@grote15 said:
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
But you're welcome, LOLOL..
I have learned much over the years by reading grote's posts about wax, cellos, etc. And i appreciate it.
It's sad when some don't seem to appreciate it.
One thing in particular that stands out about grote's wisdom, and I'm pretty sure that grote stated this years ago in a post although some chance it may have been someone else...is that just because cards are packed in a cello, doesn't mean that all the cards are pristine and mint because a cello wrapped too tight can actually wear on the card's corners over the years and turn the cards into 7's at best.
That one piece of advice likely saved me thousands of dollars over the years. But please, nobody tell grote this, otherwise that New York Mets loving SOB might demand some sort of commission for having saved me all this money.
Thanks, Steve, I appreciate the kind words. I enjoy sharing info about unopened packs with fellow collectors. Now, if I knew that 55 Mantle was going to be inside that cello, I would have told you to buy a couple spots for a shot at that beauty, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
But you're welcome, LOLOL..
I have learned much over the years by reading grote's posts about wax, cellos, etc. And i appreciate it.
It's sad when some don't seem to appreciate it.
One thing in particular that stands out about grote's wisdom, and I'm pretty sure that grote stated this years ago in a post although some chance it may have been someone else...is that just because cards are packed in a cello, doesn't mean that all the cards are pristine and mint because a cello wrapped too tight can actually wear on the card's corners over the years and turn the cards into 7's at best.
That one piece of advice likely saved me thousands of dollars over the years. But please, nobody tell grote this, otherwise that New York Mets loving SOB might demand some sort of commission for having saved me all this money.
Thanks, Steve, I appreciate the kind words. I enjoy sharing info about unopened packs with fellow collectors. Now, if I knew that 55 Mantle was going to be inside that cello, I would have told you to buy a couple spots for a shot at that beauty, lol..
Tim, who should I seek concerning buying sealed wax and sealed packs? Vintage & desirable 70's and 80's prime stuff. Ive done a ton of business with Robert Edwards, Memory Lane and Mile High. I used to deal a lot directly with Goodwin ( used to set up at his shows). I sold off my high grade vintage collection recently but I want back in the game. Do I pursue through the auctions above or privately? I wont do EBay. I generally know what prices bring on sealed vintage but I'm not one for scouring.
Thanks!
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@grote15 said:
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
But you're welcome, LOLOL..
I have learned much over the years by reading grote's posts about wax, cellos, etc. And i appreciate it.
It's sad when some don't seem to appreciate it.
One thing in particular that stands out about grote's wisdom, and I'm pretty sure that grote stated this years ago in a post although some chance it may have been someone else...is that just because cards are packed in a cello, doesn't mean that all the cards are pristine and mint because a cello wrapped too tight can actually wear on the card's corners over the years and turn the cards into 7's at best.
That one piece of advice likely saved me thousands of dollars over the years. But please, nobody tell grote this, otherwise that New York Mets loving SOB might demand some sort of commission for having saved me all this money.
Thanks, Steve, I appreciate the kind words. I enjoy sharing info about unopened packs with fellow collectors. Now, if I knew that 55 Mantle was going to be inside that cello, I would have told you to buy a couple spots for a shot at that beauty, lol..
And I would have done it, and I'm not kidding.
If ya analyze the facts it's not "shocking" that Mantle was pulled. It was a series whereby a Mantle was possible, and twenty cards to possibly get it.
Also the pack was PSA slabbed so in my view it was dependably not a previously opened pack. I've seen too many packs slabbed by other companies, especially breaks posted on Youtube which for various reasons, seemed obvious the pack was previously searched or simply all the cards were inserted using a wax wrapper gotten separately from somewhere.
Where your knowledge may come in, if not definitely come in, is knowing whether or not that Bowman cello series has a propensity for pulling grade 9 type cards. Obviously it does, which for a $500 flyer, without question made it a good risk, a good business decision, even for those who only got a common for the money.
I plan on keeping an eye on that Vintage Breaks company. I did peruse the listings on their website, and while there was a lot of interesting scenarios on there, none of them interested me at this time. I'd be usually looking for a 1952 thru 1962 Topps break, possibly later years, possibly Bowman, possibly even football cards, perhaps a cello break if I can gather enough information on the particular cello to see if it's a good business decision to take a flyer on it. The old saying is luck favors the prepared.
In my view when it comes to busting packs, if you're not properly informed and prepared, might as well just buy the cards you want already slabbed by PSA.
@grote15 said:
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
But you're welcome, LOLOL..
I have learned much over the years by reading grote's posts about wax, cellos, etc. And i appreciate it.
It's sad when some don't seem to appreciate it.
One thing in particular that stands out about grote's wisdom, and I'm pretty sure that grote stated this years ago in a post although some chance it may have been someone else...is that just because cards are packed in a cello, doesn't mean that all the cards are pristine and mint because a cello wrapped too tight can actually wear on the card's corners over the years and turn the cards into 7's at best.
