepe Frias, Terry Forster. Those dudes must've had some enemies at the factory.

Maybe they blew off one too many autograph requests.