Collectors of baseball cards striking out

[whomerjay]

Mind you, I don't purport to be a collector, though I've probably bought about 1000-1500+ vintage sports cards over the last 5 years, it seems like the only action price-wise in sports cards is at the uber high grades or chase cards....when your nice, but not perfect, HOFer cards from the mid-70's are essentially worthless that cannot be a good sign for the hobby.

 

Or is this more an indictment of even mid-70's cards being too plentifull?

 

IMO, yes, and the effect grading has on non -UHG collectibles.

[TheShadowKnows]

If I ever get back into card collecting I'll likely stick to baseball and hockey, predominantly 1940's-1969 and mostly HOFers only maybe sprinkled in with some other personal favorites.

 

That's what I hate about sport card collectors these days - the collecting of only the stars. When it came to collecting cards as a kid, I was a completist. I went after the whole set, and that's still the way I think it should be.

 

Look at these and tell me they aren't beautiful looking cards.

 

 

 

My personal favorite, best looking cards ever produced IMO, 1956 Topps

 

 

 

I love the 1955 Topps set with the Willie Mays (although not as much as the 1954 one), but I don't like the 1956 set with the Ted Williams at all.

 

My five favourite Topps baseball sets are the 1954, 1959, 1960, 1963 and 1965, Different strokes for different folks i guess....

 

No love for the 53 bowman color?

[Hepcat]

The only Bowman sports cards I really like are the 1955 football. Here's a picture of one I lifted off the web:

 

 

The Topps baseball cards I just don't like from a design standpoint are the 1952, 1953, 1956, 1961 and 1964. And that's just as well. A cat can't collect everything, and the 1952 and 1953 sets contain some very expensive cards.

 

 

[Aces]

Grading

 

Modern Cards BGS (Beckett Grading Services)

Vintage PSA (They won't grade lazer cut sheets which is a huge +)

 

 

Unless it's T206...

[arexcrooke]

If I ever get back into card collecting I'll likely stick to baseball and hockey, predominantly 1940's-1969 and mostly HOFers only maybe sprinkled in with some other personal favorites.

 

That's what I hate about sport card collectors these days - the collecting of only the stars. When it came to collecting cards as a kid, I was a completist. I went after the whole set, and that's still the way I think it should be.

 

Look at these and tell me they aren't beautiful looking cards.

 

 

 

My personal favorite, best looking cards ever produced IMO, 1956 Topps

 

 

 

I love the 1955 Topps set with the Willie Mays (although not as much as the 1954 one), but I don't like the 1956 set with the Ted Williams at all.

 

My five favourite Topps baseball sets are the 1954, 1959, 1960, 1963 and 1965, Different strokes for different folks i guess....

 

No love for the 53 bowman color?

Those are some of the most beautiful cards ever made. Simple. Elegant. Beautiful

[Hepcat]

How about these 1954 Topps baseball cards then?

 

 

[whomerjay]

If I ever get back into card collecting I'll likely stick to baseball and hockey, predominantly 1940's-1969 and mostly HOFers only maybe sprinkled in with some other personal favorites.

 

That's what I hate about sport card collectors these days - the collecting of only the stars. When it came to collecting cards as a kid, I was a completist. I went after the whole set, and that's still the way I think it should be.

 

Look at these and tell me they aren't beautiful looking cards.

 

 

 

My personal favorite, best looking cards ever produced IMO, 1956 Topps

 

 

 

I love the 1955 Topps set with the Willie Mays (although not as much as the 1954 one), but I don't like the 1956 set with the Ted Williams at all.

 

My five favourite Topps baseball sets are the 1954, 1959, 1960, 1963 and 1965, Different strokes for different folks i guess....

 

No love for the 53 bowman color?

Those are some of the most beautiful cards ever made. Simple. Elegant. Beautiful

 

53B was THE set before the mania over 52T, which few cared about until all the pub over the Mantle Rookie.

 

I remember buying my high grade 53B Pee Wee Reese, which in baseball card collecting compares to a Surfer #4 as an example of great art and beauty.

[whomerjay]

How about these 1954 Topps baseball cards then?

 

 

 

IMO all cards '50-'56 are sweet, with 54B bringing up the rear.

[the blob]

I was always under the [mis?]impression that perhaps some of the topps higher #s were short printed, but looking at ebay results for a random sampling of PSA 9s it seems that prices attained are perhaps very card specific and not just about star power. Are there some cards that are just "harder" to find in PSA 9 (and a psa census to back it up?). For example, a 75 topps Nettles (#160) goes for $19.95 and then a horacio pina (139) goes for $148. I've never heard of Pina, Nettles was almost a HOFer. The numbering is pretty close. Is Pina (and jose cardenal (#15)..admitttedly a decent player -- $140, borgmann (127) - $255, Driessen (133) - $163) a notoriously short-printed card? (I'm guessing no on Pina given a PSA 8 commands about $5-$8, Cardenal is about $12, Borgman is $10, ) Just impossible to get in psa 9? If short-printed, does Becketts point that out or is it just something that has become apparent via PSA? Or the MVP duo cards...#208 Powell/Bench is $328, most of the others in the 190s/200s other than the Mantle/Newcombe are $20-$40 or so. Is the Powell card rarer?

 

Sorry if this sounds naive, I really do just buy these vintage cards for fun and for names I've heard of and almost never spend more than $1 each.

[october]

How about these 1954 Topps baseball cards then?

 

 

 

IMO all cards '50-'56 are sweet, with 54B bringing up the rear.

 

There are a lot of great sets out there, but my all-time favorite sports cards will always be the 55 All-American. Beautiful, I have loved them ever since I was a kid, staring at my dad's set. He had many, including early 60s Topps, etc, but these definitely stood out. Great design, love the school emblem and the black and white picture in the background.

 

 

 

[jools&jim]

 

Like most '70s kids, I was a baseball fan (Pirates first, and then, later, the Phillies), and bought my fair share of baseball cards. But I was never a collector...I'd buy a few packs, chew the gum, look at the cards, pull out the players and teams I liked and rubber band them together, and then toss them into a shoebox. God only knows where they all went.

 

Every now and then, I'll flip through some cards at a dealer's table at a flea market, chuckle at the big 'fros, long hair, and funky mustaches, and think..."it would be cool to have some of these again, maybe put together a team set of the '79 Bucs or the '76 Phillies, just for laughs."

 

But given what little I know and have read about the hobby in the '80s and '90s, the whole enterprise just seems to me--fairly or not--to be irreparably tainted, to the point where I'd feel like I was getting ripped off no matter what I spent (unless it was like 5 or 10-cents apiece).

 

Is it just me, or does the hobby have a PR problem?

 

[originalisbest]

I was always under the [mis?]impression that perhaps some of the topps higher #s were short printed, but looking at ebay results for a random sampling of PSA 9s it seems that prices attained are perhaps very card specific and not just about star power. Are there some cards that are just "harder" to find in PSA 9 (and a psa census to back it up?). For example, a 75 topps Nettles (#160) goes for $19.95 and then a horacio pina (139) goes for $148. I've never heard of Pina, Nettles was almost a HOFer. The numbering is pretty close. Is Pina (and jose cardenal (#15)..admitttedly a decent player -- $140, borgmann (127) - $255, Driessen (133) - $163) a notoriously short-printed card? (I'm guessing no on Pina given a PSA 8 commands about $5-$8, Cardenal is about $12, Borgman is $10, ) Just impossible to get in psa 9? If short-printed, does Becketts point that out or is it just something that has become apparent via PSA? Or the MVP duo cards...#208 Powell/Bench is $328, most of the others in the 190s/200s other than the Mantle/Newcombe are $20-$40 or so. Is the Powell card rarer?

