...and this time the question that Fuji asked was:
"What are your all-time favorite products to collect in each sport?"By 'products' I assume that he is looking for a 'card set' so I'll stick to that. That makes a difference because my favorite things to collect are not necessarily cards.
Anyway in baseball my favorite product would be the Topps 1960 set. I have mentioned that and did so just the other day in a comment on Fuji's blog:
I loved that 1960 set. It was very colorful and I really dug the rookie cards and the manager cards. There was something about the backs that drew me in, too. The gold and white color scheme and the 'Season Highlights' were fascinating to me. I'll NEVER forget a kid at school whose parents had bought him a whole box of packs of the 1960s. I couldn't get over how lucky he was.
Hockey? I collect that, too. But I don't have many cards. Most are vintage Rangers I've sniped off eBay here and there. No hockey cards survived my childhood. The only ones I even remember having were late 60's post expansion Topps cards. I do have the 77-78 WHA set. It's pretty crappy but I was a huge Aeros fan back then and the set was fun to put together a few months ago.
Here is the Frank Mahovlich card from the Topps OPC* 68/69 set. Most gawdawful thing, isn't it? They stuck his head on another player's body and hoped no one would notice.
edit...Fuji's next question was "What is the ugliest set you've ever seen?" This is it. The Topps 68/69 Hockey. Poorly cropped posed shots, generic sketched backgrounds. It's worse than the 1990 Topps baseball set (although not by much).
*=thanks for the correction 1967ers
LOL... I love this set. The Gordie Howe is close to the top of my want list. I guess that's we were born with an opinion ;-)
ReplyDelete".....I guess that's we were born with an opinion...."
ReplyDeleteAin't that the truth... but you have to admit, the Mahovlich is a funny card.
That set is such a pain - mainly due to the cuts. Finding an Orr that's cut straight (forget being centred) is particularly nasty.
ReplyDeleteI also think your Frank is OPC. In Topps, they just left him in his Leafs uniform.
For the record, the body in that picture belongs to Dean Prentice. Two different players got to use George Armstrong's body in that set (Larry Mickey and Bill Sutherland) despite Armstrong himself not having a card.
You're right of course. I had a brain cramp. I even checked the spelling of O-Pee-Chee for the post labels. Doh!
DeleteI'm glad you gave me the answer on the mystery 'bodies'. That's interesting that they used a guy who wasn't even in the set, twice! I wonder if Armstrong (and Prentice) got residuals?
This is a post I did on the Sutherland/Armstrong card. I have to do some of the other ones: http://1967ers.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers-part-1/
DeleteGreat post. Learn something new all the time on these blogs!
DeleteI actually quite like the set, too. There are sets I think are dead ugly, but that isn't one of them.
ReplyDeleteLooks like I'm out-voted. I bow to public sentiment. I'll decide on a truly ugly hockey set out of the cards I own and post that.
Delete1962-63 Topps is kind of weak, but my vote goes to this set as the worst thing I've seen: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/523304/potvinvortex1_medium.jpg
DeleteWhy is it that if 1960 is your favourite set, your blog is about the 1959s?
ReplyDeleteThat's a blog I really appreciate, BTW, and read it faithfully. I can talk old hockey, but the map of my baseball knowledge is full of areas marked "here be dragons." I love finding out who all these guys were.
Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated. And they come at the right time. It had been pretty quiet for awhile and I considered cutting back on posting. It's hard to stay motivated when you think you're writing for an audience of one.
DeleteAs for your question. I chose to blog the '59 because I thought it was a groundbreaking set for Topps in the way they used color and photos. I love the look of the color frame and the different poses. It was a big step forward from the '58 IMO. The set 'bridges a gap' for me with a variety of rookie/early cards of guys I watched in the 60's and guys I missed out on from the 50s. Maybe most of all I already had several of the key cards, the Gibson rookie in particular which was one of very few that survived from my youth and is a favorite of mine.
The 1960 set is the first one my friends and I could 'chase' by going to the local soda fountain/newspaper/candy/cigar store on our way to or from school. It was the one that my father helped me sort and the first one that I recall getting packs of as gifts on Easter. It has a lot of sentimental value. I seriously considered blogging it but I found someone who was already doing a very '60 Topps-centric blog (Condition Poor) so I just went with the '59.
And the '59 seemed more reasonable price-wise when I checked around.