tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6433941530167569659.post4262261212674241951..comments2024-03-04T07:33:09.398-05:00Comments on The Phillies Room: 2012 Topps Heritage Phillies vs. 1963 Topps PhilliesJimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06161762602291616465noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6433941530167569659.post-7262240891266432772012-03-21T12:16:08.249-04:002012-03-21T12:16:08.249-04:00I don't much like the fact that Topps has shor...I don't much like the fact that Topps has short-prints in their "base" Heritage set (better to short-print the hits and the specials), but I do understand it.<br /><br />The fact is that before 1974, IIRC, Topps actually did print fewer cards of the final series each year because retailers didn't order as many boxes since it leaked into football season and kids moved on to buying football cards. But I don't think they printed 78% fewer of the last series, yet that's about what Topps prints of its Heritage SPs; IOW, SPs have about 22% the print run of the base cards. I would be fine with it if they did, say, twice or three times that amount, so maybe half or 2/3 of the quantity of SPs compared to the base cards. That would make it a bit less expensive to collect the whole set. I would love to have complete Heritage sets each year like I do Topps, and even better if I have to collect them pack by pack rather than buy a factory set. But you need perfect collation and 225 $3 packs to have any shot at getting all the SPs, so I never even try. Make that 1 SP per pack and I would make an effort. Instead, as a set collector, I buy on eBay and foresake the chance at "hits".<br /><br />IMHO, the most efficient way to get a full Heritage set is to wait a few years and then try to look for a bargain on eBay that somehow slips through. If you don't mind paying $300, though, you can pick up a "master" set in the year it comes out. I say "master" in quotes, because a real master set would include all of the relics and autographs as well, and I've never ever seen one listed on eBay.Steve F.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00753488569249068229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6433941530167569659.post-38948068183541167102012-03-19T12:41:51.535-04:002012-03-19T12:41:51.535-04:00If:
1. There were no short-prints,
2. No Rookie...If:<br /><br />1. There were no short-prints,<br />2. No Rookie Stars shenanigans, and<br />3. 576 cards in the complete set, just like the original,<br /><br />I would be prepared to call this the early favorite for baseball card set of the year.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06161762602291616465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6433941530167569659.post-28532922655350957292012-03-19T09:36:09.627-04:002012-03-19T09:36:09.627-04:00Wow. I didn't even realize that Topps had atte...Wow. I didn't even realize that Topps had attempted to line up the card numbers between the two sets -- nicely done. Having said that, given the larger number of teams today vs. 1963, Topps could have at least made this year's set the same size (at a minimum) as the '63 original.Matthew Appletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02241671933663795599noreply@blogger.com