 

Sorry if this sounds naive, I really do just buy these vintage cards for fun and for names I've heard of and almost never spend more than $1 each.

 

Not at all naive, haven't much time for a proper reply now, but will later! Basically your observation about a perfect card of an unknown major leaguer is dead on, its driven by set registry mentality, with people (some with deep pockets) in competition to collect certified "perfect" examples for a given set. Some cards will turn out to be pretty difficult to impossible to find without some sort of inherent flaw -- their certified population remains low -- and demand for the few perfect extant examples drives prices up.

 

Overall, mid 70s cards are extremely plentiful, with some exceptions, and basically starting with '71s and back, you'll see stronger prices for cards approaching perfection. To take an example, a '65 topps Carlton rookie in very collectible PSA 6 grade, is notably cheaper than it was a few years ago; but the same card in a PSA 9 would garner a very strong and growing price still.

 

Another example I can think of is a 1960 topps set -- a very nice one, with a typical range of cards in VG-EX to EX-MT and a few in NM, with the stars all at least decent, could try to find a price anywhere from $1800-$3000, depending on the balance of grades. A few years ago, some registry set owner sold his 1960 topps set, with nothing lower than PSA 8, about 30% of the set in PSA 9, and 3 perfect PSA 10s, including the only PSA 10 '60 Koufax, sold for better than $225,000. Grade makes quite a difference!

[originalisbest]

Like most '70s kids, I was a baseball fan (Pirates first, and then, later, the Phillies), and bought my fair share of baseball cards. But I was never a collector...I'd buy a few packs, chew the gum, look at the cards, pull out the players and teams I liked and rubber band them together, and then toss them into a shoebox. God only knows where they all went.

 

Every now and then, I'll flip through some cards at a dealer's table at a flea market, chuckle at the big 'fros, long hair, and funky mustaches, and think..."it would be cool to have some of these again, maybe put together a team set of the '79 Bucs or the '76 Phillies, just for laughs."

 

But given what little I know and have read about the hobby in the '80s and '90s, the whole enterprise just seems to me--fairly or not--to be irreparably tainted, to the point where I'd feel like I was getting ripped off no matter what I spent (unless it was like 5 or 10-cents apiece).

 

Is it just me, or does the hobby have a PR problem?

 

It may well have a PR problem, but no reason to let that stop you from putting together a team set of '79 Bucs or '76 Phils, especially if they amuse you, it would be fun, and certainly can be cheap (unless some random card you want in PSA 9 is a registry rarity -- but if so, just seek out a PSA 7 or 8 and cost should be no problem.)

[originalisbest]

How about these 1954 Topps baseball cards then?

 

 

 

IMO all cards '50-'56 are sweet, with 54B bringing up the rear.

 

There are a lot of great sets out there, but my all-time favorite sports cards will always be the 55 All-American. Beautiful, I have loved them ever since I was a kid, staring at my dad's set. He had many, including early 60s Topps, etc, but these definitely stood out. Great design, love the school emblem and the black and white picture in the background.

 

 

 

 

All-americans rock! Love them, and '54 Topps too for that matter (very colorful) but I still like '56 Topps too! As Hepcat notes, something for everyone.

[HOTFLIPS]

Like most '70s kids, I was a baseball fan (Pirates first, and then, later, the Phillies), and bought my fair share of baseball cards. But I was never a collector...I'd buy a few packs, chew the gum, look at the cards, pull out the players and teams I liked and rubber band them together, and then toss them into a shoebox. God only knows where they all went.

 

Every now and then, I'll flip through some cards at a dealer's table at a flea market, chuckle at the big 'fros, long hair, and funky mustaches, and think..."it would be cool to have some of these again, maybe put together a team set of the '79 Bucs or the '76 Phillies, just for laughs."

 

But given what little I know and have read about the hobby in the '80s and '90s, the whole enterprise just seems to me--fairly or not--to be irreparably tainted, to the point where I'd feel like I was getting ripped off no matter what I spent (unless it was like 5 or 10-cents apiece).

 

Is it just me, or does the hobby have a PR problem?

 

PR problem or not, it comes to the old adage, even with comics. Collect what you love, love what you collect. If you like the 79 Pirates, then collect them. And thanks for taking A.J. Burnett from us Yankees.

[Tatterdamillion]

It's funny how people praise the inherent value of collecting comics because it's "art" whereas other collectibles are simply soulless with no intrinsic value. If one reads these boards, discusssion about comics is primarily about what they are worth and the dynamics of the comics business. In the minority are discussions about story lines and art. Alternatively, baseball cards tend to provoke analytic discussions of players' personalities, abilities, accomplishments/anecdotes, and the game itself that tap the nostalgia button much harder and more frequently than do musings over comics. The fact that baseball cards are about real people is not just a liability that can drive the price of a card down, it's something that makes the hobby relevant and worthwhile, and IMO more rewarding. Personally, I find a discussion as to whether Williams was better than DiMaggio more relevant, valuable, and worthwhile than one that ponders whether Spiderman could beat Batman in a fight.

 

And BTW, IMO baseball has stimulated the production of "art" that is arguably much better than anything comics have produced. I do, however, acknowledge and respect contrary opinions here, and admit to enjoying much about comics and the hobby. But some of the comments here about baseball and baseball card collecting are, as Arex says, "so wrong I don't even know where to start."

 

I agree. On the way to legend is a video on YouTube chronicling how Lionel Messi went from being an ordinary boy to a legend.

 

ESPN and the era of reproducing highlights for immediate sport fan glory and global syndication might well have saturated our appreciation for the extraordinary feats achieved by this generation of athletes.

 

Watch this video and tell me Messi hasn't been painting his masterpiece every time he steps on the pitch:

 

 

I have to say I disagree with this opinion in large. I do not claim to know a whole lot about baseball cards though I did collect them as a kid. My point of contention is the statement that cards are more "art" than comics. If you take the most sought comic vs. card or even average comic vs. card, there is one major difference. The baseball player exists regardless of the card existing and while the card can incite conversation, memories, stat checking, etc. which I myself value, the card is a sign post pointing towards the player. I don't think it is the same when discussing lets say the first appearance of Catwoman or whoever. Someone took paper to pencil and drew and wrote a story. Cultural icons, mythology and religion have been created in largely the same manner. It's all about the story son. So as far as "artistic" value I would be hard pressed to side that baseball cards are more art than comics, if but for that reason alone. Not to mention there actually being art. I do remember some baseball cards back in the day with drawn images of the players, maybe called Diamond Masters or some such. Alan Trammel!

[whomerjay]

Like most '70s kids, I was a baseball fan (Pirates first, and then, later, the Phillies), and bought my fair share of baseball cards. But I was never a collector...I'd buy a few packs, chew the gum, look at the cards, pull out the players and teams I liked and rubber band them together, and then toss them into a shoebox. God only knows where they all went.

 

Every now and then, I'll flip through some cards at a dealer's table at a flea market, chuckle at the big 'fros, long hair, and funky mustaches, and think..."it would be cool to have some of these again, maybe put together a team set of the '79 Bucs or the '76 Phillies, just for laughs."

 

But given what little I know and have read about the hobby in the '80s and '90s, the whole enterprise just seems to me--fairly or not--to be irreparably tainted, to the point where I'd feel like I was getting ripped off no matter what I spent (unless it was like 5 or 10-cents apiece).

 

Is it just me, or does the hobby have a PR problem?

 

reminds me of George shopping for a car in Seinfeld.

 

The hobby has a PR problem, just like comics, maybe not as bad as coinies, in that there's been enough unethical dealers and dealings to make customers gun shy or overly suspicious. But if buying cheap stuff, the risk is reduced.

[whomerjay]

It's funny how people praise the inherent value of collecting comics because it's "art" whereas other collectibles are simply soulless with no intrinsic value. If one reads these boards, discusssion about comics is primarily about what they are worth and the dynamics of the comics business. In the minority are discussions about story lines and art. Alternatively, baseball cards tend to provoke analytic discussions of players' personalities, abilities, accomplishments/anecdotes, and the game itself that tap the nostalgia button much harder and more frequently than do musings over comics. The fact that baseball cards are about real people is not just a liability that can drive the price of a card down, it's something that makes the hobby relevant and worthwhile, and IMO more rewarding. Personally, I find a discussion as to whether Williams was better than DiMaggio more relevant, valuable, and worthwhile than one that ponders whether Spiderman could beat Batman in a fight.

 

And BTW, IMO baseball has stimulated the production of "art" that is arguably much better than anything comics have produced. I do, however, acknowledge and respect contrary opinions here, and admit to enjoying much about comics and the hobby. But some of the comments here about baseball and baseball card collecting are, as Arex says, "so wrong I don't even know where to start."

 

I agree. On the way to legend is a video on YouTube chronicling how Lionel Messi went from being an ordinary boy to a legend.

 

ESPN and the era of reproducing highlights for immediate sport fan glory and global syndication might well have saturated our appreciation for the extraordinary feats achieved by this generation of athletes.

 

Watch this video and tell me Messi hasn't been painting his masterpiece every time he steps on the pitch:

 

 

I have to say I disagree with this opinion in large. I do not claim to know a whole lot about baseball cards though I did collect them as a kid. My point of contention is the statement that cards are more "art" than comics. If you take the most sought comic vs. card or even average comic vs. card, there is one major difference. The baseball player exists regardless of the card existing and while the card can incite conversation, memories, stat checking, etc. which I myself value, the card is a sign post pointing towards the player. I don't think it is the same when discussing lets say the first appearance of Catwoman or whoever. Someone took paper to pencil and drew and wrote a story. Cultural icons, mythology and religion have been created in largely the same manner. It's all about the story son. So as far as "artistic" value I would be hard pressed to side that baseball cards are more art than comics, if but for that reason alone. Not to mention there actually being art. I do remember some baseball cards back in the day with drawn images of the players, maybe called Diamond Masters or some such. Alan Trammel!

 

 

Didn't say that. Said baseball has stimulated the production of "art" that is arguably much better than anything comics have produced. E.g., I consider the work of Kahn, Angell, and Malumud much better "art" than that produced by McFarlane, Kirby, any comic writer or artist. Others might disagree, and it's a fairly subjective argument. But my original point here it's BS to dismiss other collectibles as inferior to comics because comics are "art" and others aren't.

[Hepcat]

I was always under the [mis?]impression that perhaps some of the topps higher #s were short printed....

 

Topps baseball cards were printed in series of 88 cards in the fifties and through at least the mid-sixties. The last series was indeed short printed compared with the earlier ones, quite simply because most kids had lost interest by then so had stopped buying!

 

Worse yet, retailers would end up over ordering the first few series and would then end up stuck with a box of unsold packs. Until that box was sold, they wouldn't order any more cards, meaning the subsequent series. So in my neck of the woods, a kid couldn't even find any cards beyond the third series (#264) for several straight years from 1962 onward! Very frustrating!

 

If you check the pricing in the catalogue of a large dealer such as Kit Young Cards, the relative scarcity of the high numbers is reflected in higher asking prices.

 

[Hepcat]

All-americans rock! Love them, and '54 Topps too for that matter (very colorful) but I still like '56 Topps too! As Hepcat notes, something for everyone.

 

If you back me into a corner, these are my three favourite sports card sets for a combination of aesthetic reasons and nostalgia:

 

1958-59 Topps Hockey

 

 

My own:

 

 

1959 Baseball

 

 

My own:

 

 

 

1959 CFL

 

My own: