Seller listed an Clemens 1985 tiffany psa 10 for a buy it now $3250.00. It was scarfed up. Not sure if he was unaware of current pricing trends or what, but he seemingly left a lot of money on the table.
This isn’t going to end with Tiffany stuff. It will spread to regular issues eventually. Pre 86’ mostly for the foreseeable future. I’m talking rising demand and prices from where they are now. Not to Tiffany level...
@JoeBanzai said:
Certainly appears that some big spenders do not care about the HOF when investing in cards.
I, for one, do not care about the HOF when collecting (I'm not an investor). I love the players I love regardless of what the HOF says. Some of the players I ardently collect will never be in the HOF. They appear, instead, in my childhood hall of fame. That's all that matters to me.
Much like Manny Ramirez are Rafael Palmeiro. I don't think their fanbase cares whether or not they are in the HOF, so it won't make one bit of difference on their card values.
@JoeBanzai said:
Certainly appears that some big spenders do not care about the HOF when investing in cards.
I, for one, do not care about the HOF when collecting (I'm not an investor). I love the players I love regardless of what the HOF says. Some of the players I ardently collect will never be in the HOF. They appear, instead, in my childhood hall of fame. That's all that matters to me.
@craig44 said:
Another 1985 tiffany psa 10 Clemens has sold for $5100.00. Very high prices realized
Investors thinking the card will spike IF he makes the HOF have nothing to do with respect being earned, Typical market frenzy that has bit a lot of people in the butt.
As much as I hate steroid use, it was becoming very common among high school kids (even non-athletes) when I was in high school and that was a long time ago. A lot of people really don't believe the drugs weed out the more sophisticated ped's, so there will always be skepticism about how many players are actually clean. You can't tell by physique. Different steroids have different effects. There have been plenty of juiced cyclists who were far from ripped, and you occasionally hear people involved in major sports say that "only the idiots" get caught by the tests.
The more normalized it gets, the less the Bonds, McGwire's etc will stand out.
@MLBdays said:
Jose Canseco said he injected Pudge Rodriguez with steroid cocktails and they still elected him into the HOF a couple years ago...so its really about letting in PED violators who we still "like" ......
this is correct. wait for the love fest in a few years when david ortiz gets inducted first ballot
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the current pricing is investors/collectors thinking the possible induction in the near future of Bonds and Clemens is imminent, and are buying now before that day arrives. Not sure if values soar more if they get inducted.
Perhaps this was mentioned before, but I never realized the placement of the 1987 OPC Bonds on the sheet. He's located in the lower right corner. That's gotta factor into the cut, right?
Picked this up about six years ago. Think I paid $20. I bought it because it reminded me of my collecting when I was a kid. This one and the 87 Topps Canseco with rookie cup.
@skrezyna23 said:
Picked this up about six years ago. Think I paid $20. I bought it because it reminded me of my collecting when I was a kid. This one and the 87 Topps Canseco with rookie cup.
Nice. Good player that I wish did not retire so soon. Thought he had a real good chance at 3000 hits if stayed in the game.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@skrezyna23 said:
Picked this up about six years ago. Think I paid $20. I bought it because it reminded me of my collecting when I was a kid. This one and the 87 Topps Canseco with rookie cup.
Nice. Good player that I wish did not retire so soon. Thought he had a real good chance at 3000 hits if stayed in the game.
Great player. Underrated. Injuries plagued him in his last years. I guess he could've gone the steroid route. He didn't, and so he fades into obscurity. Well, not my obscurity, that's for sure.
@JoeBanzai said:
Certainly appears that some big spenders do not care about the HOF when investing in cards.
I, for one, do not care about the HOF when collecting (I'm not an investor). I love the players I love regardless of what the HOF says. Some of the players I ardently collect will never be in the HOF. They appear, instead, in my childhood hall of fame. That's all that matters to me.
I'd agree with this. Seriously, does the HOF drive the market any where near where it used to? With entry requirements being watered down and borderline players being admitted, it's slowly becoming less of a factor for collectors. I would argue that Pete Rose is just as popular these days as he's ever been from card collecting perspective and you know he'll never get in unless he buys his own ticket.
People are going to buy who they like and some folks who idealized these players growing up are reaching that stage in life where they have a lot more disposable income then they did when they were kids. Not surprised to see this surge.
@JoeBanzai said:
Certainly appears that some big spenders do not care about the HOF when investing in cards.
I, for one, do not care about the HOF when collecting (I'm not an investor). I love the players I love regardless of what the HOF says. Some of the players I ardently collect will never be in the HOF. They appear, instead, in my childhood hall of fame. That's all that matters to me.
I'd agree with this. Seriously, does the HOF drive the market any where near where it used to? With entry requirements being watered down and borderline players being admitted, it's slowly becoming less of a factor for collectors. I would argue that Pete Rose is just as popular these days as he's ever been from card collecting perspective and you know he'll never get in unless he buys his own ticket.
People are going to buy who they like and some folks who idealized these players growing up are reaching that stage in life where they have a lot more disposable income then they did when they were kids. Not surprised to see this surge.
this is all very true for many collectors, however, the registry is a powerful thing. look at the prices Baines and Lee Smith rookies were getting after election.
Craig, serious question. I recall at one point you were riding David Ortiz pretty hard for suspected PED use and as I recall back then you were decidedly critical of players who chose to use PEDs. I'm curious as to what prompted your change of opinion with regard to this issue.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
Craig, serious question. I recall at one point you were riding David Ortiz pretty hard for suspected PED use and as I recall back then you were decidedly critical of players who chose to use PEDs. I'm curious as to what prompted your change of opinion with regard to this issue.
Well, it is not something that happened overnight. I found that my views on the topic of PED had become hypocritical. I am a pretty voracious reader of baseball books/history and learned over the years that many of the old timers i looked up to back in my youth also used PED to various degrees.
I realize that PED from 50+ years ago may be different than ones used in the 90's. The ones used today are No doubt different than ones used 20 years ago and ones used in 30 years will be different than ones used today. However, the common strain is that they were used to enhance performance. I could not, I good conscience give mays, rose, mantle, Williams etc. A free pass and destroy bonds, mcgwire etc. The technology may have changed, but the intent did not. Players have been looking for an advantage in every era of baseball. I decided I would not be the morality police and damn some players while in the next breath extolling the virtues of other players who intended the same. of
I am a Frank Thomas fan, and I don't believe he ever used PED, but I don't know. It could come out next week that he was a user. I think it would be disingenuous to compare him against Ortiz, and dock Ortiz for PED use when No one but Frank knows if he did or didn't use.
I tend to form my opinions after research and reflection so I usually hold onto those opinions strongly. Not so strongly however that I cannot change my view if presented with solid evidence to the contrary.
As a fan, I don't care. Everybody loved the McGwire/Sosa season or Bonds being unstoppable. It's not the UFC where people could get hurt. It's baseball. So it extends to collecting. If you loved them as a player, you might collect them as well. We are not HOF voters and politics/personality/steroids play a role. That's why these "good" not great players are getting in.
I collect the 70's Steelers and it seems pretty clear steroids were rampant...….I DON'T CARE
@grote15 said:
Craig, serious question. I recall at one point you were riding David Ortiz pretty hard for suspected PED use and as I recall back then you were decidedly critical of players who chose to use PEDs. I'm curious as to what prompted your change of opinion with regard to this issue.
Well, it is not something that happened overnight. I found that my views on the topic of PED had become hypocritical. I am a pretty voracious reader of baseball books/history and learned over the years that many of the old timers i looked up to back in my youth also used PED to various degrees.
I realize that PED from 50+ years ago may be different than ones used in the 90's. The ones used today are No doubt different than ones used 20 years ago and ones used in 30 years will be different than ones used today. However, the common strain is that they were used to enhance performance. I could not, I good conscience give mays, rose, mantle, Williams etc. A free pass and destroy bonds, mcgwire etc. The technology may have changed, but the intent did not. Players have been looking for an advantage in every era of baseball. I decided I would not be the morality police and damn some players while in the next breath extolling the virtues of other players who intended the same. of
I am a Frank Thomas fan, and I don't believe he ever used PED, but I don't know. It could come out next week that he was a user. I think it would be disingenuous to compare him against Ortiz, and dock Ortiz for PED use when No one but Frank knows if he did or didn't use.
I tend to form my opinions after research and reflection so I usually hold onto those opinions strongly. Not so strongly however that I cannot change my view if presented with solid evidence to the contrary.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
Craig, serious question. I recall at one point you were riding David Ortiz pretty hard for suspected PED use and as I recall back then you were decidedly critical of players who chose to use PEDs. I'm curious as to what prompted your change of opinion with regard to this issue.