That one piece of advice likely saved me thousands of dollars over the years. But please, nobody tell grote this, otherwise that New York Mets loving SOB might demand some sort of commission for having saved me all this money.
Thanks, Steve, I appreciate the kind words. I enjoy sharing info about unopened packs with fellow collectors. Now, if I knew that 55 Mantle was going to be inside that cello, I would have told you to buy a couple spots for a shot at that beauty, lol..
Tim, who should I seek concerning buying sealed wax and sealed packs? Vintage & desirable 70's and 80's prime stuff. Ive done a ton of business with Robert Edwards, Memory Lane and Mile High. I used to deal a lot directly with Goodwin ( used to set up at his shows). I sold off my high grade vintage collection recently but I want back in the game. Do I pursue through the auctions above or privately? I wont do EBay. I generally know what prices bring on sealed vintage but I'm not one for scouring.
Thanks!
mark
Mark, the auction houses you listed are the heavyweights for vintage unopened product. Heritage and Collect Auctions are two others. The National Sportscard Convention just concluded this weekend in Cleveland which is always a great venue for deals, too. The most reputable dealer in the hobby, as far as unopened product is concerned, is The Baseball Card Exchange, which is owned by Steve Hart. Inventory on his site is rather limited at present, but you may see things come up for sale after the National. His prices are very reasonable, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yes BCE inventory is weak right now. I’m actually looking to buy a major collection. Any leads in the future would be appreciated
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@grote15 said:
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
But you're welcome, LOLOL..
I have learned much over the years by reading grote's posts about wax, cellos, etc. And i appreciate it.
It's sad when some don't seem to appreciate it.
One thing in particular that stands out about grote's wisdom, and I'm pretty sure that grote stated this years ago in a post although some chance it may have been someone else...is that just because cards are packed in a cello, doesn't mean that all the cards are pristine and mint because a cello wrapped too tight can actually wear on the card's corners over the years and turn the cards into 7's at best.
That one piece of advice likely saved me thousands of dollars over the years. But please, nobody tell grote this, otherwise that New York Mets loving SOB might demand some sort of commission for having saved me all this money.
Grote does have excellent knowledge about unopened wax, rack packs, and cello, I don't think anybody
in the world would disagree with you about that.
Its his knowledge about baseball and how good, or not so good some players are that has been called into question.
Mark- its cool that you want to start buying unopened material. Good luck on the venture.
In addition to my Brett cards, I really enjoy unopened, although I don't have anything real
expensive. Perhaps my best piece is a 78 rack pack with the Trammell/Molitor rookie showing on front.
Yes BCE inventory is weak right now. I’m actually looking to buy a major collection. Any leads in the future would be appreciated
m
If I hear anything that fits that bill, I will keep you posted, Mark.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Darin said:
Mark- its cool that you want to start buying unopened material. Good luck on the venture.
In addition to my Brett cards, I really enjoy unopened, although I don't have anything real
expensive. Perhaps my best piece is a 78 rack pack with the Trammell/Molitor rookie showing on front.
That’s a NICE pack
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Darin said:
Mark- its cool that you want to start buying unopened material. Good luck on the venture.
In addition to my Brett cards, I really enjoy unopened, although I don't have anything real
expensive. Perhaps my best piece is a 78 rack pack with the Trammell/Molitor rookie showing on front.
That is a nice one, Darin. And this year, now features two HOFers on that card. I can't recall any other baseball rookie card offhand that features two HOFers on it.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
In all seriousness, I consider them both in the discussion of best of all time. However, in regards to the impact to an organization, George Brett is surely one of biggest legacies in baseball in terms of team history.
I didn't read this thread when it happened this past summer, but vowed when I had time I would read the whole thing till the end. I just finished and I really think this is the greatest thread I have ever read. I laughed out loud numerous times. It was just great. Why did I wait so long to read it. so great.
@craig44 said:
I didn't read this thread when it happened this past summer, but vowed when I had time I would read the whole thing till the end. I just finished and I really think this is the greatest thread I have ever read. I laughed out loud numerous times. It was just great. Why did I wait so long to read it. so great.
Well, the 64K question is; do you agree Brett is easily the best 3rd baseman of all-time?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Schmidt by a close call, as Dallas pointed out. I want to add that I lost a little respect for Brett when he sat out at the end of the 1990 season in consecutive games vs Mark Langston and Chuck Finley so he could hold onto the batting title lead.
Brett's bravado takes a hit there...he's certainly no Ted Williams in that department.
@Skin2 said:
Schmidt by a close call, as Dallas pointed out. I want to add that I lost a little respect for Brett when he sat out at the end of the 1990 season in consecutive games vs Mark Langston and Chuck Finley so he could hold onto the batting title lead.
Brett's bravado takes a hit there...he's certainly no Ted Williams in that department.
