Quote:
Originally Posted by mintacular
Seems like a lot of '67 admirers, could you explain? I am curious as to what about this set is so attractive whereas to me (right now) it just seems like any other 60s set. Also, noboby has picked '66. Is this year a consensus "rotten apple", and if so, why? How is it much different is it than '67? Thanks in advance for your comments.
|
For me the appeal is the great color photographs unobstructed by intrusive borders (i.e., the 1968 Hopsack look), they are almost a full bleed card. Now the teams names in block letters across the bottom do take up some space but really add to the appeal for me. Also it was the first year I really opened a lot of cards as I was 8 with an allowance. I spent nearly all of it buying 6 pack 25 cent trays at the A&P. It was also the first set that I went back and completed some years later and I am also building a second signed set of which I am up to 477 different.
Also, I actually like the 1966s too!
10-05-2009, 03:16 PM
Why '67?
Threaded Mode