Well, it is not something that happened overnight. I found that my views on the topic of PED had become hypocritical. I am a pretty voracious reader of baseball books/history and learned over the years that many of the old timers i looked up to back in my youth also used PED to various degrees.
I realize that PED from 50+ years ago may be different than ones used in the 90's. The ones used today are No doubt different than ones used 20 years ago and ones used in 30 years will be different than ones used today. However, the common strain is that they were used to enhance performance. I could not, I good conscience give mays, rose, mantle, Williams etc. A free pass and destroy bonds, mcgwire etc. The technology may have changed, but the intent did not. Players have been looking for an advantage in every era of baseball. I decided I would not be the morality police and damn some players while in the next breath extolling the virtues of other players who intended the same. of
I am a Frank Thomas fan, and I don't believe he ever used PED, but I don't know. It could come out next week that he was a user. I think it would be disingenuous to compare him against Ortiz, and dock Ortiz for PED use when No one but Frank knows if he did or didn't use.
I tend to form my opinions after research and reflection so I usually hold onto those opinions strongly. Not so strongly however that I cannot change my view if presented with solid evidence to the contrary.
Your Babe Ruth 1922 bat witch-hunt is ridiculous though. Trying to qualify that as on par with historical significant cheating has been a hoot lol. Do you chase every dude who put super balls in his bat too?
@grote15 said:
Craig, serious question. I recall at one point you were riding David Ortiz pretty hard for suspected PED use and as I recall back then you were decidedly critical of players who chose to use PEDs. I'm curious as to what prompted your change of opinion with regard to this issue.
Well, it is not something that happened overnight. I found that my views on the topic of PED had become hypocritical. I am a pretty voracious reader of baseball books/history and learned over the years that many of the old timers i looked up to back in my youth also used PED to various degrees.
I realize that PED from 50+ years ago may be different than ones used in the 90's. The ones used today are No doubt different than ones used 20 years ago and ones used in 30 years will be different than ones used today. However, the common strain is that they were used to enhance performance. I could not, I good conscience give mays, rose, mantle, Williams etc. A free pass and destroy bonds, mcgwire etc. The technology may have changed, but the intent did not. Players have been looking for an advantage in every era of baseball. I decided I would not be the morality police and damn some players while in the next breath extolling the virtues of other players who intended the same. of
I am a Frank Thomas fan, and I don't believe he ever used PED, but I don't know. It could come out next week that he was a user. I think it would be disingenuous to compare him against Ortiz, and dock Ortiz for PED use when No one but Frank knows if he did or didn't use.
I tend to form my opinions after research and reflection so I usually hold onto those opinions strongly. Not so strongly however that I cannot change my view if presented with solid evidence to the contrary.
Your Babe Ruth 1922 bat stuff is ridiculous though. Trying to qualify that as on par with historical significant cheating has been a hoot lol. Do you chase every dude who put super balls in his bat too?
@grote15 said:
Craig, serious question. I recall at one point you were riding David Ortiz pretty hard for suspected PED use and as I recall back then you were decidedly critical of players who chose to use PEDs. I'm curious as to what prompted your change of opinion with regard to this issue.
Well, it is not something that happened overnight. I found that my views on the topic of PED had become hypocritical. I am a pretty voracious reader of baseball books/history and learned over the years that many of the old timers i looked up to back in my youth also used PED to various degrees.
I realize that PED from 50+ years ago may be different than ones used in the 90's. The ones used today are No doubt different than ones used 20 years ago and ones used in 30 years will be different than ones used today. However, the common strain is that they were used to enhance performance. I could not, I good conscience give mays, rose, mantle, Williams etc. A free pass and destroy bonds, mcgwire etc. The technology may have changed, but the intent did not. Players have been looking for an advantage in every era of baseball. I decided I would not be the morality police and damn some players while in the next breath extolling the virtues of other players who intended the same. of
I am a Frank Thomas fan, and I don't believe he ever used PED, but I don't know. It could come out next week that he was a user. I think it would be disingenuous to compare him against Ortiz, and dock Ortiz for PED use when No one but Frank knows if he did or didn't use.
I tend to form my opinions after research and reflection so I usually hold onto those opinions strongly. Not so strongly however that I cannot change my view if presented with solid evidence to the contrary.
Your Babe Ruth 1922 bat stuff is ridiculous though. Trying to qualify that as on par with historical significant cheating has been a hoot lol. Do you chase every dude who put super balls in his bat too?
Was Ruth cheating?
Can you tell the difference between a lit match and a forest fire?
Is a little cheating ok? How about big time cheating, just a few games a week? What about a medium degree of cheating? See how slippery your slope gets
@grote15 said:
Craig, serious question. I recall at one point you were riding David Ortiz pretty hard for suspected PED use and as I recall back then you were decidedly critical of players who chose to use PEDs. I'm curious as to what prompted your change of opinion with regard to this issue.
Well, it is not something that happened overnight. I found that my views on the topic of PED had become hypocritical. I am a pretty voracious reader of baseball books/history and learned over the years that many of the old timers i looked up to back in my youth also used PED to various degrees.
I realize that PED from 50+ years ago may be different than ones used in the 90's. The ones used today are No doubt different than ones used 20 years ago and ones used in 30 years will be different than ones used today. However, the common strain is that they were used to enhance performance. I could not, I good conscience give mays, rose, mantle, Williams etc. A free pass and destroy bonds, mcgwire etc. The technology may have changed, but the intent did not. Players have been looking for an advantage in every era of baseball. I decided I would not be the morality police and damn some players while in the next breath extolling the virtues of other players who intended the same. of
I am a Frank Thomas fan, and I don't believe he ever used PED, but I don't know. It could come out next week that he was a user. I think it would be disingenuous to compare him against Ortiz, and dock Ortiz for PED use when No one but Frank knows if he did or didn't use.
I tend to form my opinions after research and reflection so I usually hold onto those opinions strongly. Not so strongly however that I cannot change my view if presented with solid evidence to the contrary.
Your Babe Ruth 1922 bat stuff is ridiculous though. Trying to qualify that as on par with historical significant cheating has been a hoot lol. Do you chase every dude who put super balls in his bat too?
Was Ruth cheating?
Can you tell the difference between a lit match and a forest fire?
I’m sorry to derail this thread but I’ll fight tooth and nail in defense of Babe Ruth all day every day. Craig’s position on a bat Ruth was using for a 4 week period in 1922 is one of the most ridiculous angles I’ve come across.
You compare this 4 week Ruth bat event in 1922 as equal to say a Mark McGwire fueling up his body over many seasons. Because it’s cheating it’s all the same lol. Thats flat out lunacy. You are clueless.
Babe Ruth ate, smoked, and drank his way to a sure early death. Not in any sane world would his career long behavior be described as cheating the integrity of the game of baseball. But for one 4 week blip in 1922 doctoring a bat puts him on that same level of a cheat as say Mark McGwire & company? LOL
@softparade said:
Babe Ruth ate, smoked, and drank his way to a sure early death. Not in any sane world would his career long behavior be described as cheating the integrity of the game of baseball. But for one 4 week blip in 1922 doctoring a bat puts him on that same level of a cheat as say Mark McGwire & company? LOL
I would love to discuss Ruth with you further, but I really want to keep this thread more focused to its original intent. If you want to talk more about ruth, why don't you open a new thread over in sports talk and we will do so.
Sounds like a lot of speculators are possibly driving the price up. I can think of A LOT of better cardboard investments for $3,000 than a 1987 card of anybody.
@craig44 said:
Very strong prices realized for me Bonds lately: PSA 10 1987 OPC $3100.00. BGS 10, $3550.00
86 TT: BGS 10 $3606.00. PSA 10 $2659.00 four more PSA 10's sold North of $2275.00
Ugh.
I bought a sealed 86 TT Tiffany set hoping to pull a nice Bo Jackson and Bonds in 2011 or so. I think the Bonds PSA 9 I sold is at least four times what I sold it for but to think you could have bought PSA 10's for $400 all day and they are now north of 2k is amazing.
The 86 Bo Tiffany was $250 at the time and I wanted to try and sub one. Unfortunately got the print line version and it graded a 6. Still have that one. A few years later the Bo went to over 3k. It is amazing how much card prices can expand.
@craig44 said:
Wow! I haven't been keeping track of Bo pricing trends. $3000 for the TT Tiffany is incredible. I have a few version but it would never 10.
I think the 1986 topps Tiffany and the 1984 fleer update are the greatest sets of the 1980s! I am glad to see the topps Tiffany set finally getting some price appreciation with its attention.
Comments
Seller listed an Clemens 1985 tiffany psa 10 for a buy it now $3250.00. It was scarfed up. Not sure if he was unaware of current pricing trends or what, but he seemingly left a lot of money on the table.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This isn’t going to end with Tiffany stuff. It will spread to regular issues eventually. Pre 86’ mostly for the foreseeable future. I’m talking rising demand and prices from where they are now. Not to Tiffany level...
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Certainly appears that some big spenders do not care about the HOF when investing in cards.
I, for one, do not care about the HOF when collecting (I'm not an investor). I love the players I love regardless of what the HOF says. Some of the players I ardently collect will never be in the HOF. They appear, instead, in my childhood hall of fame. That's all that matters to me.
Andy
Much like Manny Ramirez are Rafael Palmeiro. I don't think their fanbase cares whether or not they are in the HOF, so it won't make one bit of difference on their card values.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
Arthur
Investors thinking the card will spike IF he makes the HOF have nothing to do with respect being earned, Typical market frenzy that has bit a lot of people in the butt.
1985 Tiffany Clemens PSA 10 ebay auction ended last night.
winning bid $6766.00.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As much as I hate steroid use, it was becoming very common among high school kids (even non-athletes) when I was in high school and that was a long time ago. A lot of people really don't believe the drugs weed out the more sophisticated ped's, so there will always be skepticism about how many players are actually clean. You can't tell by physique. Different steroids have different effects. There have been plenty of juiced cyclists who were far from ripped, and you occasionally hear people involved in major sports say that "only the idiots" get caught by the tests.
The more normalized it gets, the less the Bonds, McGwire's etc will stand out.
this is correct. wait for the love fest in a few years when david ortiz gets inducted first ballot
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the current pricing is investors/collectors thinking the possible induction in the near future of Bonds and Clemens is imminent, and are buying now before that day arrives. Not sure if values soar more if they get inducted.
1986 topps traded tiffany PSA 10 bonds sold for $1750.00 by PWCC jan 30
1987 OPC Bonds PSA 10 sold for $2100.00 Jan 25
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Perhaps this was mentioned before, but I never realized the placement of the 1987 OPC Bonds on the sheet. He's located in the lower right corner. That's gotta factor into the cut, right?
Andy
1985 TT Mcgwire PSA 10 up from auction by PWCC. four days left at $2650.00. I would imagine it will end somewhere around $4000.00
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
5 different 86 TT Bonds have sold for north of $2000 since mid feb.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Time heals all wounds.
Picked this up about six years ago. Think I paid $20. I bought it because it reminded me of my collecting when I was a kid. This one and the 87 Topps Canseco with rookie cup.
Nice. Good player that I wish did not retire so soon. Thought he had a real good chance at 3000 hits if stayed in the game.
Great player. Underrated. Injuries plagued him in his last years. I guess he could've gone the steroid route. He didn't, and so he fades into obscurity. Well, not my obscurity, that's for sure.
Andy
There is a cool red line variation to the donruss greenwell rookie. Always wanted it as a kid.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The 1985 TT psa 10 Mcgwire sold for $4550.00. Very solid price
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't respect any of the one's that were caught using. And they should NOT be in the HOF.
I'd agree with this. Seriously, does the HOF drive the market any where near where it used to? With entry requirements being watered down and borderline players being admitted, it's slowly becoming less of a factor for collectors. I would argue that Pete Rose is just as popular these days as he's ever been from card collecting perspective and you know he'll never get in unless he buys his own ticket.
People are going to buy who they like and some folks who idealized these players growing up are reaching that stage in life where they have a lot more disposable income then they did when they were kids. Not surprised to see this surge.
this is all very true for many collectors, however, the registry is a powerful thing. look at the prices Baines and Lee Smith rookies were getting after election.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
wow, nice run of Tiffany rookies!! I think both Tiffany and 90ś players in general are getting a good run up in the hobby
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Very strong prices realized for me Bonds lately: PSA 10 1987 OPC $3100.00. BGS 10, $3550.00
86 TT: BGS 10 $3606.00. PSA 10 $2659.00 four more PSA 10's sold North of $2275.00
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Craig, serious question. I recall at one point you were riding David Ortiz pretty hard for suspected PED use and as I recall back then you were decidedly critical of players who chose to use PEDs. I'm curious as to what prompted your change of opinion with regard to this issue.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Apparently people don't care too much about steroid use. Personally, I don't either. I loved watching these players. Just my 2 cents.
Well, it is not something that happened overnight. I found that my views on the topic of PED had become hypocritical. I am a pretty voracious reader of baseball books/history and learned over the years that many of the old timers i looked up to back in my youth also used PED to various degrees.
I realize that PED from 50+ years ago may be different than ones used in the 90's. The ones used today are No doubt different than ones used 20 years ago and ones used in 30 years will be different than ones used today. However, the common strain is that they were used to enhance performance. I could not, I good conscience give mays, rose, mantle, Williams etc. A free pass and destroy bonds, mcgwire etc. The technology may have changed, but the intent did not. Players have been looking for an advantage in every era of baseball. I decided I would not be the morality police and damn some players while in the next breath extolling the virtues of other players who intended the same. of
I am a Frank Thomas fan, and I don't believe he ever used PED, but I don't know. It could come out next week that he was a user. I think it would be disingenuous to compare him against Ortiz, and dock Ortiz for PED use when No one but Frank knows if he did or didn't use.
I tend to form my opinions after research and reflection so I usually hold onto those opinions strongly. Not so strongly however that I cannot change my view if presented with solid evidence to the contrary.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As a fan, I don't care. Everybody loved the McGwire/Sosa season or Bonds being unstoppable. It's not the UFC where people could get hurt. It's baseball. So it extends to collecting. If you loved them as a player, you might collect them as well. We are not HOF voters and politics/personality/steroids play a role. That's why these "good" not great players are getting in.
I collect the 70's Steelers and it seems pretty clear steroids were rampant...….I DON'T CARE
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Your Babe Ruth 1922 bat witch-hunt is ridiculous though. Trying to qualify that as on par with historical significant cheating has been a hoot lol. Do you chase every dude who put super balls in his bat too?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Was Ruth cheating?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Can you tell the difference between a lit match and a forest fire?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Is a little cheating ok? How about big time cheating, just a few games a week? What about a medium degree of cheating? See how slippery your slope gets
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Answer the question
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I’m sorry to derail this thread but I’ll fight tooth and nail in defense of Babe Ruth all day every day. Craig’s position on a bat Ruth was using for a 4 week period in 1922 is one of the most ridiculous angles I’ve come across.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Deflecting....
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Craig, streaking > @craig44 said:
You compare this 4 week Ruth bat event in 1922 as equal to say a Mark McGwire fueling up his body over many seasons. Because it’s cheating it’s all the same lol. Thats flat out lunacy. You are clueless.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Babe Ruth ate, smoked, and drank his way to a sure early death. Not in any sane world would his career long behavior be described as cheating the integrity of the game of baseball. But for one 4 week blip in 1922 doctoring a bat puts him on that same level of a cheat as say Mark McGwire & company? LOL
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I would love to discuss Ruth with you further, but I really want to keep this thread more focused to its original intent. If you want to talk more about ruth, why don't you open a new thread over in sports talk and we will do so.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Back to cardboard, it is amazing that the 87 OPC bonds has crossed the $3000 threshold. It is truly an extremely condition sensitive card
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Sounds like a lot of speculators are possibly driving the price up. I can think of A LOT of better cardboard investments for $3,000 than a 1987 card of anybody.
Ugh.
I bought a sealed 86 TT Tiffany set hoping to pull a nice Bo Jackson and Bonds in 2011 or so. I think the Bonds PSA 9 I sold is at least four times what I sold it for but to think you could have bought PSA 10's for $400 all day and they are now north of 2k is amazing.
The 86 Bo Tiffany was $250 at the time and I wanted to try and sub one. Unfortunately got the print line version and it graded a 6. Still have that one. A few years later the Bo went to over 3k. It is amazing how much card prices can expand.
Wow! I haven't been keeping track of Bo pricing trends. $3000 for the TT Tiffany is incredible. I have a few version but it would never 10.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This one went for $2,500 so they have come down some from the peak but still ten times what it was.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-Topps-Traded-Tiffany-50T-Bo-Jackson-Royals-RC-Rookie-PSA-10-GEM-MINT/382810389446?epid=97288699&hash=item592146fbc6:g:ZTYAAOSw9m9cdZmw
I think the 1986 topps Tiffany and the 1984 fleer update are the greatest sets of the 1980s! I am glad to see the topps Tiffany set finally getting some price appreciation with its attention.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies