NEW Premium Cards Fetching more than Vintage Cards???

[zahavasdad]

I was speaking to a dealer and he showed me some new premium cards (I forgot the name) and he showed me a David Wright card that he said was worth $140 and and ebay auction (Not his) where the Derek Jeter was selling for $28,000

Are these cards REALLY worth this money and who is paying these insane amounts??

if I had $28,000 to spend Id get a 1914 Cracker Jack Shoeless Joe Jackson or 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig

for $140 Id Rather had a Mickey Mantle or Jackie Robinson

Is it just me or I am missing something here

Does anyone really think these cards will be worth all this money in a few years (I am a Big Mets Fan and David Wright Fan, but there is NO WAY I am paying $140 for ANY David Wright Card!!!!)

BTW Ive noticed the prices on the Vintage cards have come way down, Its not the expensive anymore to buy quality vintage cards anymore

[baseballchamp14]

what kind of card was it cause I think the dealer was just trying to rip you off

[zahavasdad]

The dealer also told me about this card which was in the same set as Derek Jeter and David Wright

This is NOT my auction and I think the card is a RIP OFF!!!!

Id much rather have a Mantle and a Leaf Dimaggio over this card

http://cgi.ebay.com/Topps-Dimaggio-Mickey-Mantle-Cut-Rodriguez-Auto-1-1_W0QQitemZ250154872565QQihZ015QQcategoryZ638QQssP ageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Dalkowski110]

The card certainly isn't worth $12 Grand, but it's worth about as much as your average baseball signed by Joe D., the Mick, and A-Rod...

[Dalkowski110]

"he showed me a David Wright card that he said was worth $140"

That had to be autographed or your dealer is ripping you off. Think of this...sure, an autographed baseball of Wright goes for about $80, but that's without a certificate of authenticity. Because of the unfortunate rampant fakery in the autograph trade (in all sports, not just baseball), the price of a COA has gone up. Now think of this...Topps or Upper Deck guaranteeing the autograph is real is exactly that, a COA (which incidentally is why Upper Deck has gone into the signed and game-used memorabilia business). Your autographed David Wright baseball has suddenly jumped to $150+ with that COA. Why then, if the card is autographed, is it not logical to think an autographed baseball card with a rock-solid COA isn't worth ten bucks less?

[zahavasdad]

I remembered what the set is called, TOPPS TRIPLE THREADS , check out these prices!!!!

What a RIPOFF!!!!

http://search.ebay.com/triple-threads_W0QQ_trksidZm37QQfromZR40QQfsooZ2QQfsopZ3Q QsbrsrtZd

[baseballchamp14]

I remembered what the set is called, TOPPS TRIPLE THREADS , check out these prices!!!!

What a RIPOFF!!!!

http://search.ebay.com/triple-threads_W0QQ_trksidZm37QQfromZR40QQfsooZ2QQfsopZ3Q QsbrsrtZd

theyre not really that big of a rip off. There certified autographs not just regular cards and considering that you were looking at Ebays prices which are usually better than buying from a store so just imagine what the price of those would be in a store

[Dalkowski110]

Agreed. Like it or not, you're not being ripped off. Those prices, for Topps Triple Threads, are just fine. Call me crazy, but why the heck do so many old card collectors resent new, premium-issue cards? As a serious collector of many pre-WWII obscure issues as well as 1950's Bowman and 1950's-1960's Topps, I don't understand the reasoning. I myself have many new issue cards, and would gladly speak about rookie cards of, say, Willie Mays, Satchel Paige, Tom Seaver, and Steve Carlton (four best vintage rookie cards) in the same sentence with those of Jose Reyes, Albert Pujols, Greg Maddux, and Randy Johnson (four randomly selected pretty good rookie cards I have). They're just a continuation of of the older cards. As for premium sets, okay...