LOL. So Rickey Henderson wasn't good enough to catch Brett and you want to make excuses as to why Rickey lost. How about Brett was hitting .267 at the 1990 All Star break and then was hitting .330 at the end of the season. Does anyone know how hard it is to go from .267 to .330 in the 2nd half of the season, when many players wear down instead of catch fire ?
Give me a break that Brett lost some bravado. The guy was tough as nails, and played the game like Pete Rose. Yet you want to come on here and try to shoot him down for an amazing comeback to beat Rickey Henderson for the title in one of Rickey's greatest offensive production years ever.
News flash. Rickey got beat.
He sat out against two tough lefties to protect his batting title lead at the end of the season. A guy 'tough as nails' doesn't sit out to protect a lead. Sorry, there is no way around that. P U S S Y is a more appropriate term to describe that type of person. Also, a little bit of selfish thrown in there. That doesn't sound like someone to count on. Sorry.
I'm going to give him a pass for sitting out against a couple tough leftys'.
Kind of like he earned it, with all the game winning hits, all the excitement he provided us Royals' fans
over the course of a hall of fame career, if he wants to sit a couple games to try to win a batting title, then
more power to you, George, you earned it.
And I really think John Wathan was more behind those decisions than George from what I've heard, yes
George had to go along with it but it was Wathans idea to sit George those final days.
@Darin said:
I'm going to give him a pass for sitting out against a couple tough leftys'.
Kind of like he earned it, with all the game winning hits, all the excitement he provided us Royals' fans
over the course of a hall of fame career, if he wants to sit a couple games to try to win a batting title, then
more power to you, George, you earned it.
And I really think John Wathan was more behind those decisions than George from what I've heard, yes
George had to go along with it but it was Wathans idea to sit George those final days.
Selfish
P
U
S
S
Y
No Bravado
Dude was a great player...but indeed gets a knock for that stunt. Wanted to have the batting title for three different decades.
There are times where I have considered Brett as possibly being more desirable than Schmidt.
By the way Darin, if you are on board with giving Brett all this credit for post season success...but then in the QB thread you ignore that aspect when it comes to Young or Brees compared to Stabauch, it just eliminates you from being thought of as having any meaningful input, especially considering a QB has far more impact on a single game than a third basemen in baseball, lmao.
Some third basemen did have a big impact in postseason games, its just that Mike Schmidt wasn't one of them. LOL.
If you've never seen it, watch how George takes over the Blue Jays series in 1985.
That was one single, solitary third baseman that won that series for the Royals.
@Darin said:
Some third basemen did have a big impact in postseason games, its just that Mike Schmidt wasn't one of them. LOL.
If you've never seen it, watch how George takes over the Blue Jays series in 1985.
That was one single, solitary third baseman that won that series for the Royals.
His impact wasn't big enough to beat Schmidt head to head when Schmidt won 1980 World Series MVP???
Again, so now third baseman has more impact to winning than a football QB?? Lmao, you are losing a lot of credibility. See, I painted you in a corner. Either you have to concede that Brett's post season performance doesn't matter in comparison to Schmidt, or you have to agree that Brees and Young not winning enough makes them inferior to Staubach, lol.
Can't have it both ways as much as you would like to.
PS The 1985 World Series MVP was....Bret Saberhagen. 18 innings pitched with one earned run. Without him, Brett does not have a title. Heck, without that blown call at first base, Brett doesn't have a title, lollolololololol. So much for the theory on Brett's post season impact, lmao.
PS. Brett's 'post season record' is 18 wins and 25 losses. That isn't too good for a guy you are claiming to have such success and impact in the post season, lol.
18 and 25.
Also, in the scheme of the entire debate, Brett only eclipsed 150 games six times in his career. He never played 160 games in a season. A little too much sitting against the tough lefties . That right there lessens his impact to his team and the game...and shows he certainly wasn't there when the GM and team needed him as claimed. Schmidt played 150+ games ten times in his career. Played 160 games four times.
It is true, Brett was not as durable. I think a lot of that came down to conditioning. I have read that Brett was not a hard core off season work out guy in his youth/prime age years. He considered spring training the time to get into shape. I believe in 1984 he had kind of a crummy, injury plagued year and was even considering retirement. I think it was Mr Kaufman who spoke to him in the off season and fired him up to get into great shape for 1985. He did and had a huge season. Probably should have been mvp that year over Mattingly. It makes me wonder what could have been for Brett had he taken his conditioning seriously instead of coasting on his talent and natural ability.
@craig44 said:
It is true, Brett was not as durable. I think a lot of that came down to conditioning. I have read that Brett was not a hard force off season work out guy in his youth/prime age years. He considered spring training the time to get into shape. I believe in 1984 he had kind of a crummy, injury plagued year and was even considering retirement. I think it was Mr Kaufman who spoke to him in the off season and fired him up to get into great shape for 1985. He did and had a huge season. Probably should have been mvp that year over Mattingly. It makes me wonder what could have been for Brett had he taken his conditioning seriously instead of coasting on his talent and natural ability.
