Kids would usually organize their cards numerically. So the #1's were on the top, where they took a beating, esp. with a rubber band often creasing them.
Maybe. Didn’t get a single mention on 1951 MVP ballots. Star, perhaps. But hardly a superstar. Or maybe he was! The whole point of the research is to see who the superstars were, and this might mean something. But I don’t see other hero numbers in that set, so I doubt if Pafko’s was one.
This make me think of Aaron Judge's 2023 #62 card. I am, you may recall, not a Yankees fan, but no denying that was an extremely cool form of recognition. I'd like to see more of it. For instance, Pedro striking out 17 at the Stadium in '99 could have earned him #17. If we assume that Trout's 484-footer is the longest of the year, have him be card #484 in 2026 Series #2. Bobby Witt is 4.11 from home to first, he could be #4. I'm sure you can think of many more angles on this.
Side note on Eddie "you love him the most" Yost: he's an on base machine in Strat-o-Matic baseball.
That's a great point, Jason. Quite possibly, if the sets in the '50s had been bigger, those famous 20s and 30s and 40s would have been 300s and 400s and 500s.
btw, there must be living people who could speak about the numbering rationales, if not in the 1950s and '60s, certainly later, right? If I were writing the book I would have tried to track down someone who was actually in the room where it happened.
The more recent, Topps put stars on the card number of their uniform. And when the sets were smaller some ended in 5 (iirc). I’m thinking of the 1976 All-Star cards (without checking). And of course no 7, them Mantle on 7, then best Yankee on 7.
Kids would usually organize their cards numerically. So the #1's were on the top, where they took a beating, esp. with a rubber band often creasing them.
It's hard to find #1's in mint condition.
Fun piece Rob, but you underestimate Andy Pafko. He was coming off back-to-back 30 HR seasons in 1952.
Maybe. Didn’t get a single mention on 1951 MVP ballots. Star, perhaps. But hardly a superstar. Or maybe he was! The whole point of the research is to see who the superstars were, and this might mean something. But I don’t see other hero numbers in that set, so I doubt if Pafko’s was one.
Great piece, Rob. Thank you.
This make me think of Aaron Judge's 2023 #62 card. I am, you may recall, not a Yankees fan, but no denying that was an extremely cool form of recognition. I'd like to see more of it. For instance, Pedro striking out 17 at the Stadium in '99 could have earned him #17. If we assume that Trout's 484-footer is the longest of the year, have him be card #484 in 2026 Series #2. Bobby Witt is 4.11 from home to first, he could be #4. I'm sure you can think of many more angles on this.
Side note on Eddie "you love him the most" Yost: he's an on base machine in Strat-o-Matic baseball.
Ah, if I ever knew Topps did things like #62 for Judge, I'd forgotten. That's great, even though it would make spotting the hero numbers way harder.
Love it! A couple things.
In the old days the sets were smaller so there weren’t as many 50s and 00s. This meant some lesser numbers gained importance.
Second thing. Dismiss 620 all you like, but that was indeed the number of the greatest Topps card of the 1980s back in 1985.
That's a great point, Jason. Quite possibly, if the sets in the '50s had been bigger, those famous 20s and 30s and 40s would have been 300s and 400s and 500s.
btw, there must be living people who could speak about the numbering rationales, if not in the 1950s and '60s, certainly later, right? If I were writing the book I would have tried to track down someone who was actually in the room where it happened.
The more recent, Topps put stars on the card number of their uniform. And when the sets were smaller some ended in 5 (iirc). I’m thinking of the 1976 All-Star cards (without checking). And of course no 7, them Mantle on 7, then best Yankee on 7.