#2011039 - 09/17/12 08:50 PM
Re: 1957 Topps Baseball Thread
[Re: mattbojo]
|
bbo
The Collectinator
Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 3067
Loc: Top of the 1959 Registry
|
Offline
|
|
Would this, perchance, be it?
McCosky 92
You may (or may not) have more dough than me, but you certainly are willing to spend more dough than I am willing to spend on cards. I hope we all live long enough and avoid dementia long enough to see it completed.
_________________________
#1 in 1959 Topps
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2011041 - 09/17/12 09:24 PM
Re: 1957 Topps Baseball Thread
[Re: bbo]
|
SMtJoy
veteran
Registered: 01/23/08
Posts: 1420
|
|
Offline
|
|
Nice choice Matt, good luck!
I do have to throw in the why not do both and just take your time ) Thats kinda the way I do it and I think it lets you get better deals as you can pick and choose from a larger pool.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2011046 - 09/18/12 04:52 AM
Re: 1957 Topps Baseball Thread
[Re: mattbojo]
|
cammb
old hand
Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 803
Loc: Jamesport, NY
|
Online
|
|
You got a great deal on that card.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2011047 - 09/18/12 06:01 AM
Re: 1957 Topps Baseball Thread
[Re: cammb]
|
goldenhawk
addict
Registered: 11/17/09
Posts: 411
Loc: ky
|
|
Offline
|
|
The 57 set that u put together was 1 great set.The 52 is going to be even tougher but im sure u know that.I saw a couple of the stars for sale after u sold the 57,does any1 know what happened to the set ? Wasnt it bought by several people as an investment ?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2011074 - 09/19/12 10:30 AM
Re: 1957 Topps Baseball Thread
[Re: mattbojo]
|
Mintacular
old hand
Registered: 08/19/09
Posts: 1064
Loc: Pittsburgh
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hate to stir the pot but you will always have '57s knawing at you, why fix something that is not broken? Rebuild your '57 set. While I like the 52s do you really want to plough hundreds of dollars into high #'s that could be used to purchase star cards? Also, I think the 52s have a lot of boring portrait poses/head shots and much of your $ will be used buying common cards, of common players whereas '57 has many more rookies, stars, etc. 57s are cheaper too
Edited by Mintacular (09/19/12 10:31 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2011079 - 09/19/12 04:29 PM
Re: 1957 Topps Baseball Thread
[Re: Mintacular]
|
trex
addict
Registered: 01/31/12
Posts: 589
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hate to stir the pot but you will always have '57s knawing at you, why fix something that is not broken? Rebuild your '57 set. While I like the 52s do you really want to plough hundreds of dollars into high #'s that could be used to purchase star cards? Also, I think the 52s have a lot of boring portrait poses/head shots and much of your $ will be used buying common cards, of common players whereas '57 has many more rookies, stars, etc. 57s are cheaper too
I agree. I've tried 52's, 55's, 56's and for whatever reason can't get interested in them and scrap the project. 57's to me are different. I could really get into upgrading my 57 set, but that's just me and the way I collect which makes the hobby so great. In addition to the rookies, stars et al, it was the last year the Dodgers and Giants were in Brooklyn and New York.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2011124 - 09/20/12 02:02 PM
Re: 1957 Topps Baseball Thread
[Re: trex]
|
bowlingshoeguy
stranger
Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 21
Loc: Minnesota
|
|
Offline
|
|
You need to hurry but here is gem:
Ike DeLock SGC 96
Thanks for looking,
Lee Behrens
Sterling Sports Auctions
845-849-1276
_________________________
Always accepting consignment for Sterling Sports Auctions
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: EARLSWORLD
|
|