He also chose to sit...especially if it meant to secure a batting title
Who cares if a guy sits and wins a batting title? It's been done a number of times. The nobody who won it in 2016, Jose Reyes, wade Boggs. It really doesn't matter if your team has nothing to play for at the end of the season. Unless you are one of those "unwritten rules" guys who thinks you shouldn't show up a pitcher with a long home run trot or not try to break up a no hitter with a bunt. It's nothing more than a macho thing.
@craig44 said:
Who cares if a guy sits and wins a batting title? It's been done a number of times. The nobody who won it in 2016, Jose Reyes, wade Boggs. It really doesn't matter if your team has nothing to play for at the end of the season. Unless you are one of those "unwritten rules" guys who thinks you shouldn't show up a pitcher with a long home run trot or not try to break up a no hitter with a bunt. It's nothing more than a macho thing.
Guys are promoting Brett's supposed gameness....so yes it does matter.
It is nothing like an unwritten rule like showing up a pitcher. Dude wants to earn accolades for winning a batting title, and he does it by sitting and not helping his team. It matters none if they are out of the race, he is still paid to try and do his best to win, otherwise why bother having the people pay to see the sport.
Using the example of, "well others have done it," is the type of an answer a kid will give as a reason for his mis behavior. Other guys who have done it should be ashamed too.
It is both selfish and doesn't help the team win. He should give the money back to the people who attended those games who came to see him play and try and win.
And by your rationale, who cares if a guy tanks a game at the end of a season so his buddy can win money on a bet, afterall, they are out of it anyway
Guys are promoting Brett's supposed gameness....so yes it does matter.
It is nothing like an unwritten rule like showing up a pitcher. Dude wants to earn accolades for winning a batting title, and he does it by sitting and not helping his team. It matters none if they are out of the race, he is still paid to try and do his best to win, otherwise why bother having the people pay to see the sport.
Using the example of, "well others have done it," is the type of an answer a kid will give as a reason for his mis behavior. Other guys who have done it should be ashamed too.
It is both selfish and doesn't help the team win. He should give the money back to the people who attended those games who came to see him play and try and win.
And by your rationale, who cares if a guy tanks a game at the end of a season so his buddy can win money on a bet, afterall, they are out of it anyway
You are still here? Why was Brett 18-25 in post season play and not able to beat Schmidt head to head? LOL. Oh, and without Saberhagen and a missed call at first, he doesn't even have a ring.
You claim he is such a post season God....where is the winning???
Skin- Okay I get it. It bothers you that Brett sat out a couple games. It doesn't bother me, how about you let it go?
I saw him play his entire career, I know what kind of competitor he was. He helped build the Royals into a winning
team. He is our only Hall of Famer. He is very important to us loyal Royals fans.
Your opinion on this doesn't really concern me, so I'm done replying to you.
@Darin said:
Skin- Okay I get it. It bothers you that Brett sat out a couple games. It doesn't bother me, how about you let it go?
I saw him play his entire career, I know what kind of competitor he was. He helped build the Royals into a winning
team. He is our only Hall of Famer. He is very important to us loyal Royals fans.
Your opinion on this doesn't really concern me, so I'm done replying to you.
He's a great player...and I enjoyed him too...but when you make up nonsense to defend him against Schmidt, remember, Philly fans feel the same way about Schmidt as you do Brett...probably more so because Schmidt was a better player.
I'm simply being fair. I'm not a Schmidt fan.
And yes, it is wrong to sit to win a batting title like Brett did. That is simply one thing that always stuck with me when it happened. I reacted the same back then as I do now. He is paid to play and win, not sit and back in. He owes those fans their money back. He chose to sit and get that batting title and with it some scorn that is deserved.
In a meaningless game at the end of the year there is no more wrong with sitting out for a batting title than there is a player sitting out a few meaningless games to rest up for the playoffs. Fans are never guaranteed which players will be playing when they watch. That is just silly. Players sit for many different reasons. What about players who skip all star games or pro bowls, do they owe fans their money back because they wanted a few extra days off in the middle of the season instead of playing a meaningless game? Or course not. You are just being obtuse at this point. That batting title is just as legit as any other. You might not agree, but the record book does.
@craig44 said:
In a meaningless game at the end of the year there is no more wrong with sitting out for a batting title than there is a player sitting out a few meaningless games to rest up for the playoffs. Fans are never guaranteed which players will be playing when they watch. That is just silly. Players sit for many different reasons. What about players who skip all star games or pro bowls, do they owe fans their money back because they wanted a few extra days off in the middle of the season instead of playing a meaningless game? Or course not. You are just being obtuse at this point. That batting title is just as legit as any other. You might not agree, but the record book does.
Yep, nothing wrong with sitting out a couple games in baseball. Almost all players do the same.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@Tabe said:
Yes, Brett sat against Finley & Langston. He did play two games after that, however.