The first one was Topps Stadium Club and it has since grown. But what some of the "the hobby is ending! the hobby is ending!" types don't seem to understand is that premium issue cards A) sell well (*egads!*) and B) provide autographs and game-used jerseys, bats, bases, etc. to those who ordinarily wouldn't have access to them. And then of course there's the aofrementioned Certificate of Authenticity. Seriously, if Topps told you a David Wright autograph was real, versus Lenny the card dealer (no offense to people named Lenny who are card dealers), who would you be more inclined to believe? The COA carries a TON of weight. And with three, four, or even FIVE Hall of Fame autographs on one card, where pray tell does that COA come from if not Topps? The answer is obvious...it would take a couple hundred dollars to have the autographs authenticated, too. And then factor in the end prices of the autographs (which have almost doubled, each of them, now that they've been authenticated). It wouldn't be all that different. And game-used jersey swatches of big pieces of game-used bats? Where are you going to pick one of those up from another source? Yeah, I know, "buy the whole jersey or bat!" Hey, what if I don't have the money for a Ty Cobb game-used bat (est. value $10,000) and decide to the card route, which is the closest thing, (about $1,500-$3,000, depending on the issue) instead?

[EdTarbusz]

Call me old school but I think these cards are a rip-off (but then I wouldn't be willing to spend a dime on an autograph). I stopped collecting new issues about the same time that premium cards were really taking off.

[Dalkowski110]

"I think these cards are a rip-off"

You do of course have a right to your opinion, but I don't think you're phrasing it very well. You just said that you wouldn't spend a dime on autographs. That means that you're not the target market. The target market is for people who would spend money on autographs, game-used memorabilia, etc. Thus, you're not getting ripped off at all. Analogy is the worst form of debate, but let me break with that for a moment. Let's say that you collect, I dunno, model trains (I do). Now say for a moment that your main forte is HO-scale Maerklin 3-rail from the 1950's. You do not own any of the new digital command and control, "2-rail-and-studs" modern trains, save for a couple freight cars you picked up.

You immediately criticize the cars because they're made of plastic, not steel. They're also more expensive than the steel cars, and their wheel flanges aren't as large, causing derailment on the older three-rail track. Never mind the new cars are about ten times more detailed, still made in Germany and not China, and the plastic they're made of is just about as sturdy as the steel the older cars were made of. I once had a guy complaining about these things to me, despite the fact I collect ALL Maerklin HO, and I told him "look, there's nothing we can do about it. The hobby is changing, and if you don't like it, then either keep buying 1950's-1960's stuff, or just leave the hobby." Then he fell back onto the oldest cliche in collecting...collecting ANYTHING..."They're trying to create an articificial market and you fell for it." You see, Maerklin generally runs their model trains in a catalogue for five, maybe six years, then retires them for something new. My answer? "If they created an artificial market, then why have I been looking for the past five years without success for a Swiss Railways Krokodil Electric Passenger Locomotive for under $500 and why is the price still climbing?" He didn't have an answer.

I think the situation is similar here...the hobby is changing. All hobbies do. Like I said to the man complaining about modern Maerklin, you can either continue buying and enjoy pre-1982 cards or just stop buying cards. Just don't ruin it for those who genuinely enjoy the modern cards by calling them a "rip-off" if you barely even have any. As I said earlier, that's your personal opinion, and you're entitled to it. But you're not the target market; how can you be ripped off if the product isn't even made with a person like you in mind? And don't claim that's it's an "artificial market"...the law of suppy and demand would rather harshly disagree with you there (and I know you didn't, to which I give you a lot of credit, but so many far-too-purists do that, it makes my head spin).

[EdTarbusz]

"I think these cards are a rip-off"

You do of course have a right to your opinion, but I don't think you're phrasing it very well. You just said that you wouldn't spend a dime on autographs. That means that you're not the target market.
).


I phrased exactly how I feel. I think they are a rip-off. I think the whole autograph/game used materials market is a rip-off also. I don't know how that is ruining anything for anyone.

[Dalkowski110]

"I don't know how that is ruining anything for anyone."

So authoritatively proclaiming the cards are a "rip-off" when it's just your personal opinion and the market disagrees isn't raining on anyone's parade? Sorry, I don't buy that. Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion, but it just isn't cutting it with me.

[EdTarbusz]

"I don't know how that is ruining anything for anyone."

So authoritatively proclaiming the cards are a "rip-off" when it's just your personal opinion and the market disagrees isn't raining on anyone's parade? Sorry, I don't buy that. Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion, but it just isn't cutting it with me.


My opinion is that these cards are a rip-off. I don't care what the market says about them, I think they are a rip-off.

[Dalkowski110]

"My opinion is that these cards are a rip-off."

And let us merely note for the record that is YOUR OPINION. It carries no more weight than anyone else's, mine included (mine especially? ;) ). But the fact is that the market and sale arc for autographed cards disagrees with your line of thought. I'm not making that up, it's not my opinion, it is merely a fact. I just feel compelled to throw that out there...

[EdTarbusz]

"My opinion is that these cards are a rip-off."

And let us merely note for the record that is YOUR OPINION. It carries no more weight than anyone else's, mine included (mine especially? ;) ...

I don't recall saying that my opinion was anything more than my opinion. The fact that people are buying these things doesn't change my mind that they are a rip-off.

[Dalkowski110]

"I don't recall saying that my opinion was anything more than my opinion."

No, but as I said in an earlier post, you were being pretty authoritative in your expressing your opinion...why didn't you say this then? Speaking of that post, you still haven't answered "So authoritatively proclaiming the cards are a 'rip-off' when it's just your personal opinion and the market disagrees isn't raining on anyone's parade?" C'mon, a kid on this forum pulled a triple signature card from 2007 Topps Co-Signers. You're basically telling that kid, albeit indirectly, "oh, it's my opinion you got nothing more than a rip-off"...

" The fact that people are buying these things doesn't change my mind that they are a rip-off."

To which I could care less. Just quit bugging those of us who enjoy it. Live and let live, how's that?

[EdTarbusz]

"C'mon, a kid on this forum pulled a triple signature card from 2007 Topps Co-Signers. You're basically telling that kid, albeit indirectly, "oh, it's my opinion you got nothing more than a rip-off"...



To which I could care less. Just quit bugging those of us who enjoy it. Live and let live, how's that?


As far as the kid pulling a triple sig, my opinion is more along the lines of 'so what?'

I'd like to know how a dissenting opinion is bugging you or anyone else.

[Dalkowski110]

"As far as the kid pulling a triple sig, my opinion is more along the lines of 'so what?'"

I applaud your open mind and kind thoughts...

[EdTarbusz]

"As far as the kid pulling a triple sig, my opinion is more along the lines of 'so what?'"

I applaud your open mind and kind thoughts...


I have no idea what you mean here.

[Dalkowski110]

"I have no idea what you mean here."

Good. :)

[zahavasdad]

First of all I am not a KID, And these cards ARE a ripoff!!

Like I said I am a BIG METS Fan and A Big fan of David Wright, but who really knows where he career is going, he could get an injury tomorrow an never play another game ever again, How many Hot young players never panned out..

A Jackie Robinson card will ALWAYS hold its value.

I want ANYONE to admit they would take a David Wright Topps Triple thread over a Nolan Ryan Rookie, The Ryan Rookie will keep its value (more or less)

[BoofBonser26]

First of all I am not a KID, And these cards ARE a ripoff!!

Like I said I am a BIG METS Fan and A Big fan of David Wright, but who really knows where he career is going, he could get an injury tomorrow an never play another game ever again, How many Hot young players never panned out..

A Jackie Robinson card will ALWAYS hold its value.

I want ANYONE to admit they would take a David Wright Topps Triple thread over a Nolan Ryan Rookie, The Ryan Rookie will keep its value (more or less)
He wasn't referring to you, but to another poster in a different thread.

You've hit on exactly why some people choose to collect either vintage or modern - some go for the aura and financial security of the legend, and some go for the lure and financial risk of the young superstar they always hear about on TV and see at the ballpark. To each his own.

[zahavasdad]

How many people have made money off these "PREMIUM" cards?

Its not a financial investment, its a SUCKERS game,

$100 for a topps tripple threat, I bet it will more likely worth $20 rather than $150

[EdTarbusz]

He wasn't referring to you, but to another poster in a different thread.

You've hit on exactly why some people choose to collect either vintage or modern - some go for the aura and financial security of the legend, and some go for the lure and financial risk of the young superstar they always hear about on TV and see at the ballpark. To each his own.

Not everyone collects for financial security or even monetary reasons. I've collected for 35 years and have never sold a single card.

[zahavasdad]

Not everyone collects for financial security or even monetary reasons. I've collected for 35 years and have never sold a single card.

I dont sell them either, but I dont like getting ripped off either, I like to think I am getting a good deal when I buy some.


Just because I want a 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth doesnt mean I want to spend $20K for it (Not that I could afford one anyway even at ebay prices)

[DaClyde]

I'm thankful for the current premium market...if not for all those folks dropping Benjamins on all those shiny common cards (and an autographed, glossy chrome refractor common is still a common), I wouldn't have been able to snag an OPC Winfield rookie on eBay for under $15.

It's all about misdirection! Show 'em something shiny and they'll stay away from the vintage stuff.

[EdTarbusz]

I'm thankful for the current premium market...if not for all those folks dropping Benjamins on all those shiny common cards (and an autographed, glossy chrome refractor common is still a common), I wouldn't have been able to snag an OPC Winfield rookie on eBay for under $15.

It's all about misdirection! Show 'em something shiny and they'll stay away from the vintage stuff.

I know the feeling. From the 1972 Topps set Ive recently gotton Fisk, Aaron, Aaron IA, RJackson, and best of all, Carew off of Ebay. Each cost less than $10.

[Dalkowski110]

"First of all I am not a KID"

Why do you assume I was referring to you? The person who pulled said card had a Yankees avatar and didn't capitalize any of their words. Also, did you get Derrek Lee on your card (can't remember who the other two were)?

"He wasn't referring to you, but to another poster in a different thread."

Thanks Boof.

"Its not a financial investment, its a SUCKERS game,

$100 for a topps tripple [thread], I bet it will more likely worth $20 rather than $150"

Okay, may I go out and say I'm not paying these prices (for one) and for another, how do you come by your market analysis? What price guides and sales do you follow? Which cards do you track the value of? And please don't say serial-numbered cards, because even I, in my density in your eyes (I'm sure), saw the collapse of those coming a mile and a half away.

"I've collected for 35 years and have never sold a single card."

My father and I have collected for a combined 60+ years and haven't either. I'm just analyzing the market and have no bone in this other than your inexcusable arrogance, rudeness, and downright stupidity in telling some kid who just pulled a great card "so what." I don't give a damn if it's not great in your eyes. The hobby considers it a good card; you compliment him. I'm nineteen (here comes the "I'm older and thus smarter, wiser, etc." comment...) and know that as a basic social skill.

"It's all about misdirection! Show 'em something shiny and they'll stay away from the vintage stuff."

I spent $350 on a T-205 Frank Chance in EX+ (I had Tinker and Evers from that set) AND a 2001 Topps Chrome Traded set this month. Tell it to my wallet. Also, using the same market reasoning, how do you explain the jump in price recently regarding the rookie cards of not only Hank Aaron, but also Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and the earlier cards of Ted Williams (his '39 Play Ball RC has kinda stayed where it is)?

[zahavasdad]

"First of all I am not a KID"

Why do you assume I was referring to you? The person who pulled said card had a Yankees avatar and didn't capitalize any of their words. Also, did you get Derrek Lee on your card (can't remember who the other two were)?


Okay, may I go out and say I'm not paying these prices (for one) and for another, how do you come by your market analysis? What price guides and sales do you follow? Which cards do you track the value of? And please don't say serial-numbered cards, because even I, in my density in your eyes (I'm sure), saw the collapse of those coming a mile and a half away.



I dont own any card after 1990 and certainly not Derek Lee , there are just too many made, prices are based on supply and demand and post 1990 supply is just too high

I only track Values of Hall of Famers ,Brooklyn Dodgers and Hall of Famers Mets cards as those are my favorites

I think these are bad because if someone feels ripped off they will never buy again especially when the price collapses.

[EdTarbusz]

"

My father and I have collected for a combined 60+ years and haven't either. I'm just analyzing the market and have no bone in this other than your inexcusable arrogance, rudeness, and downright stupidity in telling some kid who just pulled a great card "so what." I don't give a damn if it's not great in your eyes. The hobby considers it a good card; you compliment him. I'm nineteen (here comes the "I'm older and thus smarter, wiser, etc." )?

I don't understand the need to compliment a kid about pulling a card. I am older than nineteen and I don't understand what is arrogant, rude and stupid about thinking a premium card is junk and therefore not being impressed with it. The fact that the hobby considers it a good card, means zero to me. If my son came home and told me he pulled one, my reaction would remain 'so what?'

I also wouldn't spend $350 on a Chance card, but that's for completely different reasons.

[Dalkowski110]

"I also wouldn't spend $350 on a Chance card, but that's for completely different reasons."

Actually, I gave you the total...to clarify, I spent $125 on the 2001 Topps Chrome Traded set and $225 on the Chance card.

"prices are based on supply and demand and post 1990 supply is just too high"

Kinda. Thing is, from 2000-2007, card production has dropped. Is it higher than it was in, say, 1975? Of course. But has it dropped back around to say, 1984-1986 numbers? I'd say so. That's correct, cards are no longer being produced in any given set in the numbers they were from 1988-1995 (especially). Well, I should add an exception...Donruss...but their MLB license was revoked for that very reason.

"I only track Values of Hall of Famers ,Brooklyn Dodgers and Hall of Famers Mets cards as those are my favorites"

Okay, I think we found our differences. I track the baseball card market. The whole market. I'm getting a job at a cardstore; I kinda have to. He's accepted that I don't know anything about other sports, but wants me to really devote myself to baseball cards. In the case of a lot of the specialty issues, demand does indeed outstrip supply. Just about the only sets where it doesn't are Topps and Fleer. Even Upper Deck.

"I think these are bad because if someone feels ripped off they will never buy again especially when the price collapses."

Why the "when the price collapses" and not if? From all of my observations, it's NOT an artificial market. The only collapse I DIDN'T see coming was GU bat and jersey cards...nobody could've expected Donruss was going to release TWENTY different issues over two years focusing mainly on memorabilia...and yet now that's recovering (because of the lack of Donruss). Autographs especially tend to appreciate. Let's look at 1999 Fleer Sports Illustrated Goose Gossage. Gossage was listed at $15 when the card first came out. Since then, it's appreciated to $30. Okay, "but that's Goose Gossage!" Let's try someone else...Jerry Royster. Royster's autographed card in the same set booked at $5 when it came out. Now, it books at $12. Even Donruss autographs tend to appreciate...1999 Donruss Sandy Koufax went from $75-$100, though it was a short print.

[EdTarbusz]

"I also wouldn't spend $350 on a Chance card, but that's for completely different reasons."

Actually, I gave you the total...to clarify, I spent $125 on the 2001 Topps Chrome Traded set and $225 on the Chance card.


I still wouldn't be able to spend $225 on it.

[Dalkowski110]

I do hope you realize it books for $250 in the condition I paid for it...:)

[EdTarbusz]

I do hope you realize it books for $250 in the condition I paid for it...:)


If that's important to you, then that's good for you.

[metrotheme]

I don't give book values much weight, as with your recent Jerry Royster example. His card books for $12, but there is no demand for that card.

The card companies have made the stock limited on these cards by serial numbering them, but the demand seems to fall for about 95% of them when the next year's set comes out (unless it's one of those limited Ichiro / Pujols autographed rookie cards). With some of these cards, there are less of them available than many vintage cards, but just b/c they've limited quantity is known, doesn't make them a better investment. There are too many issues of these cards to compete with.

"Back in the day" there was only 1 card of that player (TOPPS). Now a player might have 5 issues of their card in one set (base, chrome, refractor, autograph, gold parallel). The options aren't the same. The market is based on getting a GAMBLING REACTION from the buyers, to keep them ADDICTED to the next "chase" card.

Look at most inserts from 5-7 years ago. Have they really held their value, even for the superstars? Are people really chasing that Barry Bonds insert from 2002 or the Manny Ramirez insert from 2004?

I see your point on the certified autographs, I just feel that a baseball card is one of the less desirable mediums for an autograph (as opposed to an 8x10 or a baseball).

The whole part of DESTROYING VINTAGE UNIFORMS / BATS / GLOVES to put into cards is gross to me. Being able to see the full jersey / pants / bat / shirt is a preservation of the artifacts used in the game. A 1/2 inch square on a baseball card is meaningless.

How do you even display it? Like at least the full item is a conversation piece, something that can be the centerpiece of a display and gives you some insight into the equipment of that time. How do you do the same with a grey patch on a baseball card.

I don't think there is a plentiful amount of these artifacts to begin with and by Topps / Upper Deck destroying them to put into cards doesn't sit well with me. I mean it's Topps $$ and they're entitled to do what they want with it, I am just not for it.

[Dalkowski110]

"The card companies have made the stock limited on these cards by serial numbering them, but the demand seems to fall for about 95% of them when the next year's set comes out"

I said serial-numbered cards were the one part of the card market where yes, you CAN apply the artificial market scenario. So far, we're in agreement.

"With some of these cards, there are less of them available than many vintage cards, but just b/c they've limited quantity is known, doesn't make them a better investment. There are too many issues of these cards to compete with."

So far, you've presented the best argument. In fact, if this were 2005, I would be in agreement with you. But when Donruss and Fleer lost their MLB licenses, there was a reason...Donruss was overproducing cards to a ridiculous degree and basically destroying the market. Same with Fleer. But in 2006, you saw the number of card issues go down. The "too many cards to compete with" went from almost 100 sets, to 20 sets. Seriously, we haven't seen 20 sets a year since the hobby boom in the early 1990's. Also, unless a card is serial-numbered (again, there's the one artificial market scenario I agree on), I'm sure some people know the quantity, but how many? Does your average hobbyist know SERIOUSLY exactly how many Bowman Prospect sets are printed per year?

"The market is based on getting a GAMBLING REACTION from the buyers, to keep them ADDICTED to the next "chase" card."

Again, if this was 2005 and we were talking Donruss and Fleer, then I'd agree. The problem is that in 2006, the MLBPA stepped in and made quite a few reforms. In fact, their intention was basically to stop what you just mentioned. They did destroy the concept of the rookie card as one of their measures, unfortunately (really, they did...under the current system, Vic Power, Lou Piniella, and Steve Carlton would be out of luck when it comes to printing RC's due to MLB playing time)...but the rest were helping to "right" the hobby. You seriously don't see the gigantic jump in price you saw in refractors and other parallels, even based on book value, that you saw in 2005.

"Look at most inserts from 5-7 years ago. Have they really held their value, even for the superstars? Are people really chasing that Barry Bonds insert from 2002 or the Manny Ramirez insert from 2004?"

No, but you missed my point...serial-numbered inserts HAVE lost value and WERE an artificial market. I'm more or less saying that people who somehow believe that when Topps did its 2002 Bowman Draft set, that the David Wright rookie card (say) is a ripoff because too many were printed are wrong because the card has held its value since 2004. No serious ups or downs, except when David broke into the Majors and went on a tear, causing the price to increase. There also a token few insert sets that HAVE appreciated over the years, but they're not serial numbered...the sets I'm referring to are the Bowman Draft All-Star Futures Game sets, which have all gained value.

"I see your point on the certified autographs, I just feel that a baseball card is one of the less desirable mediums for an autograph (as opposed to an 8x10 or a baseball)."

Again, matter of personal preference (I happen to prefer autographed cards, no matter where they come from, a pack or handing one to a player), though I commend you for not saying the word "rip-off." ;)

As for game-used memoriabilia cards, again, we differ. That, however, is for a different thread since we're not debating the market-worthiness of it.

With all that said, kudos on what's easily been the best debate post, by far.

[metrotheme]

So far, you've presented the best argument. In fact, if this were 2005, I would be in agreement with you. But when Donruss and Fleer lost their MLB licenses, there was a reason...Donruss was overproducing cards to a ridiculous degree and basically destroying the market. Same with Fleer. But in 2006, you saw the number of card issues go down. The "too many cards to compete with" went from almost 100 sets, to 20 sets. Seriously, we haven't seen 20 sets a year since the hobby boom in the early 1990's. Also, unless a card is serial-numbered (again, there's the one artificial market scenario I agree on), I'm sure some people know the quantity, but how many? Does your average hobbyist know SERIOUSLY exactly how many Bowman Prospect sets are printed per year?


Even if there are 20 sets, that is still 20 times more than the 1 Topps set that was produced each year. It may be an unequal split, but there are 20 issues of said player that year and that is going to divide up the money 20 different (unequal) ways.

I was going to say that the average hobbyist should know that these cards are mass produced if they're available in packs at most hobby stores, yet when I was young, I knew nothing about the print runs of cards and that 88 Topps was printed in massive quantities.


"The market is based on getting a GAMBLING REACTION from the buyers, to keep them ADDICTED to the next "chase" card."

Again, if this was 2005 and we were talking Donruss and Fleer, then I'd agree. The problem is that in 2006, the MLBPA stepped in and made quite a few reforms. In fact, their intention was basically to stop what you just mentioned. They did destroy the concept of the rookie card as one of their measures, unfortunately (really, they did...under the current system, Vic Power, Lou Piniella, and Steve Carlton would be out of luck when it comes to printing RC's due to MLB playing time)...but the rest were helping to "right" the hobby. You seriously don't see the gigantic jump in price you saw in refractors and other parallels, even based on book value, that you saw in 2005.


Go over to Beckett's forums or any of the other forums that have heavy collectors and listen to them talk about "busting packs" or "busting boxes" or how they HAVE TO HAVE the newest card of (insert prospect here). The way they talk about it is like how an addict talks about their addicition.

[Dalkowski110]

"Even if there are 20 sets, that is still 20 times more than the 1 Topps set that was produced each year. It may be an unequal split, but there are 20 issues of said player that year and that is going to divide up the money 20 different (unequal) ways.

I was going to say that the average hobbyist should know that these cards are mass produced if they're available in packs at most hobby stores, yet when I was young, I knew nothing about the print runs of cards and that 88 Topps was printed in massive quantities."

For star players, that's true. Then again, you could take the "genericard" approach to the star players. Example: outside of Albert Pujols' rookie cards, they generally go for $1-$5 (for second-year cards) each, no matter what the set is. Not a massive pricing difference. Also, let's go back to 1984, which is really when the hobby started taking Fleer and Donruss seriously. You didn't have the massive overproduction of 1988 and whatnot, and you had three big sets. But you also had something which you most certainly don't have today...confectionery issues (from companies like General Mills and whoever made Twinkies made sets...I should know this), serial box promotions (Kellogg's, Post, and the like), etc. And if you lived in the northern US, you also generally had Leaf and O-Pee-Chee, Canadian Donruss and Canadian Topps, respectively. Your set total is thus boosted to about nine, of the ones I mentioned. There were also team-issued cards, and generally worthless cards from Renata Galasso and Rob Broder (Did they ever find out who "Rob Broder" really was, btw? That's a serious question. Nobody ever found out who he was, where he lived, etc.). Stuff like that, due to licensing issues, well, it's all totally gone. So, in 1984, you didn't just have Topps. The hobby wasn't in overproduction mode, either. Is 20 sets a year really that different from about a dozen a year?

Also, then there are the non-stars. Cards of relief pitchers, especially, don't get printed often. Pedro Feliciano, Justin Duchscherer, Heath Bell, Joakim Soria, and Brian Shouse are five examples of guys who are very effective who have only a token few cards. A lot of those 20 sets a year do NOT contain cards of who you'd think would be "common players." Hence the "genericard" approach to stars. Example of the odd: Pedro Feliciano's 2007 Upper Deck card (one of just two cards ever printed of him wearing a Mets uniform...the other was printed in 2003), as a result, is worth $2. Your average common from the same set is worth around a dime. And David Wright's card from the same set books for $1.50 (and even if you don't follow the price guides, I'm seeing Lil' Pedro's card sell for more than David's in the same set!).

"Go over to Beckett's forums or any of the other forums that have heavy collectors and listen to them talk about "busting packs" or "busting boxes" or how they HAVE TO HAVE the newest card of (insert prospect here). The way they talk about it is like how an addict talks about their addicition."

Well, I HAVE to have Jackie Robinson's 1953 Topps card. What's the difference? ;) Just kidding! Though I really do need that card to complete my '53 set...there are other cards I lack, but they're either commons or I lack them. But actually, I do seriously know people with addictions to vintage cards, as well. There exist those people in EVERY hobby. And for that matter, every area of every hobby. BTW, I do box busts as well. Not like them, but what's wrong with it? I'm not having trouble paying my bills or anything. Then again, I guess it's in the approach. Despite the fact I work at card store (or will soon), I do NOT view baseball cards as investments...not monetarily. I just happened to pull a 2007 Bowman Chrome Jeff Samardzija refractor from a $4.99 pack of Bowman Chrome prospect cards. Is it kinda neat that people are willing to pay $150 for it? Yeah. If you collect anything, I guarantee you'll find it kind of neat what people are paying for it. $10 or 10 cents. But is it even more cool to me personally that I have Jeff Samardzija's autograph with a rock-solid COA and I think he'll become a darn good pitcher for the Cubs in three years or so? Yeah, that too.

[John Burris]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Topps-Dimaggio-Mickey-Mantle-Cut-Rodriguez-Auto-1-1_W0QQitemZ250154872565QQihZ015QQcategoryZ638QQssP ageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Am I incorrect here, or do the statistical callouts on the back of the A-Rod/Mick/Joe D "3 of 3" card appear completely incorrect (.330 BA/369 HR/1569 RBI don't match stats)? What's that about?

[BoofBonser26]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Topps-Dimaggio-Mickey-Mantle-Cut-Rodriguez-Auto-1-1_W0QQitemZ250154872565QQihZ015QQcategoryZ638QQssP ageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Am I incorrect here, or do the statistical callouts on the back of the A-Rod/Mick/Joe D "3 of 3" card appear completely incorrect (.330 BA/369 HR/1569 RBI don't match stats)? What's that about?
Those are probably just their stats with the NY Yankees.

[BoofBonser26]

Not everyone collects for financial security or even monetary reasons. I've collected for 35 years and have never sold a single card.
I don't collect for money, either. I collect the players I like. I've spent $2 on a Jody Gerut card. Why? He's an Indian I've seen play.

[John Burris]

Those are probably just their stats with the NY Yankees.

Good thought, but none of these three numbers would represent the Yankees total for that player.

A-Rod (listed at .330 on card) had a Yankee batting average of .299 entering this season.

Mantle (369 HR listed on card) hit 536 career HRs as a Yankee (full MLB career in New York).

DiMaggio (1569 RBI listed on card) had 1537 career RBI as a Yankee (full MLB career in New York).

[BoofBonser26]

Good thought, but none of these three numbers would represent the Yankees total for that player.

A-Rod (listed at .330 on card) had a Yankee batting average of .299 entering this season.

Mantle (369 HR listed on card) hit 536 career HRs as a Yankee (full MLB career in New York).

DiMaggio (1569 RBI listed on card) had 1537 career RBI as a Yankee (full MLB career in New York).
Then I'm flumoxed. :ughh

Where those personal bests, somehow? Their stats after X number of years? X number of years with the Yankees? Does the card feature any indication of either?

Boy, this one's odd. :dismay: