The Power of Brand Loyalty
ReggieCleveland
Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭✭✭
Barry Bonds' 1986 cards used to be a pretty easy hierarchy to decipher. The Fleer Update was the top of the mountain, as centering and edge chipping just ravaged those Fleer Update sets that year. By default, Donruss Rookies was next, and I say "by default" because the Topps Traded Bonds card has nearly twice as many PSA 10s as the Fleer Update and Donruss Rookies COMBINED.
It was mail box card -- anytime anyone wanted one it was just a few days away from being in your mail box. eBay constantly had an array to choose from at bargain bin prices. So what in the holy hell is going on with the Topps Traded Bonds now!?
It's selling at $350-$375 while the Fleer Update, a MUCH tougher card to get a 10 on, can be had for $250. There's 4,600+ PSA 10 Topps Traded Bonds. Is this just because the new people entering the market are coming from modern, where brands like Fleer and Donruss carry no value?
What could be causing this? It's not just this Bonds, either. Look at the '87 McGwire cards. BY FAR, the lowest pop card is the '87 Fleer Update and they're selling for a fraction of what the Topps card is.
At what point does rarity begin to creep into the equation again?
Arthur
Comments
Maybe once all of the new people in the hobby get introduced to pop reports and such? It does seem that anything Topps is commanding a large premium for the junk wax era cards...I'd prefer to have the 86 Fleer Update for Bonds and the '87 Fleer Glossy for Big Mac...it will be interesting to look back on these sales during this Covid period in a couple of years...
Always been 86 tiff and 85 tiff for bonds and mcgwire for me. Back in '89 and still to this day.
I didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious. I've learned my lesson.
Arthur
"Fleer update was top of the mountain" statement says otherwise.
Also, just to clear up any confusion, I am talking about PSA 10 copies of these cards only and about sales data from the last few months only. Also, I'm only talking about original versions, not reproductions or tributes. Also, I'm only talking about sales data from the website named "eBay."
My apologies for creating such an misleading and confusing post in the first place.
Arthur
@ReggieCleveland
At what point does rarity begin to creep into the equation again?
Same thing could be said about Mike Trout Rookies. Bowman Chromes much tougher than Topps Traded. IMO, basically boils down to demand and most everyone would be familiar with the Topps brand.
Thinking it may be the Topps Brand name, except for Hockey, “O-Pee-Chee” is top. The Topps Lebron, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Curry, Durant RC’s are other examples of much higher populations/values than other brands. I think others are good buys in some cases.
I think the design and look of the Topps Traded Bonds makes it more desirable to me than the other 2. I was a Donruss the Rookies guy early on, mainly because it was the first product I made money selling. Now I think the Donruss Rookies is the worst looking Bonds of the 3 and probably the worst of the all the 1986-1987 Bonds. The color scheme and photo quality are awful. The Fleer Update is OK, but the posed batting stance isn't that interesting. The Topps Traded is a great classic portrait pose and the color scheme works well with the Pirates logo.
Goes beyond junk era too. There's just something about that name recognition. Base Topps RCs for Kobe, Brees, etc generating interest well beyond what I would have ever predicted. Frustrating from a collecting perspective - some of the base Topps RCs I was feeling no urgency on are now selling for 15x what I expected to eventually pay.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I would rather have a decent centered 86 Fleer PSA 10 Bonds. I actually like the design of it. The centering is a tough nut to crack. I used to think the 86 Topps Traded was the way to go, but I'm a sucker for rarity. This isn't my card, but I can understand the desire for a decent copy of it.
^ This could be a 2020 fleer card by the looks of the crowd.
I don't collect baseball anymore. However, if the idea is that folks are coming back into the hobby and buying cards that they wanted as a kid, I can tell you that all of my friends (and I) wanted the Topps Traded Bonds hands down over Fleer and for sure over the Donruss Rookie version. I understand the pop report, etc. and the long standing hierarchy of value. That said IF (and it's not going to happen) I was going to buy one, it would be the Topps Traded because that's the one I was always after as a kid. I have 8-10 of them in the closet from my teenage collection, 2 Fleer updates, none of the Donruss Rookies, 50-55 of the 1987 Topps and a handful of 1987 Donruss and 1987 Fleer.
It's a hobby. It doesn't always have to make dollars and cents sense.
Steve
The Doomsday Collection
Dallas Cowboys Ring of Honor | All-Time Dallas Cowboys | Bob Lilly Master | Pro Football HOF Dallas Cowboys
be prepared for this smart aleck response! 😉
@ReggieCleveland said:
I didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious. I've learned my lesson.
Arthur
the pop report usually dictates the value. bonds best cards: 1)1986 tiffany 2) 1987 opc 3) 1987 tiffany 4) 1987 leaf 5) 1987 classic travel green 6) 1987 fleer glossy 7) 1987 fleer hottest
I can certainly understand this. As someone who buys Jerome Walton cards just because I wanted them as a kid your reason makes perfect sense to me. I'm just curious why a decades-long trend flipped so dramatically in such a quick time. I think the reason goes beyond "some people prefer the Topps."
I'm not an economist but the amount of market activity that it would take to turn the previous market into the current one seems like it would be large. I suspect an influx of modern collectors, who greatly value Topps and see little-to-no worth in Fleer/Donruss, may have contributed to this, as well. Probably additional factors, too.
Then again, Bonds' '87 base cards of the big three have all seen large bumps in price, as well, with Fleer continuing to be the #1 choice among hobbyists despite it being the worst of the three images. It looks like someone asked Barry a quantum mechanics question and then "click."
Arthur
Hi Arthur!
Great question. I recently decided to purchase a rookie card. I have been debating the merits of Larry Walker on the boards for quite a while. He's now in the HOF and I looked at his rookie cards, thinking if I like the guy so much, maybe I should have one of his cards. I looked at all of his rookies and it came down to the 2 "Tiffany" cards, Topps and Bowman.
I like the bright orange coloring on the Topps card. I like the classic batting pose of the Bowman. I did a little research (Beckett Almanac) and found that the Bowman is limited to 3,000, while "it's beleived" the Topps run was 15,000.
I then looked at the population reports and saw there were similar numbers of 10's out there. I was a little surprised that there were more Bowman's submitted than Topps. Maybe the Topps print run was less than 15K? Maybe the Topps card with it's colored borders just get submitted less?
Finally, I looked at prices and the Topps cards were going for $280.00-300.00 and I found a Bowman I liked for $175.00.
On the Bonds Fleer card, I see what you mean about the look on his face, BUT to me in a PSA 10 the Fleer is by far the most attractive card.
The Topps is "washed out" looking to me, it's all kind of a dull tan/orange, although it's a great action shot. The Topps Tiffany looks much better for some reason. The Topps card also looks like it comes in four different colors; tan, tan/orange. light brown/green and brown. Has any one else noticed this? The tan/orange seems to have darker black ink and more gloss as well.
The Donrus he has a similar look on his face as the Fleer. The black borders I am sure is a big challenge to get a 10.
Personally, I really like the look of the blue fading to white and then the blue bottom border over the solid black of the Donrus.
The Fleer also has the least PSA 10's and is the "hardest" to get, with a .05% of cards submitted. Donrus is at .06% and Topps is a whopping 10% despite having about half of the cards submitted as the other two companies cards.
I like the Fleer card the best!
In either case, I don't have any brand loyalty. I buy what I like.
Edited to add; In discussing the Bonds rookie cards, I am talking about the 1987 issues. Since I am an "old timer" I consider those his rookie cards. Of his 1986 cards I like the Fleer Update.
As a modern day collector, I'll check out pop reports to see where I could get the most bang for my buck. I like the scarcity factor.
On a rare occasion, I'll make my choice by preferred brand/appearance
Hilarious.
What's so funny?
Where to begin?
Edited:
Actually the OP and his original smart aleck comment in regards to the '86 cards and how he "didn't feel the need to state the obvious" and get this but "I've learned my lesson".
The beauty is he follows it up with this 50ct gem:
Later on 3 other folks bring up that they prefer '86 Topps versions growing up and then he goes all full and polite "I certainly understand this". That's funny to me.
No wonder his Glossy Mcgwire got returned to him at the "outskirts of the film industry". Again, his words, not mine. This is probably the point where he tattle tales or name drops that the mod slept on his couch one night.
So yes, I find it extremely funny that he starts a thread on a discussion board, someone responds with relevant info and he acts like a pud only to dig himself in deeper. Then changes his tune. After the Evan thing, Stadium Club beam team, the Mcgwire, this thread and a few others things he's been dead wrong on, I completely see why he's treated like he is elsewhere and laughed off of other boards. Simply because he deserves it.
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
Whoa. Someone is seriously butthurt about something.
We're all having a conversation about the 1986 Topps/Fleer/Donruss Bonds cards and their recent market activity. You were the one that jumped in with the "Tiffany is the best one." But I must have stung you pretty bad on Blowout if you had to create an anonymous ID here and then bring a whole bunch of stuff that you think I was wrong about over to an entirely different message board.
Seriously, I'm sorry I hurt you. I don't know if I made you look foolish when you said something incorrect or if you just don't like my opinions on things but, whatever it is, I apologize. It's just a hobby, let it go. You'll be a lot happier in life if you're not harboring all these hateful feelings from online message boards. You can PM me if you'd like to straighten anything out.
Back to cards....
Arthur
"Jumped in". Well it was a discussion right?
Isn't your wrong resume long enough?
You'll have to be more specific. My "wrong resume" is pretty lengthy. I get lots of things wrong. Definitely got Evan wrong, which is why I admitted so on Blowout. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say the Beam Team thing but you seem to have taken copious notes on all of my internet posts so I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure how having someone return a card on eBay is part of a "wrong resume," though. Then you just throw out an arbitrary "another thing or two."
I can assure you, I have gotten many more things that that wrong. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, either. It's part of learning. I'll tell you something else, too -- I'm going to get a bunch of more stuff wrong in the future. So you should sharpen your pencil, because you'll have lots of other stuff to keep track of and follow me around the internet and point them out when you get angry about something.
I don't mind. It's like having a little angry mascot. I'll make you a little uniform that you can wear. Maybe we can put something on your cap like "I'm always right!"
Arthur
My measurements are 40 42r and my left arm is just sliiiiightly longer than my "right".
Perfect tool for every job.