View Single Post
  #11  
Old 04-21-2009, 02:45 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default 1961 Peters Meats Confusion

Posted By: Brian Powell

Hi guys. I can tell you why you'll see complete sets of unfolded boxes (technically, the cardboard cover wrapping of the cellophane packages) of the 1961 Peters Meats Twins. After their promotion was over, the Wholesale Cards Company of New York/Connecticut purchased their leftover unfolded boxes. I believe it was Marshall Oreck that owned Wholesale Cards at the time. Several years later, Bruce Yeko bought Oreck's business.

About 1965/66, I began to receive Bruce's catalog. In about 1968-1970, I was one of the fortunate buyers of one of his Peter's Meats Twins complete sets. The boxes were pristine, though technically less than that if third-party graded. If the boxes had been through the packaging process, and then the consumer handling, I'll give you one guess what they would have looked like. The cost of a set back then was about $7.75, if memory serves me.

I only regret that I sold them a dozen years later, but not because of their value. Guys, they were simply beautiful cards. Gobs of period charm. The graphics made them unique. The tinting of the photos (colorizing) was first rate. If I were a Killebrew fan, I would value that Peter's Meats card much more than his rookie. After all, it was 1961, the Twins were brand new, and the Killer was going to have a great year, to be followed by a great career at Minnesota. The Killebrew is just as beautiful as can be. A dream card.

Honest, if I had to buy an ENTIRE SET to get a great Killebrew, I'd do it. It's like that guy on the PSA message boards that bought a 1967 New York Mets team postcard set, just to get the Seaver. He posted a scan of the Seaver. This guy was smart. That Seaver had so much eye appeal. It was breathtaking. Honestly, it puts the Topps rookie to shame. So, he's keeping the Seaver, and selling the other cards individually on eBay. Food for thought.

Take care. Respectfully, Brian Powell

Reply With Quote