T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
10.1 | Fun ??? | DAMSEL::LELIEVRE | | Sun Apr 12 1987 19:28 | 18 |
| I remember when I was younger I used to collect with some other
kids in the neighborhood. I'd trade a whole box of cards of that
particular year just to fill a set. God knows what I gave away.
Thinking back, I used to wonder if cards would ever be of any value.
I had a feeling they might.
Alot of the "fun" is a thing of the past. Lets try and roll with
the changes. Kids make up so much of our market. They keep the hobby
the best hobby.
87 cards are hot! I think it'll be a hot set. Similar to '85.
What's too come in 88,89, the 90's? I'll tell you what? More $50
rookie cards. We should buy as many as possible without the wife
getting pissed!
Scott
|
10.2 | Still Fun | MAPLE::BRAKE | | Mon Apr 13 1987 10:30 | 12 |
| Interesting comment on card collecting being fun anymore. Same opinioj
voiced in Beckett's April edition. The response was that kids can
still buy wax packs for $.35-.40 (they sure do it up here) for the
fun of it hoping to get as many Sox, Yanks or Mets players as possible.
I don't think the fun has gone out of it for kids of today. Some
of them are, indeed, influenced by fathers like me but plenty others
still do it for the same reasons we all did when we were kids in
the 50's and 60's. For the FUN of it!
Rich
|
10.4 | Fun !!! | DAMSEL::LELIEVRE | | Thu Apr 23 1987 14:01 | 10 |
| I was just thinking about something I'd like to do. This guy I know
has some old unopened packs of cards. He said he's got a 1966 Topps
Wax pack, 1968 Topps Wax pack. He said they go for about $60 each.
Once in a while I get together with these two guys I know who are
into the hobby on Friday nights. I might trade this guy some sets
for a pack to crack open some night. My friends would flip!
Wonder who I'd get? The wrappers are worth about $15 ea.
|
10.5 | 1 pack = 1986 Donruss set + $5.00 | JETSAM::NORRIS | What is it, Miss Pfeffernuss? | Thu Apr 23 1987 15:03 | 15 |
| Scott, I haven't seen a pack of 66 or 68 cards in 19 years. I believe
that they had 5 cards and a stick of gum. 19 year old gum may have
ruined of one of the cards. I purchased some 1982 packs and the
gum got one card from each pack, luckly no Ripken cards were ruined,
unluckly I got no Ripken cards :-)
If the wrapper is worth $15.00, you'll need $45.00 worth of cards
from the other 4 (if one is ruined, it should be worth something).
I'd take the pack who's series had the greatest card value for all
cards divided by the number of cards in the series. Let us know
who you get. That way we can either laugh at you or wish we had
the opportunity to purchase that pack. I don't think I would want
to know what the other pack held, get both! Good luck.
Ed
|
10.6 | I'll quit before I worry about condition | JETSAM::NORRIS | What is it, Miss Pfeffernuss? | Thu Apr 23 1987 16:24 | 12 |
| I get my "fun" by buying junk cards (very good/good) condition.
I purchased 10,000 cards last year and had a ball. I stayed up the
first night until 3:00a.m., my wife got up and force me to go to
bed. Most of the cards were from the 70's. I got about a 1000 from
the 60's. I hope to fine another large lot soon.
Every year my wife asks why I buy wax packs and try to build a set.
She tells me to just go out and buy the set, it's cheaper and she
doesn't have to listen to me wanting a Mike Mason card. I enjoy
the hunt.
Ed
|
10.7 | I can start a mint set! | DAMSEL::LELIEVRE | | Thu Apr 23 1987 17:33 | 16 |
| I'll be seeing that guy sometime in the near future. I bet you guys
can't wait to see who I get. Maybe a checklist, league leader, Bob
Uecker, Don Mossi..........Bums of the month.
What can I trade him. Sets? Individual cards? Maybe 5 unopened 86
wax boxes for the 2 packs. What a trade, think I'm getting the better
of the deal. He's gonna want at least $100 in value.
I'll have to talk to him. I know he still has them. Not sure what
series. We'll have to get a good buzz on before cracking them.
Seems like such a waste of money.
I've always had a hard time keeping things unopened. Against human
nature.
Scott
|