Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Writer looking to interview collectors about first and last cards in sets

vintagecollectorvintagecollector Posts: 160 ✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
Hello,

I'm working on an article for Tuff Stuff about cards that started and ended vintage
baseball and football cards sets. Generally the time frame I'm dealing with with is early 1950's to mid-1970's.

If you have an unusual story about one of these cards, or any of the cards that showed up ending 50 or 00 for that matter, and would like to be interviewed for this article, please contact me at:

kozpro20@hotmail.com

Please give a brief description of your story and, if possible, include your phone number (for a possible follow-up interview)

This piece has a quick turnaround so I'm looking to conclude the interviews no later than September 5th.

Thanks to all who have contributed to articles in the past--Doug Koztoski
Enjoy the hobby.

Comments

  • darkhorse9darkhorse9 Posts: 90
    I don't have any particular stories about those cards, but here's somethign that always bugged me about the premium that was attached to the first and last cards in a set.

    The old theory has always been that those cards were subject to rubberbands and abuse since they generally occupied the outer end of stacks of collections.

    However, using that theory, along with the "high numbers" theory, why isn't the last card in the sixth or whatever the next to last series given a premium for condition sensitivity?

    If it's true that most kids didn't or couldn't get the high numbers from a set, wouldn't most sets the kids have end at the next to last series and therefore that's the card that gets the abuse?

    I don't see a premium set for those cards. For example:

    1966 #522 Frank Linz (the highest number card available in sixth series packs) is priced the same in NM as #521 John Wyatt. The seventh series cards are notoriously hard to find so the Linz should have a high condition sensitivity.

    1967 #533 Jack Fisher in NM is the same as the preceding card. Same thing applies.

    I just think the "rubber band theory" has simply become one of those hobby myths that hasn't gone away.
  • downtowndowntown Posts: 671 ✭✭✭
    I know growing up I mostly had cards by team.....I did not complete my first set - 1973 Topps - until 10 years later. High school is when I starated working on sets.
    I collect Seattle Pilots autographs, 1969 Topps autographs, Signed Mickey Mantle Home Run History cards and have a JC Martin collection (he was my college Baseball coach)
    Doug
  • FanothoseYanksFanothoseYanks Posts: 21
    Excellent point by Darkhorse9! I had never thought of that, but the last card in the semi-highs really should get more attention. Come to think of it, I am going to list just such a card tonight on Ebay! (1961 Topps # 522 Dick Farrell PSA 8)
    Another point about the first card/last card premise is that while it is very true that most collections in the sixties were kept in rubber bands, rarely, if ever, have I seen an original collection which was maintained in numerical order. Nearly always, the cards were separated by team. Often, the biggest stars on the teams would be at the top of the stack. Further, although checklists were often checked, I don't recall anyone ever assembling an entire set via buying packs. There were just too many kids buying them from the limited number of stores selling them for that to be a realistic goal. We were much more focused on our favorite teams and players. Most often, that was the Yankees, because they won every year.
Sign In or Register to comment.