Popularity of set Collecting and low pop commons
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,888 ✭✭✭✭✭
I think we’re all aware that set collecting is less popular than it used to be and that low pop commons from the 60s and 70s have come down in price in the last decade.
But is it reaching the point where all but the lowest pop commons are not even regarded as special? To my surprise I just bought a nice PSA 9 of a card from the toughest 6% of the 1978 set for $13.99 from 4SC, no less. Looking at recent sales for some of these tough commons, there are certainly fewer sales, but the sales that there are don’t seem too robust at all.
0
Comments
Low pop commons are for suckers in my opinion, I remember years ago this guy spent over $7,000 for a no name common in PSA 8 and I called him out on it and got blasted by everyone, that same card can be had for well under a grand now
I think some set collectors have moved to raw on the commons due to storage space. Slabbed sets take up a lot of room.
For most of my sets (other than 1972) I have gone to a mix of raw and graded, mostly because I have a lot of commons I am happy with, but it’s no longer financially worth it to submit them. On the other hand, sometimes I see graded cards I really like also. So I just buy cards I like, whether raw or graded.
I'm trying to make up for the lack of other people collecting sets all by myself, but the only graded set I am collecting is 71T. I agree that storage space is definitely an issue for graded sets. All of my raw sets are in pages and binders so that increases the storage space a little, but not nearly as much as graded. I estimate I could get about 10-12 Topps base sets in binders in about the same amount of space as the completed 71T graded set stored in the black PSA boxes.
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
When looking at low pop commons, one has to first determine if it’s low pop because (a) there are factors, like being frequently off center, that make high grades rare, or (b) the whole population is scarce because few examples are sent in for players that aren’t in demand. I’ve found people frequently confuse a and b.
@GreenSneakers I know what you mean. For a mainstream baseball set like 1978 Topps though, with over 100 registered sets, I don’t think a common is pop 37 because no one cares about it. Though if this card only sells for $13.99 few submitters other than 4SC with their sweetheart rates can likely justify submitting almost any common from this set anymore.
No one cares about a mint Biff Pocoroba anymore, Dave..
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.
Lol, in this case it was Tim Nordbrook.
I think it's hit or miss these days. There is still a lot of competition on the popular sets like 1967 and the 50s.
I never worried for a second about cost when building my 1978 Topps set in the mid 2000's. It's why I busted so many wax boxes and a rack case. Then submitted hundreds and hundreds of cards. Over half of that set to this today are self submitted. Would I do this today? LOL hell no. I'll never touch a graded set again.
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