[brian1961]

Good afternoon, Bruce. The first major show I attended was the 1972 Midwest Sports Collectors Convention in Troy, Michigan. I had just turned 18. Early on I met a very nice gentleman who worked at Topps. His name was Bill Haber. His his job at Topps was researching and drawing all the cartoons on the backside of the cards. Bill was also a voracious collector.

Well, to help defray some of the costs of his trip, Bill carried a somewhat large satchel that was half-full of gem mint sets of the 1969 Topps Super Baseball. The 66-card sets were in bundles, each tightly wrapped with a two-inch wide sheet of white paper. Living at the time in the suburbs of Chicago, I had never set eyes on these gorgeous cards, nor heard of them. For you see, though I was privileged to know about and buy from Wholesale Cards Company and The Trading Card Company, two fine mail order firms of the time, as extensive as their inventories were, I do not recall either of them carrying the scarce 1969 Topps Supers.

OK, so the kind Mr. Haber let me examine a set. I carefully shuffled through them. As soon as I saw the Mickey Mantle, I think I ever so quietly inhaled, and silently screamed, "SOLD!". I asked him, "How much?"

He said "30 dollars". In my mind, that figure seemed unreasonably high, due to the fact 30 dollars could buy you not one, but two, complete regular sets of Topps gum baseball cards. I quietly told Mr. Haber I thought that was too much. My memory is now hazy as to whether Bill asked for a counter offer, or if he said, "How about 20 dollars?" Whatever---I bought the set for twenty dollars.

Many years later, I sold most of the cards, but as you might imagine, I retained the Mickey Mantle. In time, I submitted this little gem to the Sportscard Guaranty Company for grading. That baby came out a 96 MINT.

Along the way, I discovered why Topps gave these cards the designation, "Super". It was due to their high gloss. Also, I found the cardstock used is a little thicker than regular Topps; however, it is a bit soft, and VERY fragile, being susceptible to fingernail marks! Not that I ever gouged a Super with a fingernail, but I remember seeing evidence of this damage on dealers' tables back in the early-to-mid 70s. One had to be mighty careful when handling these gems, just as one would with a genuine gem. For instance, in the pre-grading days of the late 80s, I made the mistake of purchasing a Mel Stottlemyre listed as Near Mint. "Near Mint" should be just fine, right? WRONG!!! When I got Stot, the front side super sheen of the card looked like the ice surface of a New York Ranger hockey game half-way through the first period! So many little marks---so unlike the pristine specimens dear Mr. Haber sold me that wonderful day in July 1972. I would never buy a Super through the mail again!

I distinctly recall a 1969 Topps Super set description in a Sports Collectors Digest Mr. Mint phone auction ad from the late 80s / early 90s. Alan Rosen let it be known the bulk of the production was destroyed in a fire. I'm sure if you called Topps to verify, not only would they not admit to such a catastrophe, but by now such hobby history from the era is likened to the blurb from the Bugs Bunny cartoon classic, "Hot Cross Bunny", whereby a sign on a prominent building reads, 'The Paul Revere Foundation -- Hardly A Man Is Now Alive"!

---- Brian Powell