Sunday, December 10, 2023

A Post post (Part 2)

I don't know if it's because they were the last year that Post did them (in this form), or if just less quantities were produced, but it seems like the 1963 Post set is a lot less prevalent than those from the previous two years. No matter what the reason is though, prices are definitely higher on 63's than they are for it's previous predecessors.

I haven't been to a show now in a few years, but going by online prices, '63 commons are usually at least double the price of those from '61 and '62. Some of the bigger names are the same, if not more. And of course, then there's the short prints, which I'm not far enough along with my set build to be looking for yet; but I would imagine that they're are gonna be up there in there in price too. I'll concern myself with those later though, for now I'm more than content to keep picking up cheap commons where I can.

Not being very far along with the set, I've had some decent luck as of late with said cheap commons (and one cheap HOFer as well), so following up last Sunday's post, here's what I've been able to add to my '63 set since October (not counting the three that are currently sitting in my COMC account)...

I don't know the reasoning behind the change, but it's a bit interesting to me that Post led off the '61 and '62 sets with the Yankees, then switched it up for 1963 by giving Minnesota the nod (bumping the Yankees to second).

After a strong showing in '62, Jim struggled a bit in '63, finishing the season at 10-10. He'd bounce back the following year though with a 17-11 record. In fact, the next couple of years were really good for him, as he wouldn't end up having a losing record until the 1971 season.

I wonder when was the last time that someone named their child "Cloyd"? Seems like that should've been considered a form of child abuse.

Tom finished 11th in the A.L. MVP voting for 1963. Looking at some of the numbers for the guys behind him, I think 11th was awfully generous by the voters. Yankees bump?

As was the case with the Dick Groat in last weeks post, it was very difficult for me not to add this one to my Frank Lary collection.

Frank was very much on the downward trend by '63. So much so that the Yankees even got the better of their arch-nemesis by going 2-0 against him.

One can't help but wonder how much different Jim's career would've been had he not been stuck in the Dodgers farm system for as long as he was. In a different reality he may've spent a better part of the 50's chasing home run titles with the likes of Willie Mays and Duke Snider.

Speaking of guys whose careers were impacted by later starts in the majors. I have no doubt that Ed's name would be more familiar (to casual fans) had he been called up sooner.

I thought prior to this post that 61's scanned the worst (for me), but after this many cards in, I stand corrected, 63's scan much worse. Look what's been done to my nice Bob Friend!

1963 was Bob's last winning season (17-16) in the bigs, or anywhere else for that matter.

I have a small favor to ask... it's been bugging the shit out of me, but I swear that Carl looks like someone else in this photo, or someone else looks like Carl in this photo; but I can't think of who! Does anyone else see it? If so, please put me out of my misery.

Roger led the majors in losses in both '62 (24) and '63 (22). Not a category that one wants to lead in. 

And I don't know if it's just me, but getting the first and last numbers from a vintage set always feels like a minor accomplishment. I don't have #1 (Vic Power) yet, but at least I now have #200.

I suspect that this '63 set is gonna be a slow build. As of this typing, I'm sitting at a very unimpressive 22/200. I am doing a bit better on my '61 (70/200), and '62 (73/200) builds though. I keep thinking that I should be further along on those two, and by that I mean it feels like I've got some more around somewhere, but I've gone through all of my player collections twice in the last year or so, and there's no more Post's hiding anywhere. Must just be a weird mental thing. That not withstanding, I've been getting a lot of enjoyment from these sets the last couple of months, and feel that they're very responsible for my recently renewed card interest; which truth be told, had been lagging something fierce.


  1. That's good progress in just over a month's time. ... My Post count from 1961-63, which mostly includes just Dodgers, is 17-10-10.

    1. It's not bad, but I don't think that this pace will be able to continue much longer. That sounds like kind of a lot for mostly just being Dodgers.

  2. I like the photo on the Friend card. Not sure which ballpark it is, maybe LA?

    1. Your guess is better than mine.

    2. Also worth noting that Tresh was a rookie who had a great season and looked to be the next Mantle, which is probably part of the bump in MVP votes. It didn't happen, of course.

  3. You're killing it. I really should actually try to scoop more of these up.

  4. A. Cletis and Cloyd? Sounds like Ron and Ken were the lucky siblings.

    B. I'm used to the 80's Humm Baby version of Roger Craig. 20+ years sure makes a huge difference.

    C. Just keep swimming. You're over the 10% mark. Next step 15%. Your progress on all three of these sets is super impressive.

    1. A. I think you're right :)

      B. I don't remember 80's Roger Craig any more than I do 60's Roger Craig.

      C. And I know, any progress is good progress.