TOP TEN HOCKEY CARDS FROM THE 1950s

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by irv

EDIT: Meant to also ask, what are the general price differences normally between equally graded OPC and Topps hockey cards? Is it 2 X, 3X, or higher?

Now that's a different animal. From my limited experience there is no simple across the board answer to that. Generally OPC goes for more but given the relative size differences of the sets in the 1960s-1970s (Topps is usually a one series 132 card issue while OPC is usually at least two series), there are people who collect one or the other. There are also condition issues. Early OPC used some lousy cardboard and terrible cutters compared to Topps (see the two 1969s I posted above), so I tend to see more OPC cards with production flaws. 1970s OPC used better cardboard than Topps IMO (I like the light chipboard vs. the dark stuff Topps used) but the same crappy cutters, so rough edges and weak corners are commonplace.



The OPC Ryan has a way nicer stock than the 71 Topps



(see what I mean) but cruddy edges, corners and centering comparatively speaking.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Now that's a different animal. From my limited experience there is no simple across the board answer to that. Generally OPC goes for more but given the relative size differences of the sets in the 1960s-1970s (Topps is usually a one series 132 card issue while OPC is usually at least two series), there are people who collect one or the other. There are also condition issues. Early OPC used some lousy cardboard and terrible cutters compared to Topps (see the two 1969s I posted above), so I tend to see more OPC cards with production flaws. 1970s OPC used better cardboard than Topps IMO (I like the light chipboard vs. the dark stuff Topps used) but the same crappy cutters, so rough edges and weak corners are commonplace.



The OPC Ryan has a way nicer stock than the 71 Topps



(see what I mean) but cruddy edges, corners and centering comparatively speaking.

Great info again, Adam.

I'm surprised you didn't hit on the amount of cards that were produced and sold?
Not that everything you read is true, but I remember reading, because of our population up here compared to your's, the OPC numbers are a lot lower compared to Topps so that is also why OPC cards command a premium?

However, I have seen sales of both Topps and OPC where that doesn't seem to be factored in sometimes but I always assume some people aren't aware of that?

[Jim65]

I remember reading that OPC made about 5-10% the amount that Topps did. Thats Baseball, Hockey the amount is much higher.

[Exhibitman]

Yeah that’s one of the wonderful paradoxes of OPC collecting. Chasing my 1971$ has been an endeavor even with the smaller set size. Though being in SoCal I don’t see them much locally.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I remember reading that OPC made about 5-10% the amount that Topps did. Thats Baseball, Hockey the amount is much higher.

I wonder what that number is?

Just following some recent listings of both OPC and Topps, it does seem that most are aware, not always, that OPC hockey cards do command a premium over Topps cards.

[forceplay sport]

I Really like this thread, with one exception this line is wrong ....

" Howe dominated the game until a man by the name of Wayne Gretzky came along."

In 1972 Gordie was 44 years old, he didnt do much dominating in the 70's
But from 1970 - 1975 Bobby Orr did dominate the NHL

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by forceplay sport

I Really like this thread, with one exception this line is wrong ....

" Howe dominated the game until a man by the name of Wayne Gretzky came along."

In 1972 Gordie was 44 years old, he didnt do much dominating in the 70's
But from 1970 - 1975 Bobby Orr did dominate the NHL

Orr dominated his whole 9 year career. I love Wayne, but he couldn't do what Orr did.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Delete, mistake.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Tomi

Orr dominated his whole 9 year career. I love Wayne, but he couldn't do what Orr did.

Agreed. Orr is the only defenseman to lead the league in scoring and he did it twice. Think about what his career could've been on 2 good knees.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by forceplay sport

I Really like this thread, with one exception this line is wrong ....

" Howe dominated the game until a man by the name of Wayne Gretzky came along."

In 1972 Gordie was 44 years old, he didnt do much dominating in the 70's
But from 1970 - 1975 Bobby Orr did dominate the NHL

Thanks for your post.

What I meant was that Gretzky came along and broke all of Howe's records. He took away Gordie's crown.

Yes, Orr was amazing, but for only a very short time. By the time he was 27 years old, he was done as a player. Howe, on the other hand, dominated the league for a long time. Afterwards, he played in the WHA and then went back to the NHL in his fifties! He could score, set up his team-mates, was good on the boards, excellent two-way player and was also an enforcer. I would take Howe over Orr anytime.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Thanks for your post.

What I meant was that Gretzky came along and broke all of Howe's records. He took away Gordie's crown.

Yes, Orr was amazing, but for only a very short time. By the time he was 27 years old, he was done as a player. Howe, on the other hand, dominated the league for a long time. Afterwards, he played in the WHA and then went back to the NHL in his fifties! He could score, set up his team-mates, was good on the boards, excellent two-way player and was also an enforcer. I would take Howe over Orr anytime.

Gordie Howe was in a class by himself when it comes to his legendary durability and longevity. Bobby Orr was amazing for only a very short time, you say. Sadly, you are correct, of course. However, you grossly underestimate his impact on the game, and his stature in the minds of his many fans, as well as students of hockey history. For so many people, it's always one over another; who's the best or who's the greatest?

Had the leagues' players not laid a glove, stick, or skate upon Gretzky, as they brutally did to Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr, Wayne may very well have suffered the same fate as the two Bobbys. Dennis Hull tells some great stories of how wickedly dirty the players were against his brother. When the great Bruin hope Bobby came along, from day 1, the NHL players began dealing with this 18-year-old whippersnapper by the name of Orr. By the end of the 74/75 season, with Bobby just having turned 27, he was, as you said, about finished as a player. Hey, go check out his Wikipedia biography. It's longer than your arm, bub! It may not be as long as Wayne's or Gordie's, but for someone that just lasted 'til he was 27, well, must I speak plainer?

Can't it be enough that guys like Howe, Hull, Orr, or Richard are hockey legends? Must we always argue immaturely as to who's number 1? --- Brian Powell

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by forceplay sport

I Really like this thread, with one exception this line is wrong ....

" Howe dominated the game until a man by the name of Wayne Gretzky came along."

In 1972 Gordie was 44 years old, he didnt do much dominating in the 70's
But from 1970 - 1975 Bobby Orr did dominate the NHL

What's really crazy is that Orr's career +/- is higher than Gretzky's. Gretzky had a full and healthy career and Orr had a injury ravaged half career.
I remember an article years ago that unfortunately I cannot find but it was a comparison between Babe Ruth and Bobby Orr and who had the bigger impact on their respective sport. Orr won by a few percentage points.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by Tomi

What's really crazy is that Orr's career +/- is higher than Gretzky's. Gretzky had a full and healthy career and Orr had a injury ravaged half career.
I remember an article years ago that unfortunately I cannot find but it was a comparison between Babe Ruth and Bobby Orr and who had the bigger impact on their respective sport. Orr won by a few percentage points.

It's funny because you can tell someone age in Canada by who they think is the Greatest of All Time. My grandfathers era says Howe( or Maurice Richard), my dad's era says Orr hands down and my era(Im 39) says Gretzky or Lemieux. The era after me would prob say Crosby or Mcdavid very soon

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Tomi

What's really crazy is that Orr's career +/- is higher than Gretzky's. Gretzky had a full and healthy career and Orr had a injury ravaged half career.

Orr was +124 one year, a ridiculous number. He also led the league in +/- 6 times.