1961 Fleer -- Is There a Better Year for Bball cards

[Basketball B]

I love everything about these cards. I like the cartoon looking logo (which at the time, probably was to appeal to kids that collected cards).
I like that there are under 70 cards in the set, so you get a lot of big names.
The rookie cards are off the charts: Wilt, Elgin, West, Oscar, Lenny Wilkins.
I also like the "in action" cards
[side note: why in other sets, are the all star cards worth less? do they print more of them?]

I do wonder why they only had six cards in each pack. In the old days, was that the norm?

[mjohnatgt]

1 card for a penny or 5 cards for a nickel was kind of the norm back then. People like the base cards, because they're normal. All-star cards are secondary, because they're usually in the all-star jersey instead of the team.

[nman84]

My favorite set for all the reasons you mentioned. This set was so terribly miscut though that finding decently centered cards for my set has been a challenge.

Vintage bball doesn’t get much love around here though, not shiny enough.

[hauntedcomputer]

I love the set. Wish it had more action, but the color makes the regular cards pop. Don't forget Oscar and my personal favorite, Sam Jones (the only mainstream card of this all-time great).

Kind of crazy now that nobody could sell enough basketball cards to make it worthwhile during all those years and even Topps dropped out for a while despite Bird and Magic.

[Tallboy]

I love thinking about stuff like this!

First thing I'd say is that if you're looking for the set with 3 absolutely all-time guys as rookies, 1961 Fleer is unmatched.

Second thing I'll say is the main design is one of those old time designs that has so much wrong with it...but somehow it just makes it endearing to us looking back. By contrast, I think the 1957 Topps design is literally better (for the cards with live game action), but more generic, and thus less nostalgia-frisson.

Third thing I'll say is that while I wish action shots were more the norm, I love that they at least make a point to have action shots, and I like the headline they give the In Action subset.

What are some places that other sets are greater?

1. Best pre-modern design for me is always going to be the 1969-70 Topps set, as its my favorite design period.

2. In terms of having the most iconic RCs, I think that is between 1969-70 Topps again and 1986-87 Fleer...though I'd ding the Fleer set because it only has those RCs because we don't count Star, and in general I actually think Star cards look better than 1986-87 Fleer, so that feels very unfair to me.

3. In terms of having THE most iconic RC, well that's Michael Jordan, so that's 1986-87 Fleer (or, cough, Star).

4. In terms of having THE RC I think should be most iconic, that's the Bill Russell from 1957 Topps. All should bow down to Russell, and the fact that we actually get to see him here playing defense is so incredibly impressive to me. There's literally never been a time where we could be assured that we get action shots of defensive players playing defense, let alone in their RCs.

Anyway, I think the 1961 Fleer set may deserve to be the most iconic in history, but I'll slide it in behind 1969-70 Topps for my list.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by Basketball B

[side note: why in other sets, are the all star cards worth less? do they print more of them?]

Wanted to address this specifically:

I think this is one of the most fascinating questions because the immediate answer reveals the superficial nature of the hobby preference when given closer examination.

I think we have to start with the idea of the Rookie Card. When something becomes valued enough that it becomes important for collectors to decide what is most desirable, picking the "first" of that particular thing is a ubiquitous standard. This can be justified based on the idea that older probably means more rare, but in the end when demand crystalizes, it takes on a life of its own.

In sports cards, we focus on the RCs in part because we know everyone else will focus on the RCs.

So then we get to the debate about "Which is the true RC?" which takes many forms, but in this particular context represents a debate between cards in the same set.

I would argue that whatever reasons were given for deciding which was the true RC, the deeper motivation among collectors was "Which one feels the most like an RC?"

In a comparison between something that looks like a posed photo, and one that has an action shot, the posed photo feels like the RC. Why? Because we can imagine that that photo was taken before he was ever on the court.

But of course, if we're talking about sets like 1961 Fleer or 1972-73 Topps (with Julius Erving among others), the chronology of the photos was probably the opposite.

Most likely the action shots came from the previous season, while the post shots came right before the current season.

Logically, we would thing the earlier photo was the true RC, but it looks less like a RC so it gets usurped.

Even more bizarre: Back then, it was cheaper to get just get a bunch of posed shots than it was to get action shots, else they wouldn't have done it this way. And so this means that the action shots weren't just the true RC, but actually required more craft to make for us, yet we treat them as chopped liver.

Though as I say that: To me this represents a great place for an aesthetically-driven collector to save some money. You have to accept that it's likely not the best financial investment going forward, but you get (arguably) a better card for less cost.

[Basketball B]

I love all the responses here.

I do love the '69/70 (not just because of the Alcindor rookie card).

I also love the posed shots. The Erving rookie with him looking like he's shooting a free throw in the early 70s Topps -- is tops (pun intended). I also like the posed images in a lot of the '69/70 cards, where they're standing there dribbling, and some of the card photos look like they're wearing a practice jersey!

The action photos in the '61 Fleer though -- amazing to see Bill Russell gliding thru the air like he's going to do a finger roll in a George "ice man" Gervin style.

Damn, I love that Fleer set!!!! I just hate all the miscuts!!!!!
I also hate that when you buy the unopened packs (if you can even find them), that the gum is always as hard as a rock!

[Basketball B]

Regarding "forgetting Sam Jones" -- what about his teammates I forgot -- Bob Cousy!!! He had Magic and Maravich moves before anyone watched the NBA.
And other Celts like K.C. Jones rookie card. Hal Greer's rookie card, and Celt great and broadcasting legend -- Tommy Heinsohn.

Oh, and Bob Petit and Dolph Schayes aren't chopped liver.

[mcgee2134]

1986 Fleer

[Basketball B]

Yes, '86 Fleer is nice. Nothing sweeter than Jordan dunking on his rookie card (and Barkley rookie). [side note: what's the value of a Sam Bowie rookie?]

Oh yeah, Clyde Drexler and other great rookies that year.

Also, can someone explain to me why the "Star" cards from the '80s get no love? Perhaps I'm just biased because I had so many of them, but I thought they were well put together.

I guess I like the '61 Fleer set better than '86 because I was a teenager in the mid'80s, so the idea of getting cards that were vintage, was more appealing and more fun to search for. By the time I had my sights set on a Jordan rookie, about 4 years after his rookie season, they were already selling for $1,500 ! And at that time, that was the value of the Bill Russell rookie card. It was nuts.

[k13]

Originally Posted by mcgee2134

1986 Fleer

More depth and better players overall but the set is oveproduced junk in reality.

[discodanman45]

My top three order are 1961 Fleer, 1969 Topps, and then the 1972 Topps set. I think 1986, 87, and 88 Fleer cards are great, but they are mass produced and value depends mainly on centering. The 1969 Tall Boys suffer from fitting into collections with their sizes. Really hurts their value. The 1972 Topps set is really underrated IMO. Beautiful colors and the cards are stunning if they are centered.

[Basketball B]

Discodanman -- here's a story that will make you cringe. Since you mentioned the size of the '69 Tall Boys. I met someone that knew I collected autographs, and his wife's good friend has an amazing autograph collection. One room in his house, with autographed books -- every President, author, and athlete you can name. And lots of musicians. He has another room in his house all for sports autographs -- footballs, basketballs, baseballs, 8x10s. Well, on the coffee table in that room, were photo albums/sleeves, with various sports cards. One had '50s and '60s Topps baseball. Another had 60s and 70s basketball. Well, he had a Lew Alcindor rookie. In PERFECT condition. Well, except for the fact that he had folded it in half to fit into the regular card size sleeve!!! I wanted to scream.

[hauntedcomputer]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

In sports cards, we focus on the RCs in part because we know everyone else will focus on the RCs.

My take is in the early days of collecting, the RCs were the rarest because they were almost always lower print runs. In the days of Jefferson Burdick, nobody placed any price difference on first cards, and even star cards didn't draw much of a premium. (Covered somewhat in the book "Mint Condition." It wasn't Burdick but some guy who mailed out the first pricing catalog made the T206 Honus Wagner the first card that drew a premium because of its scarcity.)

My feeling is the RC craze was hatched by some of the first major dealers who were looking for a way to create value-added premiums, because it makes absolutely no logical sense otherwise. Manufactured demand created real demand because obviously supply didn't change one bit aside from the natural accrual of damage or loss. This is not a rational hobby.

As for the all-star cards, they generally had all-star stats on the back and not the regular-season stats, or no stats at all. Some of us liked those stats because for a kid pre-Internet they weren't readily available. In a vacuum, I'd prefer the Wilt Chamberlain In Action card over the rookie, but I don't live in a vacuum and one day I will have to sell my Wilt RC.

As for sets, 1969 was the first pack I opened as a kid, though 1970 was the year I was able to buy multiple packs. But I still like 1975 as my favorite set.

P.S. Star cards--I dig them but they are cheaply cut (as bad as mid-70s Topps!) with no quality control and so much sleazy backstory and counterfeiting that the only way they will ever mainstream is if Nat Turner forces PSA to grade them, which is likely too risky to ever happen. To me, the "gap year" cards of the early 80s should be insanely valuable because of extremely low print runs and early cards of Jordan, Bird, and Magic. Like I said, this is not a rational hobby.

[Basketball B]

Haunted -- that was a very interesting take. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you. Yeah, the 1975 set -- had a lot of great photos in it.

The two cards you posted (Wilt and Alcindor), while I love them (and have them in my collection), it always irked me that the photos were obviously taken at a practice or something, not a game type situation.

As a kid, I hated seeing bad photos on cards. The second year Larry Bird card I believe it was...where he's just standing there in his warm-ups, probably before a game. Just a horrible photo in my opinion. Or, the 1961 Fleer's that I love so much -- just having a close-up of Bill Russell's face -- I don't care for that.

Yes, it is a weird hobby in what is valuable and why. My wife just asked me last night (since I'm a big autograph collector, and we had walked by Paul McCartney's new book in a book store), "Are autographs worth more from a singer if they're on their more popular album?" And I told her they were. A McCartney signature on a Sgt. Pepper record, is way more valuable on his solo "Ram" album. It's all so odd.

[Beavers98]

It is a very sweet set. I've contemplated putting it together many times.

[mizzoujohn]

All time set. Way more attractive than 57T, although not as rare.

[nman84]

Originally Posted by mizzoujohn

All time set. Way more attractive than 57T, although not as rare.

Finding decently centered cards is the rarity. I can’t stand the wildly OC ones I’ve had in the past

[Basketball B]

I see right now that Goldin has 3 unopened packs for auction with an Elgin Baylor rookie card. What I'm wondering is...if you buy an unopened back, is it a safe bet you're getting a mint card? Other than the obvious...centering issues the card may have.

[duron]

Totally get where you’re coming from, but 1997 really has no equal.

[GOATcards]

My sole '61 Fleer card, and one of my favorite cards. It's true, the centering on these is all over the place, I'm not bothered so much by the larger border on the bottom given where the eye is drawn and even borders L/R.

[duron]

Always loved the color combo on the Russell.

Something that's kept me from vintage is the added layer of having to worry about color and image quality. I think I have a good eye but I feel like I'd need a slide chart for each and every set that explains the limits of just how bad they can get.

[Nomad]

1961 Fleer is so jazz age and from "out in space" in terms of first set in years. So yeah, ireplicable. Like 1986 Fleer it doesn't try to hard and that is also part of its charm.

[Basketball B]

What I've always loved about that Bill Russell card posted is...his face has this look, as if to say "Really? Do we have to do this damn photo shoot right now? Okay, do it quickly, I have a practice to get to."
And knowing how Russell was THE WORST autograph signer in the history of sports -- the look on his face fits the image he has.

The one '61 Fleer card I never got my hands on was the Wilt rookie. Always wanted one. He was my favorite player for the longest time (until the Lakers drafted Magic, and he started blowing me away and became my fav).
Now, if only Magic had a rookie card he didn't share with two others!!!!

[nbahobbyaddict]

1961 and 1986 were great. Best year was 2003, though. The combination of the Rookie class, the quality of the products (Exquisite, Ultimate, SP Authentic) and the limited serial numbering may never be topped.