The November Project purchase #3: 88 count '73 Topps lot

This purchase ate up most of the 100 card requirement, turned out that I only needed 74 of the 88, but no worries there as this lot was cheap enough for me not to worry about the dupes.

Cards purchased (88):  1973 Topps lot with high numbers. (6 cards remaining to hit 100 total)
Cost:  $4.24 + $5 shipping = $9.24 ($27.26 total spent, $72.74 left)
How won:  auction, only 2 bids.  Seller was yankees4671.

Cards arrived very quickly, within 4 days of auction payment I had the cards in my mailbox.  This is not a great lot by any stretch of the imagination, but there are a lot of good cards in the lot.

Joe Coleman looks a little lost with the bat over his shoulder.  I especially like the "Tenace the Menace" card, which was one of 4 World Series cards in this lot.

Like I mentioned, not a great lot, but it put a dent into the want list for the set, which is now almost 1/3 complete.

I've taken a break for a few days from the Project since I'm headed up to the Expo this weekend, but rest assured there will be more purchases made towards my own $100 Heritage High Numbers set.

thanks for reading, Robert

I almost stayed within the budget at the card show.

Believe it or not, with all the cards that you see on this blog, I do try my best to stay within the $30 per week "budget".  There are weeks in which I may only buy a few dollars worth of cards, and then other times I find a few deals that may put me up to $40 or more. 

I've held fast to my one credo that I posted quite a while back, and that's no card purchases on the credit card.  I've kept that an absolute must in order to keep solvent while still having fun with our great hobby.

I did pretty well at the card show yesterday, spending $37 total at 3 tables.  The final card I bought was the one that put me over the limit, but when you see it I hope you'll agree it was worth the extra few bucks.

The first group of cards you'll see are either for sets that I'm building, or for potential trades.

The top row are cards from the '73 Topps set.  This is another set that has grown on me, especially the manager cards.  I like the design, the manager on the left side, and his coaches with smaller boxes on the right.  I can't recall a set other than the '73 that honors the coaches along with the manager.  The Brooks Robinson card cost me less than a buck, and other than it being off center, there's not a thing wrong with it.  I had to look twice at the Hrabosky card, seeing him without that Fu Manchu mustache just doesn't sit well with me.  It's kind of like a peanut butter sandwich without the jelly if you know what I mean.

The bottom row were also some interesting finds...the MacLeish on the left is a rainbow card from the 08-09 OPC set, priced to move.  The Aaron Hill sparkly is from last year's Lineage and was found in a 15 cent box (not quite as good as Nick's legendary dime box, but close!).  The Zimmerman jersey card was a buck, following with the theme "priced so well you can't leave it there".  I'm sure one day I'll find a Nationals fan to trade for it.

Naturally, a visit to the monthly show ends up with a trip to the vintage table, and as always Ray was there.  A great six pack of '64 Topps was just part of the transaction...

I managed to pull in a couple of more Pirates...seeing as I'm in western PA they usually go for a little bit more, but with my "discount" the prices drop down to normal.

The key card of the bunch was the Drysdale.  The card is in nice shape, other than the 70-30 centering.  I was able to get it for $8. That was the card that put me over the $30 mark. 

I also bought a bunch of '77 Topps, which is nearing completion with just 55 cards remaining.  I was also able to get a bunch of the Gypsy Queen singles I needed for this year's set; I'm now down to just 7 cards to finish the 300 card base set.

Three more cards for the insanity set came home with me as well.  SNI has received a nice push from my fellow bloggers (thank you all!) over the past few weeks.  I've saved a couple of other purchases for their own post later this week, cards from vintage sets that I had not previously owned any of, but found a fascination (naturally) when I saw the prices. 

I've got just under a month now to get myself ready for the Hockey Expo in Toronto.  I'm actually hoping that I'll be able to use that show to accomplish one of my blog goals that I posted at the beginning of 2012, which is meeting another blogger in person. 

We'll see if anyone is crazy enough to talk to me...

Thanks for reading, Robert

Discipline

No, not the torture and bondage kind that you gutter minded people were thinking about...get out of there!!

Discipline is something I sorely lack when it comes to collecting cards.  For a while, I can stay on track and focus on what I'm trying to accomplish, and then there are times when, for lack of a better term, I just fall off the wagon. 

I will say this, for around a month now, I can say that I've been very disciplined in my collecting habits.  I've done my best to stay on point and focus on collecting the sets that I've promised to work on.  The 77s and 64s are a prime example of that.  Those are two sets that I really would like to complete, and they were the major focus of my card show spending last week. 

Sadly, there are sets out there though that I have a weakness for.  Goodness knows if you are trying to stick to a budget, there is only so many sets that you can try to complete at one time.  Go beyond that, and you stretch yourself too thin.

The '73 Topps set is my weakness right now.  I've picked up pieces and parts at card shows in the past, but had no real attempt to start this set....until the card show last weekend.  My vintage guy, like always, has 100 count plastic cases of what you could call "starter sets".  Sure enough, there was a 100 count of '73 Topps there for $8, something I just couldn't resist. 

I looked at a bunch of these cards, and they almost made me wish I was 20 years older.

These guys rocked some of the greatest sets of sideburns known to man.  Of course, the Oakland A's had their own rules for facial hair, so their sideburns were awesome.

Here's 4 more examples of some great sideburns, although a little on the thin side...

I had to check and see if Montgomery's first name was actually Monty.  Sure enough it is.  I still enjoy listening to Ken Singleton do analysis on YES telecasts; that voice is just a smooth as it was 20 years ago when he was on Montreal telecasts.

There were 4 sets of sideburns that I found especially appealing.

How about best set of sideburns on a card of a pitcher who is just posing.  Meet George Culver.

Great thick bushy sideburns...awesome!

How about the best set of sideburns on a pitcher in an action pose.   Meet Don Stanhouse.

He could also win the award for best facial hair on a horizontal card.

Here's another one for you.  How about the best sideburns that are shaved into a spike.  Meet Bob Tolan

Finally, how about the best set of sideburns on a Rookie Card of a guy whose name is a palindrome.   Meet Toby Harrah.

Now that my friends, is one spectacular set of sideburns.  What's pretty neat on the cards that I picked up is that of the 99 unique cards, there were only three cards that featured players with mustaches.  There was not a single hair on any of the chins in the lot.

Maybe I would have been out of place back then, because I've had a goatee now for the better part of the past 27 years.  My chin would have been cold without it back then.

See what happens when you show a lack of discipline in your collecting duties?  You end up posting about facial hair.

Lesson learned.

Thanks for reading, Robert

Now I know why they call him the Spaceman

Come on folks, look at this card of the "Spaceman" Bill Lee, and tell me that he isn't looking for an UFO, or the mother ship to come and pick him up.

is the phrase "beam me up Scotty" a little too over the top here?

This was one of the cards I scored in a card draft on Wes' blog Jaybarkerfan's Junk. I figured it would be an easy and fun way to ease into a couple of posts about some of the card drafts/group breaks I've been involved with lately.

One card not enough?  OK, here's two more...

The Jays back in the 70's didn't have prospects at any other positions than P & C

The '79 Topps card of the trio of upcoming Blue Jays prospects is interesting, because it appears that photo day in Toronto was taken with a roll of black and white film.  The Roy Halladay card appears to have the stitches of a baseball drawn on it, and if that's the case, that may be the dirtiest looking baseball I've ever seen.  Sorry Donruss, that's a miss...

Just a tease for now...more to come

Thanks for reading, Robert

The last of the National additions

I figured instead of going into a lengthy post detailing the remainder of my purchases, I'd just give out some of the highlights of what's left over.

A couple of hockey HOFers from early 1970s Topps sets are always a good pickup...the Ullman is the first Leaf card from the 71-72 sets that I own.  50 cents was well worth it.

I figured I'd throw together a scan of some of the other cards I also purchased from the same table for 50 cents apiece.  The Aaron is very well loved, but at 50 cents I just couldn't say no.  I grabbed quite a few 71's, 73's and a few 75's from this table, the only "oddball" was the '72 Killebrew IA card you see below. 

Yes...all were 50 cents apiece

A '69 Steve Carlton in damn good condition....and no, it wasn't 50 cents...

At $12, this was the priciest card for me at the show...well worth it

Some more '64 cards that feature McCovey and Yaz...as I mentioned the other day, I was able to snag a few of the league leader cards from the '64 set at good prices, I believe that these 3 cards cost me a total of $12.

Another nice find for me...this Piniella RC set me back $8.

You can't tell me that it doesn't look like Sweet Lou spent too much time in a tanning booth

All totaled, I spent a little over 6 weeks of my budget at the National, but the cards that I added to my collection included a lot of great finds at some pretty sweet deals, so I really can't complain. 

Besides, what else was I going to do with my bonus check from work anyhow??

Thanks for reading, Robert

How often do you find cards priced at 15/$1?

OK, let me rephrase that post title.  How often do you find 1975 Topps cards priced at 15/$1?  One of the tables at the very back of the National had cards listed at 15/$1, and I dove right in.

How could I not?

I was absolutely shocked when I came across a stack of 1975 Topps cards in there, and the digging began in earnest.

 

I just couldn't pass them up, you know what I'm saying?  My original plan was to put a dent into my '77 Topps set, but for some reason every table that I came across that had '77s had them at ridiculous prices (at least in my opinion), so I wound up picking up more '75s than I had originally bargained for.  

I picked up 69 cards for this set at this table, and found a couple of '73s to bring the total amount of cards to $5!

I even found one of the worst airbrush jobs on a card imaginable in this box.  If I were a Cardinals fan, I'd be disappointed to say the least.

Was the attempt really even worth it?

The dealer at that table even threw in a couple of '60s cards I found in her "bargain bin" as well...

I spent a total of $5 at that table, and probably had the most fun there over all the other tables that I visited over the 2 days. 

Like I mentioned earlier in this post, one of the main objectives was to put a dent into my '77 set.  If I could call anything at the National a disappointment, it would be the fact that I only managed to score these 8 cards.

Some names I remember in here

This post rounds out my Friday experience at the National.  I spent $88 on the first day, and this sums up what kind of damage I did:

• 8 cards towards the '77 set
• 69 cards towards the '75 set
• 40 cards for the insanity set
• 4 jersey/relic cards (including 2 Jays)
• 5 '62s
• 39 cards towards the '64 set
• 8 cards towards the'73 set
• Also picked up vintage cards from '63/'65/'66/'68 sets

Saturday's fun is still to come....

Thanks for reading, Robert

I could never do this to somebody...even if I tried

It's been a little while since I have bitched and moaned on the blog.  I think the envelope I received in the mail yesterday gives me the opportunity to do so today.

I was thrilled to find out I won a 9 card '73 Topps lot from Sportlots recently, for the winning bid of $0.25!!  Throw in $2.50 for shipping, and even though the cards were listed as VG-EX condition, I was still quite happy to win the auction.

Well, like I said, the envelope (notice the word bubble isn't before the word envelope) came yesterday, and I opened it, and saw all 9 cards packed in this.

No penny sleeves, no other protection at all.  Yes, there was only one of these as well.

Wow....what the $%@$....(add your own 4 letter word here)

Maybe it's me, but if I'm going to charge somebody $2.50 for shipping, I'm going to come close to giving them their money's worth.  Maybe I'm wrong here?  Should I expect something like this for an auction that went for $0.25?  Sure, I'd be disappointed as a seller that a 9 card vintage lot went for a quarter, but hey, those are the chances you take when you list something in an auction format.  I've been on the other end.

I also learned a little something about Sportlots today, and that is you cannot provide negative feedback without filing an issue first.  For the amount of money I paid for this auction, the time and hassle of filing an issue would not be worth it in my opinion. 

OK...before I continue my rant, let's at least look at the cards:

2 of the cards have significant creasing, but in all, I was happy with this lot.  Borbon, McAuliffe and Blass are all players that I've heard of, and was happy to pick these up on the cheap. 

This will not discourage me from buying on Sportlots in the future, largely because this is the first incident I've had from any of my purchases on the site.   I will also not publicly post the name of the seller as well, but I could be convinced to provide the name in a private email to anyone who asks.

After all, somebody earlier this week mentioned caveat emptor (let the buyer beware), but if somebody uses Sportlots and wishes to know the name of a seller that is maybe less than desirable, then who am I not to provide that info?

Rant over....that wasn't too bad, was it?

Thanks for reading, Robert