Your Opionions On Game Used Cards [Archive]

ironman

12-29-2007, 01:48 PM

I started collecting in 1987 and stopped in 1992. Than started again last year and I knew absolutly nothing about these GU and AU cards. I think that its terrible because of the amount of inserts, the prices some of these cards cost, its just nuts. I like when I pull one and sell it on Ebay and buy more Cubs cards with it. I think that it ruined collecting, I liked it when there were base sets and 1 or 2 types of inserts. Beckett listed every single card, not just the stars. I dont know, Ive been waiting for a thread like this for a year.

It actually helped to revamp collecting, because all of the card prcies had crashed. In 1997 UD helped to make it more of a hobby again. What really made it into a business was expensive refractors and autos that go for hundreds.

bailiff

12-29-2007, 01:50 PM

GU and auto cards saved the hobby. What drives me up the wall is when collectors get "good ole day syndrome." Talking about the days when packs were 50 cents and all that crap. Those cards were boring. This a great age for collectors. If you want to collect sets, so for the cheapo topps or fleer. If you want high end cards you have many sets to choose from. This is a great time to be a collector.

DaClyde

12-29-2007, 02:56 PM

I like the idea, and some of the actual cards, but the companies have gotten extremely lazy about the constant re-use of the same old photos over and over on these (and other "parallels" in general) cards. I also don't like the annoying penchant of some people to refuse to trade GU for non-GU cards. It's still just a card, if I have something you need and you have a GU I need, where's the problem?

I like the bits of patches (not the bogus mass produced non-games used patched they keep issuing) from actual caps & uniforms and the bits with pinstripes and whatnot (much better than just a plain, white piece of cloth they could just as easily have picked up at the fabric store).

I think they were a good idea for the hobby, but as with most industries, they've inevitably led to laziness on the part of the companies. At this point, fewer GU would be better.

Dalkowski110

12-29-2007, 04:49 PM

"GU and auto cards saved the hobby. What drives me up the wall is when collectors get "good ole day syndrome." Talking about the days when packs were 50 cents and all that crap. Those cards were boring. This a great age for collectors. If you want to collect sets, so for the cheapo topps or fleer. If you want high end cards you have many sets to choose from. This is a great time to be a collector."

I kinda fall inbetween the "in my day..." guys and the "it's only good and exciting if it's new" crowd. For the record I approve of GU cards, though more or less of modern day players because you can replace an Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez bat or jersey far easier than a Honus Wagner or Babe Ruth bat or jersey. Autographed cards are my real interest...nothing was destroyed in the process, rare or currently available. Even cut sigs are fine (I don't think cutting up a cancelled check is destroying a piece of history).

Silver Blaze

12-29-2007, 05:18 PM

(I don't think cutting up a cancelled check is destroying a piece of history).

But it might be destroying evidence pertaining to the Mitchell investigation. Sorry, couldn't resist.

On the whole, I think GU can be done right, but the problem is there is such a glut that the prices again have crashed on many of the straightforward cards, and buying a box for a couple of hundred dollars just isn't always a solid investment. I don't really collect or trade much, but if I did I would rather pay for something I wanted than open packs - although there is that sense of anticipation when you are opening packs - it might be Babe Ruth bat card....oh, Paul Blair.

I am very suspicious about authenticity. I'm not saying the companies are purposely putting fake material in the cards, not at all. But I remember a while ago one of the Legendary Cuts cards had the wrong player's picture on it. So what is to stop a honest mix-up with pieces of jerseys, bats etc? I'm sure they have set controls in place, but everyone's human. Needless to say, the whole hobby depends on sustaining belief in the integrity of GUs.

Mike D.

12-29-2007, 06:27 PM

I am a fan of game used cards, although I do have the same reservations some have expressed about old/irreplaceable jerseys and bats. On one hand, I'm a fan of seeing 100 Babe Ruth jersey cards in the hands of regular folks instead of 1 jersey in some rich guys private collection. On the other hand, there's only so many of these artifacts around, and destroying one is a bit sad. Here's to hoping that a lot of this stuff comes from jerseys and bats that are otherwise in poor condition, not pristine examples.

I didn't get my first game used card until maybe a year ago. I started collecting in 1987, and bought a ton of packs. They were cheap, and I liked opening packs.

Around 1994, between the strike and me heading off to college, I stopped buying a ton of packs. From then until maybe 2 years ago, I continued to collect, but bought mostly older cards and sets off eBay. I'd buy a couple new packs a year to see what the cards looked like, but not many.

One reason I didn't buy more packs is that they didn't seem to over much value for the money....you might pull a shiny insert that booked for $10, but when next year's set came out with IT'S shiny insert, the one you pulled would drop to $5, and sell for 50 cents on eBay.

GU and autographed inserts helped make packs a reasonable expenditure of money again. I still like buying sets and older singles on eBay, but have bought more packs this year than maybe the last 5 years combined. I love opening packs....and now I feel like I might actually get something worthwhile.

BTW, I had my first ever GU pack pull last week. I bought a blaster pack of 8 Goudy packs, and pulled a Grady Sizemore GU. I also pulled some other nice insert and regular cards, and the cards are great for TTM. I felt it was $20 well spent.

BoofBonser26

12-29-2007, 06:33 PM

BTW, I had my first ever GU pack pull last week. I bought a blaster pack of 8 Goudy packs, and pulled a Grady Sizemore GU. I also pulled some other nice insert and regular cards, and the cards are great for TTM. I felt it was $20 well spent.
Oooooh, call me jealous. I'd love to pull a GU from my Tribe.

I'm a huge fan of GU cards in general. I love 'em. I do share everyone's concern about older artifacts, but if the jerseys being sacrificed are ragged, stained, half-missing swaths of fabric I don't mind at all. I also really like what the card companies do with modern players - many times players will change jerseys so that there's a GU jersey to cut up and one to keep intact.

80s baseball

12-29-2007, 06:58 PM

I feel the same way as the guy that said he hated inserts.
There are way too many insert sets & they're the reason I stopped collecting.
I liked the years where there was pretty much 1 player rookie card per set.
I stopped collecting in '89 and since then, I've only bought cards I couldn't afford as a kid and none of them are newer than '89 although I'm really close to starting a Curtis Martin rookie card collection... that guy was great.

But, of all the insert sets, I love the game used cards. I've been tempted to buy packs of newer cards b/c of them while stuck in store check out lines but have still held off. If sets didn't have game used cards, I wouldn't be tempted at all.

Like NY fan said though, I do question the authenticity. I personally would never tear or shred up a piece of history, its a waste. Stuff like that should be in the hall of fame. I don't have a problem with active players giving up their jerseys for the cards but they shouldn't be pulling historical 'artifacts' from HOF players. No way.

Although they really should tear up OJs heisman & put it in cards.
LOL, nobody would want to get those, he'd come after everyone until he had it back.

BoofBonser26

12-29-2007, 07:06 PM

For those who don't like insert cards and want to return to the days of simpler sets, I strongly urge you to take a look at Fleer's basic set each year. It's clean, non-glossy, simple, with very few inserts; a great throw-back set.

If you're interested in an "older" newer set, Topps Total (from 2002-2004 or 05) was a great base-card set, although the design wasn't that great.

Silver Blaze

12-29-2007, 07:18 PM

Like NY fan said though, I do question the authenticity. I personally would never tear or shred up a piece of history, its a waste. Stuff like that should be in the hall of fame. I don't have a problem with active players giving up their jerseys for the cards but they shouldn't be pulling historical 'artifacts' from HOF players. No way.

On the other hand, you pull a card that has pieces of jersey of, say, Williams, Mays and Ruth all on one card. To hold a piece of history like that in your hand must be an incredible feeling. Like it or not, it does put the game back in the hands of the fans (literally). Even single players - can you imagine pulling a card with a piece of Shoeless Joe's jersey? However, it's these old-time jerseys I'm particularly cynical about. How do we know the jersey was worn? It may have been made for the player, but for some reason he always wore a different one, etc.

