Topps un retires #7

PeteD · Jan 28, 2017

AnthonyCorona said:
I have one baby I believe is perfect, I'll just keep her and retire.

Collecting: Phil Bickford, Brandon Wood (still), Yankees and Rockies

Took me 2.

Austin · Jan 28, 2017

mrmopar said:
I thought the idea was stupid to begin with. Removing a number from a sequential set makes little sense.

I agree. As a complete set collector who keeps sets in binders, it always bothered me to have no number seven, and I'm a major Mantle and '50s/'60s Yankees fan.

I would have preferred if they had just reserved card #7 every year for a new Mantle card. That would have been cool, and much more of a tribute to Mantle. Especially if the card had a new picture from the Mantle archives that had never before been used on a card.

jeffv96masters · Jan 28, 2017

George_Calfas said:
"That set number should have been for my card."

-Bryce Harper

That's a clown statement bro

rsmath · Jan 29, 2017

yes, it's time for the Topps Yankees ****** to end and bring back #7 (but don't put a yankee in it every year).

I suppose Topps should also move HQ to Chicago so they can be close to the Cubs now. (lots of Cubs overexposure to replace the Yankees one).

gt2590 · Jan 29, 2017

Costanza probably threatened to sue, claiming they took his idea!

MisterT · Jan 30, 2017

Retiring numbers is a slippery slope and I never thought they should do it in the first place. Too many what about this guy, and this guy, etc. etc.

Leave that to the teams.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Topps un retires #7

PeteD

Active member

Austin

Well-known member

jeffv96masters

Well-known member

rsmath

Active member

gt2590

Super Moderator

MisterT

Well-known member

Similar threads

Members online

Latest posts