Skip to main content

My kind of throw-ins

Email malfunctioning is forcing me to write and publish this on my phone. Let's see how this goes.

About a week ago I completed the 1990 Swell set thanks to an envelope from Jeff at Cardboard Catastrophes. He had the last 9 cards I needed.

That's eight, I know, the 9th is the Mickey Lolich.

This set of 135 cards was pretty easy to finish, and as I mentioned in a previous post, these are much easier to land than the '89 or '91 Swell cards ... at least they're offered up a lot more often in TCDB swaps.

This is also probably the first set completion that I can attribute greatly to TCDB deals. I know before I was trading on there, I didn't think I needed TCDB's trade function. I can still manage without it, but TCDB trades seem ideal for low-hanging fruit like '90 Swell.

That's gonna be the theme of 2023 as far as set completion, finishing off those low-hangers, because all the big-boy bill-flashers are keeping the vintage sets I want to finish far out of reach with their tall, tall spendy arms.

Speaking of out-of-reach vintage, I also found some 1967 Topps needs in the envelope with the Swells. I guess these were throw-ins, since I wasn't expecting them. My kind of throw-ins!

Jeff included a note saying he landed a bunch of 1966 and 1967 Topps cheap. He was mainly interested in the '66s (this does not compute with me at all). And he sent some '67s my way!

He said the cards cost him two cents-per, so, yeah, they had issues. (Oh, thank goodness, email is back. No more typing on tiny keys! Let's go!)

Let's see the cards that are perfectly acceptable for my probably-never-to-be-completed 1967 set:

There's nothing like a card of one of the Impossible Dreamers in the year of the Impossible Dream season. Lonborg's "crime" is that he's off-center, and this is absolutely nothing in my eyes. I was pulling off-center cards in my sleep from 1975-81.

Both of these cards are already in my Dodgers collection, so I needed an extra one of each for the '67 chase. I'm fine with the condition because of that. I'm a little more lenient on card flaws with my Dodger collection, so if these cards disturb me in the '67 binder, I'll just swap them with the Dodgers versions!

My goodness, two cents for this card? With a couple of surface marks and some worn corners? This is where graders do me a favor, send me all of your hand-me-downs that look like this.

Speechless. TWO CENTS! Billy Williams actually has a crease in the lower right, but I can't imagine upgrading this card, unless a better-conditioned one falls from the sky.

These are all low-number upgrades, though I think for all of them I may have forgotten to cross off their card number after getting a better copy, each of these have the smallest of flaws in my eyes. My current Astros rookies card is miscut, the Latman has obvious wax stains and the top edge of Schaal got wet at some point. I can overlook all, but appreciate the improvements.

Now for the rest, which I can't overlook, but will operate as space-fillers:

The Tim McCarver doesn't belong here, I actually picked up the '67 McCarver at the last card show I was at. But the rest here have been significantly handled, most winding up with major creasing.

So I'll be storing these upside-down in the '67 binder until a nicer one comes along. Although this is the 1967 set, so it's very possible I'll come to the stage where prices are so astronomical and I'll be so sick of dealing with them then -- FINE -- Bengal Belters, you get in for good -- in fact, let me give you another crease to balance off the card!

But I'm not at that stage yet.

All of these are much appreciated and quite a surprise as they are not 1990 Swell cards. I've been the recipient of several extras packages over the last week or so and you'll see them all. Card collectors are the best with generosity.


Brett Alan said…
1967 cards for TWO CENTS each? I'd take that deal if the condition were MUCH worse than these!
Old Cards said…
67 cards at 67 prices! Did Johnny ever find a spare 67 Brooks Robinson to send to you? Your post dated 9-27-23)
carlsonjok said…
1966 is a far superior set to 1967. It is actually bright and colorful. 1967 is like the sullen emo teen of sets. Just drab. Boring design and washed out colors. Even at 2 cents a card I couldn't muster up any enthusiasm.
Angus said…
No enthusiasm at two cents a card? That's crazy.

Love the Billy Williams card with the batting cage in the background.
night owl said…
Tis crazy indeed. 1967 is the best window on '60s baseball.
Matt said…
Hey you took on my blog post from a phone BBA challenge without even knowing it!
Bo said…
I personally find '67 much more vibrant than '66. To each their own, I guess.
1984 Tigers said…
Nice job filling up the Swell set. My guess is the 89 set was probably underprinted a bit as Swell was testing the waters. I was huge into collecting old and new in late 80s and early 90s. 1990 was probably printed in higher volumes since the hobby was really booming. It peaked 90 and 91. Perhaps the 91 set was lesser printed because of the flood of premium sets. Plus, unless you have a whole new run of new players and nice photos, it runs its course.

1967 and 63 are my favorite 60s sets. I have all but about 25 of that set (67). It took years to find the Brooks high number 600. I never found a Seaver in good enough shape to pay that I could afford. The Red Sox team card is like.finding the holy grail. I've never seen that at a show. Same with Colavito.

Overall, the highs in 67 are not as bad to find as 66. But you get an amazing collection of players.
Anonymous said…
Another vote for '67 over '66.
Jon said…
It's too bad that we can't Jeff to post about said deal.
Jon said…
*can't get

[I desperately need Blogger to add an edit button]
Jafronius said…
Congrats on the completed set, and awesome 1967 pickups!