Correct. One of the reasons I brought that up is because of how people were saying how much of a gamer and competitor he was. Obviously, sitting against two tough matchups to protect his lead in a batting title spits into the face of the notion of gamer and competitor.
It is also selfish. People come on here all the time complaining about selfish players...but when their own guy does something selfish it is suddenly ok?
Craig, some players sit so they are fresh for the playoffs etc...that isn't selfish. That is to help win. Brett's was done purely to protect a batting title lead because he had two tough lefties to face. That is not the mark of a gamer, and it is selfish.
No matter what you say to try and sugar coat it, it is still a selfish act, and is not a trademark of a gamer/competitor that people say he was.
In a word, it was a P U S S Y move.
Furthermore, and more importantly, it is also two more game where he sat so he could save his percentages. How many times did he sit against a tough lefty in his career so it didn't put a dent into his batting average or slugging percentage? How much of a Ken Phelps factor do we apply there??? Meanwhile, other elite hitters are playing 160 games a year.
Garnettstyle, why are you in this thread? According to you, you claim head to head battles in Staubach vs Bradshaw is one of the main reasons as why you believe Bradshaw was better. LMAO. So now you must proclaim the same that Schmidt was better than Brett because he beat him head to head in the World Series.
I actually like feeding the trolls. I like exposing bias. It is entertaining. Toying with the trolls is better than a good movie. Carry on. LMAO.
Also, lets not forget what I wrote above about how many at bats Brett has sat in his career vs left handed pitchers so he can save his batting percentages. How much of a Ken Phelps factor does he get for doing that while other elite hitters in the league were playing 160 games a year.
Oh, Garnettstyle, and don't forget to bash Terry Bradshaw for his steroid use, just as you have done for anyone else taking steroids in baseball. Gotta be fair.
Skin, you are ridiculous and clearly have some sort of axe to grind here. Players sit against tough pitchers all the time. You don't think players were sat because of a Randy Johnson start? How about ryan, koufax, clemens, Pedro etc.? Whether the manager sits them to save a BA or because there is a right handed option on the bench that may have a better chance that night it doesn't matter really because the decision can help the team win. Platooning players has happened for 100 years. It is all about matchups. why throw a left batter up against Koufax, unit or Langston if there is a right handed option on the bench with a better chance to HELP THE TEAM WIN? It is nothing but a stupid macho move to run a guy out there with little chance of success just to prove your manhood when better options are available.
What is more important skin, being John Wayne or helping the team win. Good grief, this is easy stuff. I am shocked you are all hung up on it.
By the way, was mccovey a "pussy" for sitting against koufax? Or course not.
I don't think Brett was dodging very many starting leftys'. He did have a career .288 batting average against them.
And let's talk about all the times Schmidt was vying for a batting title and he sat against tough right handers.
Chirp.......chirp.................chirp......................chirp.
Sorry, forgot .267 lifetime hitters are never vying for a batting title.
Not to kick a dead horse, but I was wondering if there was any disagreement in the wider world over the GOAT third baseman so I did a simple Google search. I found 10 sites that had third basemen ranked, usually from 10 to 1, sometimes more than 10, and they were somewhat surprising in their degree of unanimity:
Site:Schmidt's rank:Brett's rank
Athlon Sports 1 2
Wahoo Sam 1 4
Bleacher Report 1 2
Ranker 1 3
Baseball Egg 1 4
ESPN 1 2
ThoughtCo 1 2
The Grueling Truth 1 2
Fox Sports 1 4
Hall of Stats 1 5
Sports Retriever No ranking, but shows 4 candidates; Schmidt is among them, Brett is not
Schmidt was #1 on everyone's list, Brett varied from 2 to 5, with an average position of 3.
This was every site I found with the search I did; I make no guarantee that there aren't others. I ignored sites from a particular city/newspaper/etc. whose purpose was to advance the case that, say, Adrian Beltre or Scott Rolen was the GOAT; in any event, those sites didn't have rankings of other 3B anyway.
The three most settled questions in all of baseball appear to be that Ruth was the GOAT, Gehrig was the GOAT at 1B and Schmidt was the GOAT at 3B. Every other position has at least some disagreement (even at shortstop where there shouldn't be).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Thanks, Steve, I appreciate the kind words. I enjoy sharing info about unopened packs with fellow collectors. Now, if I knew that 55 Mantle was going to be inside that cello, I would have told you to buy a couple spots for a shot at that beauty, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Tim, who should I seek concerning buying sealed wax and sealed packs? Vintage & desirable 70's and 80's prime stuff. Ive done a ton of business with Robert Edwards, Memory Lane and Mile High. I used to deal a lot directly with Goodwin ( used to set up at his shows). I sold off my high grade vintage collection recently but I want back in the game. Do I pursue through the auctions above or privately? I wont do EBay. I generally know what prices bring on sealed vintage but I'm not one for scouring.
Thanks!
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
And I would have done it, and I'm not kidding.
If ya analyze the facts it's not "shocking" that Mantle was pulled. It was a series whereby a Mantle was possible, and twenty cards to possibly get it.
Also the pack was PSA slabbed so in my view it was dependably not a previously opened pack. I've seen too many packs slabbed by other companies, especially breaks posted on Youtube which for various reasons, seemed obvious the pack was previously searched or simply all the cards were inserted using a wax wrapper gotten separately from somewhere.
Where your knowledge may come in, if not definitely come in, is knowing whether or not that Bowman cello series has a propensity for pulling grade 9 type cards. Obviously it does, which for a $500 flyer, without question made it a good risk, a good business decision, even for those who only got a common for the money.
I plan on keeping an eye on that Vintage Breaks company. I did peruse the listings on their website, and while there was a lot of interesting scenarios on there, none of them interested me at this time. I'd be usually looking for a 1952 thru 1962 Topps break, possibly later years, possibly Bowman, possibly even football cards, perhaps a cello break if I can gather enough information on the particular cello to see if it's a good business decision to take a flyer on it. The old saying is luck favors the prepared.
In my view when it comes to busting packs, if you're not properly informed and prepared, might as well just buy the cards you want already slabbed by PSA.
Mark, the auction houses you listed are the heavyweights for vintage unopened product. Heritage and Collect Auctions are two others. The National Sportscard Convention just concluded this weekend in Cleveland which is always a great venue for deals, too. The most reputable dealer in the hobby, as far as unopened product is concerned, is The Baseball Card Exchange, which is owned by Steve Hart. Inventory on his site is rather limited at present, but you may see things come up for sale after the National. His prices are very reasonable, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yes BCE inventory is weak right now. I’m actually looking to buy a major collection. Any leads in the future would be appreciated
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Grote does have excellent knowledge about unopened wax, rack packs, and cello, I don't think anybody
in the world would disagree with you about that.
Its his knowledge about baseball and how good, or not so good some players are that has been called into question.
Mark- its cool that you want to start buying unopened material. Good luck on the venture.
In addition to my Brett cards, I really enjoy unopened, although I don't have anything real
expensive. Perhaps my best piece is a 78 rack pack with the Trammell/Molitor rookie showing on front.
.> @Justacommeman said:
If I hear anything that fits that bill, I will keep you posted, Mark.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I sold my 70's unopened baseball and football collection 4 years ago , and regret doing so.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
That’s a NICE pack
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
That is a nice one, Darin. And this year, now features two HOFers on that card. I can't recall any other baseball rookie card offhand that features two HOFers on it.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Both were awesome, no doubt. However, a certain bawling during a retirement announcement might make the difference, LOL.
In all seriousness, I consider them both in the discussion of best of all time. However, in regards to the impact to an organization, George Brett is surely one of biggest legacies in baseball in terms of team history.
I didn't read this thread when it happened this past summer, but vowed when I had time I would read the whole thing till the end. I just finished and I really think this is the greatest thread I have ever read. I laughed out loud numerous times. It was just great. Why did I wait so long to read it. so great.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Well, the 64K question is; do you agree Brett is easily the best 3rd baseman of all-time?
Schmidt by a close call, as Dallas pointed out. I want to add that I lost a little respect for Brett when he sat out at the end of the 1990 season in consecutive games vs Mark Langston and Chuck Finley so he could hold onto the batting title lead.
Brett's bravado takes a hit there...he's certainly no Ted Williams in that department.
He sat out against two tough lefties to protect his batting title lead at the end of the season. A guy 'tough as nails' doesn't sit out to protect a lead. Sorry, there is no way around that. P U S S Y is a more appropriate term to describe that type of person. Also, a little bit of selfish thrown in there. That doesn't sound like someone to count on. Sorry.
Mathews was better too, maybe even Jones.
I'm going to give him a pass for sitting out against a couple tough leftys'.
Kind of like he earned it, with all the game winning hits, all the excitement he provided us Royals' fans
over the course of a hall of fame career, if he wants to sit a couple games to try to win a batting title, then
more power to you, George, you earned it.
And I really think John Wathan was more behind those decisions than George from what I've heard, yes
George had to go along with it but it was Wathans idea to sit George those final days.
Selfish
P
U
S
S
Y
No Bravado
Dude was a great player...but indeed gets a knock for that stunt. Wanted to have the batting title for three different decades.
There are times where I have considered Brett as possibly being more desirable than Schmidt.
By the way Darin, if you are on board with giving Brett all this credit for post season success...but then in the QB thread you ignore that aspect when it comes to Young or Brees compared to Stabauch, it just eliminates you from being thought of as having any meaningful input, especially considering a QB has far more impact on a single game than a third basemen in baseball, lmao.
Some third basemen did have a big impact in postseason games, its just that Mike Schmidt wasn't one of them. LOL.
If you've never seen it, watch how George takes over the Blue Jays series in 1985.
That was one single, solitary third baseman that won that series for the Royals.
His impact wasn't big enough to beat Schmidt head to head when Schmidt won 1980 World Series MVP???
Again, so now third baseman has more impact to winning than a football QB?? Lmao, you are losing a lot of credibility. See, I painted you in a corner. Either you have to concede that Brett's post season performance doesn't matter in comparison to Schmidt, or you have to agree that Brees and Young not winning enough makes them inferior to Staubach, lol.
Can't have it both ways as much as you would like to.
PS The 1985 World Series MVP was....Bret Saberhagen. 18 innings pitched with one earned run. Without him, Brett does not have a title. Heck, without that blown call at first base, Brett doesn't have a title, lollolololololol. So much for the theory on Brett's post season impact, lmao.
PS. Brett's 'post season record' is 18 wins and 25 losses. That isn't too good for a guy you are claiming to have such success and impact in the post season, lol.
18 and 25.
Also, in the scheme of the entire debate, Brett only eclipsed 150 games six times in his career. He never played 160 games in a season. A little too much sitting against the tough lefties
. That right there lessens his impact to his team and the game...and shows he certainly wasn't there when the GM and team needed him as claimed. Schmidt played 150+ games ten times in his career. Played 160 games four times.
It is true, Brett was not as durable. I think a lot of that came down to conditioning. I have read that Brett was not a hard core off season work out guy in his youth/prime age years. He considered spring training the time to get into shape. I believe in 1984 he had kind of a crummy, injury plagued year and was even considering retirement. I think it was Mr Kaufman who spoke to him in the off season and fired him up to get into great shape for 1985. He did and had a huge season. Probably should have been mvp that year over Mattingly. It makes me wonder what could have been for Brett had he taken his conditioning seriously instead of coasting on his talent and natural ability.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
He also chose to sit...especially if it meant to secure a batting title
Nope, I did not mention anything about brett sitting to win a batting title. Not quite sure where you got that one from.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I know you didn't mention that, I did, because that is what he did in 1990. I'm just keeping it warm so it isn't forgotten.
Who cares if a guy sits and wins a batting title? It's been done a number of times. The nobody who won it in 2016, Jose Reyes, wade Boggs. It really doesn't matter if your team has nothing to play for at the end of the season. Unless you are one of those "unwritten rules" guys who thinks you shouldn't show up a pitcher with a long home run trot or not try to break up a no hitter with a bunt. It's nothing more than a macho thing.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Guys are promoting Brett's supposed gameness....so yes it does matter.
It is nothing like an unwritten rule like showing up a pitcher. Dude wants to earn accolades for winning a batting title, and he does it by sitting and not helping his team. It matters none if they are out of the race, he is still paid to try and do his best to win, otherwise why bother having the people pay to see the sport.
Using the example of, "well others have done it," is the type of an answer a kid will give as a reason for his mis behavior. Other guys who have done it should be ashamed too.
It is both selfish and doesn't help the team win. He should give the money back to the people who attended those games who came to see him play and try and win.
And by your rationale, who cares if a guy tanks a game at the end of a season so his buddy can win money on a bet, afterall, they are out of it anyway
And craig shuts down skins nonsense.
Guys are promoting Brett's supposed gameness....so yes it does matter.
It is nothing like an unwritten rule like showing up a pitcher. Dude wants to earn accolades for winning a batting title, and he does it by sitting and not helping his team. It matters none if they are out of the race, he is still paid to try and do his best to win, otherwise why bother having the people pay to see the sport.
Using the example of, "well others have done it," is the type of an answer a kid will give as a reason for his mis behavior. Other guys who have done it should be ashamed too.
It is both selfish and doesn't help the team win. He should give the money back to the people who attended those games who came to see him play and try and win.
And by your rationale, who cares if a guy tanks a game at the end of a season so his buddy can win money on a bet, afterall, they are out of it anyway
You are still here? Why was Brett 18-25 in post season play and not able to beat Schmidt head to head? LOL. Oh, and without Saberhagen and a missed call at first, he doesn't even have a ring.
You claim he is such a post season God....where is the winning???
You are a fool.
Skin- Okay I get it. It bothers you that Brett sat out a couple games. It doesn't bother me, how about you let it go?
I saw him play his entire career, I know what kind of competitor he was. He helped build the Royals into a winning
team. He is our only Hall of Famer. He is very important to us loyal Royals fans.
Your opinion on this doesn't really concern me, so I'm done replying to you.
He's a great player...and I enjoyed him too...but when you make up nonsense to defend him against Schmidt, remember, Philly fans feel the same way about Schmidt as you do Brett...probably more so because Schmidt was a better player.
I'm simply being fair. I'm not a Schmidt fan.
And yes, it is wrong to sit to win a batting title like Brett did. That is simply one thing that always stuck with me when it happened. I reacted the same back then as I do now. He is paid to play and win, not sit and back in. He owes those fans their money back. He chose to sit and get that batting title and with it some scorn that is deserved.
In a meaningless game at the end of the year there is no more wrong with sitting out for a batting title than there is a player sitting out a few meaningless games to rest up for the playoffs. Fans are never guaranteed which players will be playing when they watch. That is just silly. Players sit for many different reasons. What about players who skip all star games or pro bowls, do they owe fans their money back because they wanted a few extra days off in the middle of the season instead of playing a meaningless game? Or course not. You are just being obtuse at this point. That batting title is just as legit as any other. You might not agree, but the record book does.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yes, Brett sat against Finley & Langston. He did play two games after that, however.
Yep, nothing wrong with sitting out a couple games in baseball. Almost all players do the same.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Correct. One of the reasons I brought that up is because of how people were saying how much of a gamer and competitor he was. Obviously, sitting against two tough matchups to protect his lead in a batting title spits into the face of the notion of gamer and competitor.
It is also selfish. People come on here all the time complaining about selfish players...but when their own guy does something selfish it is suddenly ok?
Craig, some players sit so they are fresh for the playoffs etc...that isn't selfish. That is to help win. Brett's was done purely to protect a batting title lead because he had two tough lefties to face. That is not the mark of a gamer, and it is selfish.
No matter what you say to try and sugar coat it, it is still a selfish act, and is not a trademark of a gamer/competitor that people say he was.
In a word, it was a P U S S Y move.
Furthermore, and more importantly, it is also two more game where he sat so he could save his percentages. How many times did he sit against a tough lefty in his career so it didn't put a dent into his batting average or slugging percentage? How much of a Ken Phelps factor do we apply there??? Meanwhile, other elite hitters are playing 160 games a year.
Garnettstyle, why are you in this thread? According to you, you claim head to head battles in Staubach vs Bradshaw is one of the main reasons as why you believe Bradshaw was better. LMAO. So now you must proclaim the same that Schmidt was better than Brett because he beat him head to head in the World Series.
I actually like feeding the trolls. I like exposing bias. It is entertaining. Toying with the trolls is better than a good movie. Carry on. LMAO.
Also, lets not forget what I wrote above about how many at bats Brett has sat in his career vs left handed pitchers so he can save his batting percentages. How much of a Ken Phelps factor does he get for doing that while other elite hitters in the league were playing 160 games a year.
Oh, Garnettstyle, and don't forget to bash Terry Bradshaw for his steroid use, just as you have done for anyone else taking steroids in baseball. Gotta be fair.
Skin, you are ridiculous and clearly have some sort of axe to grind here. Players sit against tough pitchers all the time. You don't think players were sat because of a Randy Johnson start? How about ryan, koufax, clemens, Pedro etc.? Whether the manager sits them to save a BA or because there is a right handed option on the bench that may have a better chance that night it doesn't matter really because the decision can help the team win. Platooning players has happened for 100 years. It is all about matchups. why throw a left batter up against Koufax, unit or Langston if there is a right handed option on the bench with a better chance to HELP THE TEAM WIN? It is nothing but a stupid macho move to run a guy out there with little chance of success just to prove your manhood when better options are available.
What is more important skin, being John Wayne or helping the team win. Good grief, this is easy stuff. I am shocked you are all hung up on it.
By the way, was mccovey a "pussy" for sitting against koufax? Or course not.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't think Brett was dodging very many starting leftys'. He did have a career .288 batting average against them.
And let's talk about all the times Schmidt was vying for a batting title and he sat against tough right handers.
Chirp.......chirp.................chirp......................chirp.
Sorry, forgot .267 lifetime hitters are never vying for a batting title.
Not to kick a dead horse, but I was wondering if there was any disagreement in the wider world over the GOAT third baseman so I did a simple Google search. I found 10 sites that had third basemen ranked, usually from 10 to 1, sometimes more than 10, and they were somewhat surprising in their degree of unanimity:
Site:Schmidt's rank:Brett's rank
Athlon Sports 1 2
Wahoo Sam 1 4
Bleacher Report 1 2
Ranker 1 3
Baseball Egg 1 4
ESPN 1 2
ThoughtCo 1 2
The Grueling Truth 1 2
Fox Sports 1 4
Hall of Stats 1 5
Sports Retriever No ranking, but shows 4 candidates; Schmidt is among them, Brett is not
Schmidt was #1 on everyone's list, Brett varied from 2 to 5, with an average position of 3.
This was every site I found with the search I did; I make no guarantee that there aren't others. I ignored sites from a particular city/newspaper/etc. whose purpose was to advance the case that, say, Adrian Beltre or Scott Rolen was the GOAT; in any event, those sites didn't have rankings of other 3B anyway.
The three most settled questions in all of baseball appear to be that Ruth was the GOAT, Gehrig was the GOAT at 1B and Schmidt was the GOAT at 3B. Every other position has at least some disagreement (even at shortstop where there shouldn't be).