I share your concern about destroying relics of the bygone era, on the other hand, how many of any historic player's bats does the HOF really need? Ten? Twenty??

Mike D.

12-29-2007, 10:00 PM

Oooooh, call me jealous. I'd love to pull a GU from my Tribe.

Ha ha....to be honest, I didn't realize it was a GU card at first. I opened the packs, went through the cards, and didn't notice the GU swatch. It wasn't until I looked at the stack of cards on my desk that I realized one was thicker. :)

Sizemore is a heck of a player, but if you have any nice Red Sox GU cards, we should talk! :cap:

BoofBonser26

12-29-2007, 10:09 PM

Ha ha....to be honest, I didn't realize it was a GU card at first. I opened the packs, went through the cards, and didn't notice the GU swatch. It wasn't until I looked at the stack of cards on my desk that I realized one was thicker. :)

Sizemore is a heck of a player, but if you have any nice Red Sox GU cards, we should talk! :cap:
I think I might have an '04 Fleer Tradition Diamond Something-or-other Pedro Martinez...if you're interested, we should move this to PMs.

The only GU card I've ever pulled from a pack was a Lance Berkman jersey from '07 Topps. The card design is pretty poor, though. That's why I dislike the most about GU cards - when they have poor design, it seems like such a waste to stick a jersey on an ugly card.

metrotheme

12-30-2007, 09:18 AM

C'mon now .. to hold a sliver of a bat, or a thumb nail piece of a jersey .. I'll pass. How is it even a conversation piece? "Ooh, here is a piece of Williams' jersey" ... not everyone was meant to have or afford the whole jersey and I think it is gross that the artifacts are being destroyed. It's not like current players whose every piece of equipment is being preserved. I think the g/u cards are lame and so are alot of these cut pieces.

I'd rather see redemptions for the real thing than a cut of Cool Papa Bell's signed HOF plaque on a card when you could have the actual signed HOF plaque. I know there are issues with redemptions, but some of the cuts are misaligned, butchered or taken from photos or cards. I think it destroys the original piece. Wouldn't you rather have the signed 8x10 instead of the signature being cut from it and placed on a baseball card?

I will admit that the signature cuts piqued my interest, but when I saw the pack prices I passed. I buy a few packs per years and an occasional card here and there of a player whom I may want to wrtie to TTM.

On the other hand, you pull a card that has pieces of jersey of, say, Williams, Mays and Ruth all on one card. To hold a piece of history like that in your hand must be an incredible feeling. Like it or not, it does put the game back in the hands of the fans (literally). Even single players - can you imagine pulling a card with a piece of Shoeless Joe's jersey? However, it's these old-time jerseys I'm particularly cynical about. How do we know the jersey was worn? It may have been made for the player, but for some reason he always wore a different one, etc.

I share your concern about destroying relics of the bygone era, on the other hand, how many of any historic player's bats does the HOF really need? Ten? Twenty??

Dalkowski110

12-30-2007, 01:31 PM

"But I remember a while ago one of the Legendary Cuts cards had the wrong player's picture on it."

That would be Frank Thomas and...Frank Thomas. Come on, suspecting them of faking cards by getting two guys with the same name mixed up is unfair. The only company that got lax on autographs (didn't outright fake them, but put absolutely no protective measures in place, which resulted in a few players having their wives, kids, paid ghost-signers, etc. sign them) was Donruss, and they got kicked out of the MLBPA for doing so. Those questioning the authenticity of cut signatures, well, a majority (not all...as metrotheme pointed out, one of the Cool Papa Bell autos was gleaned from a HoF post card, plus I know hand-written letters were occassionally destroyed to get the signature at the bottom) were from cancelled checks. Faking a check is a VERY serious crime, hence why so many are used. Cheaper to get a COA because you can also check with the bank (at least if it was a large bank with multiple branches) that issued it, too.

ipitch

12-30-2007, 01:58 PM

A few years ago on a newsmagazine show, they showed that at least some game used items are nothing but items that were worn by a player for a few seconds while playing a game of catch. Basically the player would put on a jersey, throw a ball to someone, and then take it off. Repeat.

Do they still do that?

chucksk8er

12-30-2007, 04:43 PM

its been fun reading everything since I last posted. I understand it saving the hobby, and it is fun to pull a good GU or AU card, I really just think that its getting out of hand.

DaClyde

12-30-2007, 09:38 PM

I will admit that the signature cuts piqued my interest, but when I saw the pack prices I passed. I buy a few packs per years and an occasional card here and there of a player whom I may want to wrtie to TTM.

I have to agree here. It kills me that one of these new autographed inserts goes for so much more than just a regular autographed card. Especially the lame "buyback" cards. Ok, so UD bought back a card, stamped it "buyback" and had the player sign it. Why is that better than just having the card signed by the player? It's still the same card!

Dalkowski110

12-30-2007, 10:34 PM

"It kills me that one of these new autographed inserts goes for so much more than just a regular autographed card."

Though I myself don't discriminate, it's all about three letters: COA. Especially from a big company. And Topps has among the best COA's of literally any autograph company, card or otherwise. UD is also up there. It's also the reason Donruss lost their license (though they've cleaned it up and are fine right now).

Extra Innings

12-31-2007, 07:52 AM

I think that GU cards are a fun addition to the hobby. I've only pulled 5 of them over the last 3 years since I started collecting again so I think its pretty cool to get one, but I don't really expect it.

steve rogers

02-08-2008, 04:37 PM

Here's my two cents on inserts. I don't really like them. I don't really have any problem with signed cards or expensive low print run cards, or a piece of a David Ortiz uniform put in a baseball card. I don't really like having canceled checks or old photos cut up for inserts, but it doesn't really bother me too much.

What I do have a problem with, and I have a major problem with it, is the game used cards of vintage bats or uniforms. Having a 1 inch square piece of a Ted Williams uniform is NOT owning a piece of history. It's like having a 1/4 inch square piece of a 52 Topps Mickey Mantle card, what's the point? (And I'll bet you $100 that the card companies have considered doing that too.) Technically it's a piece of a piece of history. And the real history was destroyed when the uniform was cut up. I also don't like having this memorabilia hoarded in private collections, but at least in a collection they're being preserved. I'd much rather have them in public museums. Imagine going to the hall of fame in 50 years with your grandson and showing him a bunch of one inch square pieces of cloth. Also, as several people have pointed out, there is no way to tell if these items are authentic.

Scott

Dalkowski110

02-08-2008, 05:09 PM

Let me first go on record as stating that I DO NOT CONDONE the practice of cutting up old jerseys and bats. But I can with 100% certainty that no company, not even Donruss, faked jersey or bat cards. Why? Because there was no reason to. Most of the older jerseys that get cut up are in very poor shape. I can tell you this because I've seen some of the jerseys and pairs of pants that got the chop with my own two eyes. I still think we should preserve them, but them being in awful shape lets companies like Topps, UD, TriStar, Donruss and formerly Fleer buy them and then authenticate them at cheaper prices and then make a profit off them by the amount of cards they sell. You are at least getting the real deal, though I almost wish you weren't for the sake of baseball history.

"It's like having a 1/4 inch square piece of a 52 Topps Mickey Mantle card, what's the point? (And I'll bet you $100 that the card companies have considered doing that too.)"

No, but some companies buy up older cards, put them into packs with their seal added, and then that somehow exponentially boosts the price for no reason apparent to yours truly (it's as if they've never heard of PSA, BGS, or SGC...). Why cut up the cards when you can make more money just repurchasing them and putting them out in current packs in special plastic cases that cost pennies to injection-mould? Hand me my $100, please...;)

Gary Dunaier

02-08-2008, 09:00 PM

Most of the older jerseys that get cut up are in very poor shape. I can tell you this because I've seen some of the jerseys and pairs of pants that got the chop with my own two eyes.
If this is indeed the case, that the items that are being cut up are not in presentable shape, then I think using them in Relic cards is a fine way of enabling people who might not be able to afford to buy the real thing to at least have a piece of it.

Dalkowski110

02-08-2008, 09:10 PM

It's true in some cases the uncut vintage pieces are in bad shape or are worn...in fact, the majority...but not all. When UD cut up a Joe Jackson bat with the knob broken off, that caused a firestorm because 1) the rest of the bat was fine and 2) well...it's still a Joe Jackson bat. I also saw a jersey of Bucky Dent that UD was going to cut up that looked fine.

steve rogers

02-08-2008, 10:21 PM

But I can with 100% certainty that no company, not even Donruss, faked jersey or bat cards.

Well the issue of authenticity has to be in at least some manner of doubt. Authenticating something like a Joe Jackson bat can be almost impossible. There are exceptions to this such as a side written bat that came from the Louisville Slugger company. Those bats were sent directly to the company by the players to use as a reference when making new bats. From what I know there is only one example of a side written Joe Jackson bat, and it sold for over $200K. Most Joe Jackson bats come from the period after he was banned from the Major Leagues and he was barnstorming (there are only 2 known Joe Jackson bats from his Major League days). Those bats are extremely hard to authenticate. The bats might be attributed to Joe Jackson but very very few of them can be authenticated with 100% certainty. Most are graded under "6" due to a lack of evidence linking the player to the bat. Unless it's a "9" or "10" there is at least some doubt.

Scott

Dalkowski110

02-09-2008, 08:09 AM

Well, think of this. Any given jersey or bat of a vintage player lasts over a year AT LEAST. Check out the print runs. Also, the Jackson bat UD destroyed (an outlaw league bat) was publicized at the time it sold, and was really the turning point even for a lot of GU card people realizing that maybe everything should not be chopped up and put on a baseball card. If there were questions of authenticity, then why the outcry at the time? In fact, when UD defended itself, they claimed there were bats in lesser condition that could have been purchased, but these were more difficult to verify as Jackson bats.

Silver Blaze

04-01-2008, 10:46 AM

steve rogers

04-01-2008, 02:35 PM

I think so long as the Hall of Fame has at least one jersey and bat of all the major players throughout history, there is nothing wrong with cutting up a certain number of items. I make no apologies for it, so long as it's authentic, naturally. Even if the pieces of cloth and bats are only pieces of pieces of history, they were still personally used by that player, and to own such a card of greats like Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Williams, even Honus Wagner or Ty Cobb - I think that really does let people connect with the history of the game in a more personal way, and some of these cards, like the Premier ones that spell out words in jerseys or bats, are really beautiful. Then you have the triple cards with three HOFers on them. That said, sometimes when they mix old and modern players, they don't have a good mix - some of the modern players they use have no business being on the same card as legendary greats.

Have you ever seen the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia? Take a look at the bottom of the bell. It's all jagged and broken. It's like that because souvenir hunters would break off little pieces of it for themselves. The same can be said for countless other historical artifacts. Where would we be if those artifacts weren't protected from people? I'm not saying that a Jimmie Foxx uniform is as important as the Liberty Bell, but they are both of historical importance to a lot of people.

The reason these kind of things need to be protected from people is because it they weren't there would be nothing left. Everyone wants to own a Babe Ruth Jersey but not everyone can have one. And that's OK. Just because 1000's of people want a Ruth jersey doesn't mean we should cut them up into pieces and distribute them to everyone that wants one. You don't need a piece of a uniform to be connected to the history of the game. Every baseball historian I know hates the practice of cutting up vintage memorabilia. If you want to be more connected to the history of the game read some books, don't destroy that history for your own personal satisfaction.

And the idea that as long as there's one jersey of a player left that the others could be destroyed without a sense of loss is ridiculous. Think of it this way, the Hall has a 1932 Ruth jersey, so why not destroy his 1927 jersey, or his 1918 Red Sox jersey. The hall has a 1958 Ted Williams bat so feel free to destroy his 1941 bat. Each of those items has historical importance and they're each unique.

I don't like the fact that many of these items are hoarded in the private collections of the super rich. But I prefer it greatly to having them destroyed for the financial gain of baseball card companies and the selfishness of collectors who have no regard for future generations of baseball fans. I think the public would be much better off having the jerseys and bats distributed across the country in different museums so everyone can see them and appreciate them. I'd like to see a small museum in every major league park.

I think of things like a Babe Ruth jersey or a Ted Williams bat as national heirlooms. These are things that should be preserved for generations of baseball fans to come. Living in a disposable society it's rare that we have something like baseball where people have such a firm grasp of the games history. And I think it is foolish to destroy the artifacts of that history for selfishness and greed.

Scott

flyingdutchdude

04-01-2008, 03:16 PM

Why dont they cut up the Liberty Bell, Mona Lisa, or the Declaration of Independence too?? If these greedy modern card companies keep destroying museum quality historic baseball items there will be none left for out grandkids to see and enjoy.

A piece of unidentifiable wood or cloth in a card is just plain dumb and some of these clowns paying big $$ for them could have just bought the actual bat or jersey for the same $$. Especially the modern players items.

I know that sometimes they use less desirable items such as spring training uniforms or pants and bats broken into pieces, but not all of these were in bad shape before being destroyed forever.

IMO the card hobby took a dive when they stopped with the gum back in the early 80's. The Father of card collecting Jefferson Burdick always said "A true collecting card will always be included FREE with a product or service" 95% of the cards today dont fit that description. The card has a predetermined value even before the pack is opened or the set released. Blame the Price Guides for this.

On top of this is the artificially rare cards such as 1/1's that will never hold value. A card or any collectible needs to become rare naturally over time by having a high % destroyed by use and abuse (ie. vintage comics, toys, stamps, cards, teddy bears, tootsie toys, matchbox cars, barbies, etc.) Anything artificially made rare is a "limited edition" and these will never hold value (ie. Beanie Babies, Franklin Mint items, Collector Plates, Modern Sports Cards etc.). cards in the last 25 years have been hoarded in large amounts and over 99% are still in pristine condition if not unopened. The supply will be too high in the future so the demand will suffer. Supply and demand rules the collecting kingdom. Thats why Vintage cards (PreWWII Paper Drives) will always go up in value.

Kids nowadays dont know what collecting cards is truly about, they look at the $$$ aspect of the hobby and dont actually play with the cards like they were meant to be.

Ok thats my vent for the month of April....... its all IMO

Dalkowski110

04-01-2008, 03:42 PM

"Blame the Price Guides for this."

Actually, before that you blame just about everyone for ruining baseball cards. Let's see, first you start out with modern collectors, which in your mind is anyone who doesn't collect pre-War cards exclusively. Then you blame the card companies. Then you blame the exclusion of gum. Then you get around to blaming the price guides. Everybody's wrong except you, evidently...

"On top of this is the artificially rare cards such as 1/1's that will never hold value."

Can you explain then why they've been doing exactly that despite people like you pining for 1941 to happen all over again predicting the market for them falling apart year after year after year after year with more excuses than pairs of socks as to why last year's prediction didn't work? Thus far, the only cards that have not held value absolutely ripped to shreds by traditionalists are serial numbered cards with the exception of 1/1's and game-used cards. I've read articles from the 1970's saying how rookie cards would be a passing fad and never hold value. Yep, sure. In the 1980's, they were still on rookie cards (although by the mid 1980's and early 1990's, they were genuinely justified). In 1996, when Leaf Signature Series came out, I remember people saying about how autographed cards would never in a million years hold any value. That prediction didn't exactly work out, did it?

Breathe slowly and repeat after me: this is not 1990. We are not overproducing cards in the same volume as we were then.

Incidentally, do I advocate baseball cards of ANY sort as an investment? No. But do I take kindly to everything made post 1941 (damn newfangled 1948 Bowman cards!) being deemed the equivalent of garbage by you on every single one of your lousy rants? No, I do not like that either.

Silver Blaze

04-01-2008, 03:55 PM

Have you ever seen the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia? Take a look at the bottom of the bell.

There's only one Liberty Bell. How many bats did most players use during their careers?

You are entitled to your opinion, but with this "national heirloom" stuff you are laying it on a bit thick. Baseball has a long and rich history, and rightly so, and steps should be made to protect it, but we are not talking about the Constitution here, much as you want to bring irrelevances like the Liberty Bell into the conversation. But think about it - Pat Burrell Phillies bat cards with a piece of the bell in them - they'd sell like hotcakes.

What is the point of keeping twenty Ted Williams jerseys intact? So, as you infer, some super-rich can put one above the den fireplace and never wear it? I'm with the poster who said they like to see some of this stuff - some pieces of these "national heirlooms" - in the hands of ordinary folk. Or are you one of the baseball snobs who look down at the ordinary fan who finds himself increasingly priced out of the market?

Understand something; I am not a philistine, I have a decent amount of respect for the game, but I don't see the argument for preserving every single piece of memorabilia. OK, keeping one jersey for the Hall might be too little, but what I meant was as long as there is at least one, to preserve the history.

I don't have percentages of how much vintage stuff is cut up, but I would be comfortable with up to 25% of each player's jerseys and bats. Put a little piece of history in the hands of those who can't afford $25K for a whole jersey. I know you will disagree, and that's fine, but that's just how I feel.:twocents:

Silver Blaze

04-01-2008, 04:07 PM

"

"On top of this is the artificially rare cards such as 1/1's that will never hold value."

Can you explain then why they've been doing exactly that despite people like you pining for 1941 to happen all over again predicting the market for them falling apart year after year after year after year with more excuses than pairs of socks as to why last year's prediction didn't work?

Slap a jersey piece and autograph on one with a refractor finish and it'll get snapped up with no problem. I see these kinds of cards easily clearing $100 for top players.

I'm kinda glad Fleer and DonRuss are out of the picture. Nothing personal against Fleer (I love the 2001 Showcase design) but you have listed valid concerns with DonRuss. Anyway, at the end of the day the market was getting too crowded with each company putting out multiple brands a year. Also, after a while there are only so many times you can put a player's jersey on a card. Now we have seen the GU card reinvented with auto/bat/jersey or triple/quad jersey pieces, and I give it a big thumbs up.

I do understand that traditionalists come from a set-building background and hate the way the hobby has been taken over by chasing the inserts. That said, some of the sets put out today don't really deserve to be collected, due to thoughtless or boring design. Of course, in the most part they are just an excuse for the GU cards. But at the end of the day, I'd rather have it like it is. Still some great sets put out for the collectors, and GU for the rest of us. It's more exciting opening packs nowadays thinking you could get a GU or 1/1 or even a rare parallel, than just same-old, same-old base cards.

steve rogers

04-01-2008, 04:30 PM

Or are you one of the baseball snobs who look down at the ordinary fan who finds himself increasingly priced out of the market

I am not one of those "snobs". I'm one of those ordinary fans that cannot afford the packs these cards come in let alone the hundreds of dollars a Ruth or Williams memorabilia card costs. I don't appreciate the assumptions you've made.

Right now I'm collecting the 1964 Topps Giants set. Because it's affordable. It will have taken me 4 months to complete the set when I'm done with it. When the total price I've paid is added up it will total less than $150, that's what 3 boxes of 2008 Topps heritage? My next set is 1992 Bowman. I paid $20 for a partial set of about 690 cards then I'll buy the star and rookie cards piece by piece when I can afford them. As you can see I'm really living high on the hog.

Scott

Dalkowski110

04-01-2008, 04:44 PM

Scott,

I would just like to take the time to point out my diatribe (which had been building up a while) was NOT meant for you and I'm not lumping you in with the Luddite I did direct it at. In fact, it was meant for a guy who frowns upon the three sets you're trying to build, including '64 Topps (I swear I've never heard anyone claim that 1952 and 1953 Topps were too plentiful before meeting the poster it WAS directed at).

Silver Blaze

04-01-2008, 05:58 PM

I am not one of those "snobs". I'm one of those ordinary fans that cannot afford the packs these cards come in let alone the hundreds of dollars a Ruth or Williams memorabilia card costs. I don't appreciate the assumptions you've made.

Right now I'm collecting the 1964 Topps Giants set. Because it's affordable. It will have taken me 4 months to complete the set when I'm done with it. When the total price I've paid is added up it will total less than $150, that's what 3 boxes of 2008 Topps heritage? My next set is 1992 Bowman. I paid $20 for a partial set of about 690 cards then I'll buy the star and rookie cards piece by piece when I can afford them. As you can see I'm really living high on the hog.

Scott

I asked if you were someone looking down on the common fan, I didn't say you WERE doing that. OK, fair enough. I agree about the price of boxes and even packs now, some of the latter $10. It's great for those who spend $200 for a box and pull a card worth $250. Not so good for the majority of buyers who drop $250 and pull some minor HOF star card that will be lucky to bring $10. Besides, a lot of these boxes at those kind of prices only have one relic card. That's outrageous, they should have four, given the odds of pulling something way less valuable than the price put in. But I guess the market can bear it as it is.

I don't really have the patience or space for collecting sets, but there are some I would like to have. I'd also like to get a few vintage cards without breaking the bank.

At the end of the day, the hobby is not going to please everyone all the time. Perhaps it's a little bit cyclical and people will come back to collecting sets. Either way, the hobby gives both options, with plenty out there on the secondary market at all price ranges. You need to pick what appeals to you and go with it, and that sounds like what you are doing. Good for you.

EdTarbusz

04-01-2008, 06:46 PM

Silver Blaze

04-01-2008, 07:50 PM

I'm not very interested in, or impressed by tiny swatches of cloth, pieces of wood or autographs, so my interest in GU cards is nil. I prefer sets that I can build for a reasonable price. In general, I am more interested in re-building my sets from the early 70s, rather than anything on today's market.

I suppose building a set gives more of a feeling of accomplishment. The GU stuff is easily mostly about instant gratification fixes - a parallel to how society has changed in general.

Rockhound

04-01-2008, 09:38 PM

If any of you are upset about the whole issue and now want to get rid of all your GU cards, I'll take them off your hands. PM me and I'll give you my address. To be honest, I don't care what gets chopped up and put into cards. It's a great way to get pepole back into collecting and it brings the fans closer to the players. I'm visiting the Baseball Hall of Fame in June so I'll get my "authentic baseball uniform/equiptment fix" there and it'll be there forever.

Dalkowski110

04-02-2008, 12:42 AM

" matchbox cars"

I'm not sure how I overlooked this, but I collected Lesney-manufactured Matchbox cars for a while. Mostly early 1960's, though some 1970's Superfast. As a matter of fact, unless you sell those cars on eBay and are willing to pay a king's ransom for shipping and insurance to the UK, they are a TERRIBLE investment. Let me give you an example...

1962 Lincoln Continental, Turqoise Paint Job. That's the one that's almost impossible to find. The dark blue paint job you can pick up at a flea market. When I got this one (with tattered box), it was worth $75 (circa 1999). If you tried selling that same car for $50 at a toy show today, you'd likely get some weird stares. And no, no extras surfaced. And it's American car (British cars are next to worthless unless they have a box).

The market for Matchbox cars simply deflated slowly between 1990 and 2001 (roughly), then just took a total nosedive. Dinky Toys and Corgi Toys went through the same nosedive about five years earlier. Why the market deflation? Well, Lesney Matchbox, Corgi, and Dinky have always sort of been joined at the hip with model trains (anyone who runs model trains will tell you that they need some scenery).

In Corgi and Dinky's case, it was O Gauge (the kind you run around a Christmas tree...Lionel, MTH, K-Line, Williams, pre-WWII American Flyer, Ives, etc.). As British O Gauge declined in popularity, so did Corgi and Dinky. With OO Gauge (think HO but slightly larger...1/76 to 1/87, but uses the same track), that started to decline in 2000-2001 for various reasons (not available with command & control like a lot of the German HO, ton of other reasons). It took maybe a year, but Lesney Matchbox is going down with it.