Adam, I have always loved the picture of Bobby Hull Topps used on that 63/64 Topps.
Even better is the full-length use of the photo for their breathtaking 61/62 design. For years and years I wanted that 61/62 Bobby after I saw a picture of it for the first time. About 10 years ago, a California dealer sold me a raw version he said was guaranteed to grade out at near mint. I can just imagine the negative gears working in your head. His price was high, too.
Well, I took a chance, bought the card, and it was a beauty----clean as could be, no pesky print spots whatsoever, the beautiful photo of Bobby crisp and clear, and to top it off, it was 50-50 dead centered both ways! If you know your 61/62 Topps Hockey, you know if Topps got a card dead-centered, it was an anomaly, 'cause they're NEVER centered. I submitted it with several other cards, including most of my childhood Hulls I had gotten through the trustworthy mail order firm, The Trading Card Company, out of Farmington Hills, Michigan.
When I unwrapped SGC's results, the 61/62 Topps Hull came back 96 MINT. I was pleased, truly, but deep down I thought the card deserved their rare 98 GEM MINT.
Honestly, until a few years ago, SGC would rarely, rarely, and I mean RARELY grant a card their 98 GEM MINT. PSA seemed to do so much more often. Now, I understand not granting the 100 PRISTINE very rarely, but when you get so picky on the top scale, it's no wonder I wished I had just gone to PSA. At least they give 10s when 10s are deserved. It was as if a 96 MINT was the highest grade SGC ever gave. Just an impression.
Way back when, perhaps before you were born, Adam, I bought the 62/63 and 63/64 Bobby Hulls at the big Detroit show for a buck apiece. It was about '73-'75. They looked at least EX-MT, and you seldom saw early Topps hockey at even that show. I sent in the blue-bordered 62/63 to SGC at the same time I sent the other. Came back 80 EX-NrMt 6, so that was fine.
Enough of my palabre. Regards. ---Brian Powell
|
07-30-2018, 12:24 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode