Barry Bonds Rookies

olb31

PSA 10 totals

1986 Topps 4,622
1986 Tiffany 440
1986 Donruss 1,463
1986 Fleer 1,304
1986 Sportsflics 1,937
1987 Classic - Green 30
1987 Classic - Yellow 311
1987 Donruss 1,645
1987 Opening Day - Error 13
1987 Opening Day 236
1987 Fleer 1,233
1987 Fleer Glossy 553
1987 Fleer Hottest 154
1987 Leaf 92
1987 OPC 34
1987 Topps 1,310
1987 Topps Glossy 5,400
1987 Topps Tiffany 233
1987 Toys R US 333

These are all the Bonds cards that I think would be rookies or pseudo rookies. Based on the POP Report, the Green Classic version is the one to jump on as fast as you can. Other than the error opening day, this is the lowest pop of every Bonds. The OPC sales for $2,500 or more. The green classic high sale is $525. Look for this one to go over $1,000 soon.

The next one in line due for a huge price spike is the 1987 Fleer Hottest. The Leaf Bonds Sales for $575 (which is really low also). The Fleer Hottest Card has been selling in the $275 range. I think both of these will spike also. The Leaf card will be near $1,000 soon also. The Fleer Hottest card should go over $500 with no problems.

I have no tens of any of these cards in my collection, just for context.

Just my take.

LarkinCollector

Those 87 Classic Yellow front/Green backs are undervalued for all subjects based on difficulty of getting a dime. I'm surprised Bonds wasn't in the Game set that year (Green front/Green back).

DeutscherGeist

Interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing the data and the types of rookies that exist for this player. The population of a card is not the only factor to look at. The high demand has to be there and maybe most collectors do not like the 1987 Classic Green and choose the others that are better known and recognized. So, it may happen that the 1987 Classic Green will catch up in price, but it does not have to happen.

By the way, what is the difference between these two cards:

1987 Topps Glossy 5,400
1987 Topps Tiffany 233

Tiffany is used for the Topps, while glossy is used for Score and Fleer, I thought.

LarkinCollector

@DeutscherGeist said:
Interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing the data and the types of rookies that exist for this player. The population of a card is not the only factor to look at. The high demand has to be there and maybe most collectors do not like the 1987 Classic Green and choose the others that are better known and recognized. So, it may happen that the 1987 Classic Green will catch up in price, but it does not have to happen.

By the way, what is the difference between these two cards:

1987 Topps Glossy 5,400
1987 Topps Tiffany 233

Tiffany is used for the Topps, while glossy is used for Score and Fleer, I thought.

Glossy was from a 60 card All-Star set

ETA: Pop report is pretty hilarious on that set, over 18k Bonds submitted, next highest submissions is Rose with 45.

DeutscherGeist

LarkinCollector,

Thanks for the information. Now I know what it is. I have that set for the year 1986. One had to collect pack wrappers and include a check (If I remember correctly) to get those cards.

olb31

@MLBdays said:
My kinda thread.... I think the days of getting a PSA 10 Bonds in an '87 O-pee-chee are long gone for $2500.00....IMO. I think it's a tier higher than the Topps Traded Tiffany. Pop. 34 speaks volumes.

Classic green at 30 only $525, seems really low compared to the opc.

ScoobyDoo2

@MLBdays ....does collecting get any better than that?

NGS428

@LarkinCollector said:
Glossy was from a 60 card All-Star set

ETA: Pop report is pretty hilarious on that set, over 18k Bonds submitted, next highest submissions is Rose with 45.

I am not a Bonds fan by any means, but that card is a work of art. Beautiful in my opinion.

countdouglas

Considering eye appeal only, the Classic Bonds is my favorite of those listed. An action shot of Bonds in his #24 uniform, with the yellow helmet, and rest of the black and yellow uniform being accentuated with the yellow border. Just a sharp looking card.

I have several raw green backs, but they're all horribly OC. Got this card as a throw-in on a larger purchase. This is a yellow back, and of course, not PSA.

DeutscherGeist

I did not see a Score card on that list. Maybe Score started in 1988? Well, there is still the First Score Card of Barry Bonds that could be on the list, right?

ScoobyDoo2

@countdouglas ...I agree, that card is his best photo in my book......so many of his cards are close ups. Up close and personal with the grinch.

ReggieCleveland

If there's one thing the past few years have taught us it's that the existing market prefers base Topps or base Topps parallels over everything else, no matter what the pop report is. I'll say that again, because it's an important part in all of this: no matter what the pop report says.

I've seen 1k+ pop Topps base cards become more popular than other manufacturers cards that are a fraction of the pop and with a much tougher strike rate. Demand doesn't have to make sense to you.

Arthur

ScoobyDoo2

@olb31 @larkincollector @mlbdays...Question ? Would you all rather get a Green back in PSA 9 or the Yellow back in PSA 10 given a similar price point? I am considering one or the other for my own collection.

LarkinCollector

@ScoobyDoo2 said:
@olb31 @larkincollector @mlbdays...Question ? Would you all rather get a Green back in PSA 9 or the Yellow back in PSA 10 given a similar price point? I am considering one or the other for my own collection.

Tough call, but I'd lean towards the yellow 10 by a hair.

ReggieCleveland

@ScoobyDoo2 said:
@olb31 @larkincollector @mlbdays...Question ? Would you all rather get a Green back in PSA 9 or the Yellow back in PSA 10 given a similar price point? I am considering one or the other for my own collection.

As a general rule I always go with true rarity over condition rarity but this actually has both. There's only 100 PSA 9 Green backs and there's 300 PSA 10 Yellow backs. Keep in mind, yes, the PSA 10 Green back will get all the attention if the card ever takes off but there's only 30 of them. Sooner or later, those PSA 10s stop getting flipped and find permanent homes in personal collections. When that happens, a lot of people that would like to buy a PSA 10 are going to find themselves in the market for a PSA 9 simply because they have no other choice.

It's the natural flow of demand and you can see it on a much larger scale with cards like the '93 SP Jeter and '86 Fleer Jordan. For a while, PSA 10s climbed but PSA 9s remained stagnant. Next thing you know, 9s are suddenly $X and people who waited on buying a 9 are now scrambling to get an 8, and so on.

Arthur

ScoobyDoo2

Thanks fellas.... I think Im going to pass on this card altogether....

ReggieCleveland

@ScoobyDoo2 said:
Thanks fellas.... I think Im going to pass on this card altogether....

That's what we're here for.

Arthur

olb31

50,000 green backs were printed and 100,000 yellow backs were printed. The green backs, for every player, are much harder to get a PSA 10 on because of the centering. yellow backs are better centered.

Even though OPC is rarer, I have a feeling that Topps printed more than 50,000 OPC Bonds.

RiceBondsMntna2Young

I love this thread. @olb31, I am certain Topps printed more than 50,000 1987 O-Pee-Chee. According to my analysis, there were likely 100k - 700k copies printed, depending on whether you think the Topps print run was closer to 1M or 7M.

I figure Canada is 1/10th the size of the American population, with less enthusiasm and smaller proportionate interest for baseball. But OPC released TONS in vending boxes. Topps really had no chill in 1987. If someone with insider knowledge told me they printed 1M of everything, I wouldn't bat an eye. Have a look at all the junk 1987 OPC Bonds floating around out there. That card is nearly impossible to get non-diamond cut, much less decently centered. More than half the PSA 9s I've seen have PSA 7-or-worse centering.

On the other hand, Greenbacks and Yellowbacks weren't nearly as well-circulated. Lower general availability and interest are also going to push the hard number of PSA submissions downward, which also helps to explain the low absolute number. Those cards are actually MUCH easier to find decently centered in my experience. Have a look at my PSA 9. I defy you to tell me this doesn't look as good as some of the PSA 10s out there. I could have picked up a 10 from the same buyer I got this 9 from, but to my eye, they looked identical, and maybe with a little edge to mine centering-wise though I realize it's not nearly dead-centered:

NGS428

@MLBdays said:
@NGS428 ... how could anyone not like Barry Bonds?

Ha! Yeah, seems like an upstanding citizen*

ReggieCleveland

@olb31 said:
50,000 green backs were printed and 100,000 yellow backs were printed.

This is great info. Where did you get this from?

I have my doubts though. This would imply that one out of every three sets has green backs, which, anyone who has ever ripped these sets looking for green backs knows that is so very not close to being in the same country as accurate.

Arthur

olb31

yellow backs were first to come out. green released later. much like high series cards from the 60's, by the time the green backs came out people had stopped buying/playing.

coolstanley

Are 1986 Bonds topps traded cards in wax boxes?

ReggieCleveland

@olb31 said:
yellow backs were first to come out. green released later. much like high series cards from the 60's, by the time the green backs came out people had stopped buying/playing.

That doesn't answer the question. Where did you get the 100k/50k numbers? Because they're not accurate. I've ripped enough sets to know that you don't get a green set 1:3.

Arthur

JoeBanzai

@MLBdays said:
The thing about the steroids era....once the narrative changes and it always does (it has started already) ~ folks start buying b/c MLB folks are like lovable characters over time..... like famous criminals they are forgiven and then immortalized. If your looking for value take a look at Rafael Palmeiro stuff.... cheap for a 500HR/3000hits machine. Not too many of that club lying around in purgatory. I think it is just a matter of time before he gets into heaven.

I was thinking along the same lines on Palmeiro. If people are going to eventually forgive the juicers, he's probably a great bargain.

It doesn't seem to matter to collectors that some/most of the guys (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa anyway) are not in the HOF. I do remember Palmeiro's statement about never using was followed by a failed test, but McGwire also had his "I'm not here to talk about the past" comment.

I would say Palmeiro was better than both Sosa and McGwire, but his rookie cards do not reflect that.

While I can find forgiveness for these guys, I am not buying their cards. I'll stick with other bargains. Larry Walker comes to mind.

coolstanley

@MLBdays said:
@coolstanley .....topps traded singles arrived exclusively in box sets I believe......

Ah, that explains then why the wax box's are so cheap lol.

olb31

@ReggieCleveland said:

@olb31 said:
yellow backs were first to come out. green released later. much like high series cards from the 60's, by the time the green backs came out people had stopped buying/playing.

That doesn't answer the question. Where did you get the 100k/50k numbers? Because they're not accurate. I've ripped enough sets to know that you don't get a green set 1:3.

Arthur

baseballcardpedia.com -- 1987 classis update -- read the review.

ReggieCleveland

@olb31 said:

@ReggieCleveland said:

@olb31 said:
yellow backs were first to come out. green released later. much like high series cards from the 60's, by the time the green backs came out people had stopped buying/playing.

That doesn't answer the question. Where did you get the 100k/50k numbers? Because they're not accurate. I've ripped enough sets to know that you don't get a green set 1:3.

Arthur

baseballcardpedia.com -- 1987 classis update -- read the review.

Thanks. I'm leery of the remark. It's just thrown out their with no real reference to back it up and the page hasn't been updated in 9 years. I could just as easily go in and replace it with a statement that says "According to the manufacturer, 10% of all sets were printed with a green back."

It's the good and the bad of BBCPedia.

Arthur

olb31

@ReggieCleveland said:

@olb31 said:

@ReggieCleveland said:

@olb31 said:
yellow backs were first to come out. green released later. much like high series cards from the 60's, by the time the green backs came out people had stopped buying/playing.

That doesn't answer the question. Where did you get the 100k/50k numbers? Because they're not accurate. I've ripped enough sets to know that you don't get a green set 1:3.

Arthur

baseballcardpedia.com -- 1987 classis update -- read the review.

Thanks. I'm leery of the remark. It's just thrown out their with no real reference to back it up and the page hasn't been updated in 9 years. I could just as easily go in and replace it with a statement that says "According to the manufacturer, 10% of all sets were printed with a green back."

It's the good and the bad of BBCPedia.

Arthur

Arthur,

I am assume that the website is somewhat accurate, but I have no knowledge if it is or not. Without anything else to go on, this might be the best guess.

ReggieCleveland

@olb31 said:

@ReggieCleveland said:

@olb31 said:

@ReggieCleveland said:

@olb31 said:
yellow backs were first to come out. green released later. much like high series cards from the 60's, by the time the green backs came out people had stopped buying/playing.

That doesn't answer the question. Where did you get the 100k/50k numbers? Because they're not accurate. I've ripped enough sets to know that you don't get a green set 1:3.

Arthur

baseballcardpedia.com -- 1987 classis update -- read the review.

Thanks. I'm leery of the remark. It's just thrown out their with no real reference to back it up and the page hasn't been updated in 9 years. I could just as easily go in and replace it with a statement that says "According to the manufacturer, 10% of all sets were printed with a green back."

It's the good and the bad of BBCPedia.

Arthur

Arthur,

I am assume that the website is somewhat accurate, but I have no knowledge if it is or not. Without anything else to go on, this might be the best guess.

You're absolutely right. And to be honest, I've found BBCPedia to be a pretty decent resource. I've also found deliberately wrong information placed in there that, I assume, was done to maintain lower prices. I used to contribute to the site but you basically need to be able to write code in order to add information now (which I cannot do).

People have been ripping those Travel Update sets for years looking for green backs. I remember a thread here from years ago. I realize that there's been an increase in interest for this era recently but interest in green backs isn't new. Yet, there's less than 300 total submissions for Bonds. Something doesn't fit.

Arthur

coolstanley

I counted 36 Major League records Barry Bonds currently holds. Pretty Impressive.

He is the only member of the 500/500 club. 500 home runs and 500 stolen bases. And there are no 400/400 members.

JoeBanzai

@MLBdays said:
I'm in the front of the line who despised Bonds as a player ... I loved seeing him lose WS titles ... but if you let Pudge and Bagwell into the HOF Bonds and Clemens are layups.....in they go. Sosa, Mcgwire and Palmeiro ~ Sheffield too ... open the doors and honor them just like Pudge who was injecting..... Everyone knows they cheated (asterisk is already in place for life)~ but that is the tapestry of MLB ... ~ Mo Vaughn, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, Wally Joyner, Brett Boone, Ken Caminitti, Juan Gonzalez, David Justice, Troy Glaus, Matt Williams, Miguel Tejada, Benny Santiago, Andy Pettitte, MAgglio Ordonez, Chuck Knoblach, Chuck Finley, Eric Gagne are other notables who were implicated thru the Mitchell Report or testimony from known ROID dealers and users like Jose Canseco.

I agree somewhat if you are using the Pudge factor. I had thought he was (pretty much?) proven to using.

I am curious as to your bringing up Bagwell though. He got pretty big, was there ever a failed test or Mitchell report mention that implicated him?

olb31

mcgriff, clemens, sheffield, manny, sosa, mcgwire, bonds, ortiz, palmeiro - based on stats, are shoe ins. I would vote them in. Clemens prolly one of the top 5 pitchers of all-time. Bonds prolly one of the top 5 OF's of alltime.

Others - Juan is close, Pettite is close, Giambi is close.

JoeBanzai

@olb31 said:
mcgriff, clemens, sheffield, manny, sosa, mcgwire, bonds, ortiz, palmeiro - based on stats, are shoe ins. I would vote them in. Clemens prolly one of the top 5 pitchers of all-time. Bonds prolly one of the top 5 OF's of alltime.

Others - Juan is close, Pettite is close, Giambi is close.

McGriff was always thought to be "clean". If so, he really got screwed by the juicers he was actually better than.

Looks like every other guy you listed either failed a test or admitted to using?

The juicers already got their rewards with huge contracts and numbers (that don't belong) in the record books.

It would be nice if a guy like McGriff got in and they didn't as a reward for doing something the right way.

GDM67

@MLBdays said:
@JoeBanzai ....https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2017/01/18/baseball-hall-of-fame-ivan-rodriguez-jeff-bagwell-tim-raines-steroid-era/96742034/

I think Mcgriff is a slam dunk to get into the HOF..... he has just suffered from bad timing ... look at his stats though ... 8 x 100 rbi seasons, 493 Homers with a .284 average and almost 2500 hits..... heck, the great Mantle had a mere 4 x 100 rbi seasons..... obviously Mcgriff wasn't Mickey Mantle but still a layup IMO. Plus he had those instructional Tom Emanski video's ... that alone ices his HOF candidacy His '86 Donruss RC is around 300 beans....

>

Happily, I got mine in 2011.

He's up for the pertinent committee in a couple of years and seems like the leading candidate (especially with Larry Walker getting in via the writers and not being on that particular ballot.)