Sunday, February 11, 2018

Sunday Edition


I was busy on Sportlots.com in the aftermath of opening a box of 2018 Topps.  The box left me 27 cards short of the complete first series, I wasn't going to let those needs linger for years to come as has become my habit.  I've found the key to Sportlots is to be efficient as you can be with shipping.  This means clicking on a seller before blindly adding cards, and maxing out the limits on a particular shipping rate.  Sometimes it ends up being cheaper to pay 60¢ for a card than 18¢ based on the shipping.  Typically I max out the shipping categories by adding Wallach's.  With this recent batch (spread out over four sellers) I also took the opportunity to go after other recent set needs from the last ten years.  I was also fortunate enough to find that one of the seller's had a few of my 1970's needs as well.  Here's a look at the handful of 70's needs I crossed off my need list.


I'm sure I've seen that Pirates "Series Celebration" card before, but I definitely never fully appreciated it.  It's an all around epic card.  If you're not at a point in your collecting habits where you're actively trying to complete 70's sets, but have itch to pick up some cards from that era, you could do worse than that one for the buck it'll set you back.


I wasn't on Sportlots to work on the 1972 set (though I'd have been a lot happier if I were), I was there to finish 2018 Series one, which just doesn't have the same ring to it.  So here's a look at some of the new stuff:


I thought I had filled out my order with all of my needs.  I should have known better.  I think every time I've ever tried to finish off a set by ordering more than two needs at once, it gets screwed up somehow.  I've either missed a blank space in the binder, written down a number wrong, or a seller sends the wrong card.  I don't what happened this time, but I'm still two cards short.  (I'll list them at the bottom).  The McCutchen and Cano are both strong candidates for the spine card at this point, but I'll wait until I see Series 2 before locking anyone in.


I also moved within four cards of finally knocking off 2017 Topps.  One of my needs is this Dansby Swanson kid.  Maybe I'm an idiot, but I just don't get excited about 24 year old .232 hitters with zero power who play on last place teams.  I guess that's why I'm not a GM, I have silly hangups like that.  But people seem to be into the kid, and his card has eluded me so far with a couple of others. 


I also took a chunk out of my 2010, 2011, and 2012 needs.  It'll be nice to finally cross those sets off and that day is in sight now.  I returned to collecting in 2008, and have been trying to complete the run of Topps sets since then.  I haven't touched anything from 1996-2007 yet, but once I catch up I'll have to decide whether to work back from 2007 or up from 1996.  Neither sounds like much fun, but it'll scratch my collecting itch.


When I first posted my need list of current sets, 2008 was one of the largest.  It's now down to under 20 cards, thanks in large part to a very generous reader named Jim of Elgin, IL who has sent me a dozen or so at time probably close to a dozen times.  But I can't just rely on Jim's generosity, so I went ahead and picked these up as well.  This is my favorite Topps design over the last ten years.  It's what brought me back, and while I may not love everything about the design (why  is "Topps" in the middle of the card?), I love that Topps took a risk.  Aside from 2015 (which I also love) the base set has been far too vanilla of late.  Case in point, can you tell the difference between '10, '11, and '12 above off the top of your head?  We didn't have that problem for the the first 50 or so Topps designs.


Finally, two stray needs that a seller happened to have.  These bring my need list for 2015 and 2009 down to two and five cards respectively.  If you're interested in trading, here's what I'm looking for.  I'm pretty flush with duplicates to send in return.

2008: 45, 80, 90, 200, 209, 258, 288, 313, 357, 393, 457, 476, 518, 538, 541, 602, 618, 623, 631

2009: 387, 449, 451, 643, 658

2010: 353

2011: 100, 130, 135, 138, 145, 155, 202, 306, 359

2012: 7, 30, 41, 52, 60, 80, 82, 97, 99, 109, 119, 150, 158, 159, 177, 178, 179, 185, 188, 193, 199, 213, 216, 219, 230, 239, 241, 244, 245, 247, 255, 275, 278, 315, 330

2015: 616, 617

2017: 87, 455, 513, 539

2018: 104, 266


Set needs aren't all I've been up to.  A month or so ago, I posted my "Top Ten" most wanted cards in a post about my 2018 Collecting Goals.  I've actually scratched #1 and #2 off that list.  There's a strong possibility that those will be the only two I scratch off this year, but I can live with that.


 #1 on that list was the 1952 Andy Pafko.  This card is tough for no other reason that it's card #1 in the first Topps set.  It's essentially the first modern baseball card.  You can disagree, but the market makes a pretty strong argument in support of that assertion.  This card completes my run of the first 310 cards in the 1952 set.  It took me close to ten years, but they're all in the binder and 8-pocket pages now.


This 1980-81 Topps Magic Johnson and Larry Bird rookie was #2 on my list.  Obviously some enthusiastic collector took advantage of the perforated sections, and turned one card into three cards.  I would have done the exact same thing, and the fact that so many exists in one piece speaks to just how unpopular this set must have been.  No wonder Topps took a decade off from making basketball cards after this set, it's obvious no one was buying them.


In a penny sleeve, these cards more or less stay in place and don't slide very much.  My first instinct was to glue them.  I went so far as to buy some special craft glue and cut an old 80's card into three pieces and test the process.  It worked really well, and I think it would work even better with the dirty edges left by the perforation.  If it could seal a clean cut with scissors, there shouldn't be any issue with this one.  Additionally, you couldn't  see the glue.  It was obvious the card had been cut, but there was zero ugly residue.  I'm not sure if this sample is going to get the glue treatment or not.  I went from 99% certain that it would, to now I'm leaning towards no.  I just don't know.  It's not that I'm a purist about this sort of thing, I actually just sort of like the look and implications behind the card when it's clearly been broken up.  Gives it a degree of character.  What do you think?  I'd love some opinions on the matter.

3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sending 2008 #'s 45,80,288,313,357,393,518,538 and 602 next week.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sending
    2008 #'s 200,631
    2011 #'s 130,202,155,306,359
    2012 #'s 216,255,41

    ReplyDelete