@dustinspeaks said:
Im not saying people don't pay 200 dollars for it. I'm saying not enough people pay 200 dollars for it to cover the number of 10s available. What you see listed isn't what is available. It's clearly a junk card. If most people made wise decisions and did the research, I wouldn't be making this post.
A base issue card that sells for $200.00 printed in 1987 is "clearly" JUNK? Please send any to me that you have.
Ebay is where the vast majority of his cards that are available are located. Any cards not listed for sale where people can find them are NOT available.
Let's do a little 1987 Topps research; (all recent sales)
1987 Bonds 1313 PSA 10's out of 13,573 submitted. Selling for $200.00.
1987 Bo Jackson 1165 PSA 10's out of 3,380 submitted. Selling for $125.00.
1987 Jose Canseco 163 10's out of 1016 submitted $133.00.
1987 McGwire 1171 10's out of 10188 submitted around a $100.00.
This set is as close to "iconic" as any newer set can be. The Bonds card is the hardest to get in a ten and will continue to be when any unopened product gets ripped. Out of 8,000 (or so) 1987 Topps I recently opened, I got ZERO Barry Bonds that were centered anywhere near 50-50.
Like him or not (I do not, btw), he's both the best and hardest rookie card to find card in the set.
Please share the last card printed you think was not clearly junk. 1952 Topps Mantle?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dustinspeaks said:
Look, if you like it, spend your money how you see fit. Are you buying them for 200 bucks? If not then it's not worth 200 bucks to you either.
The flaw is there are many who ARE willing to spend the $ they spend it as they see fit.
And you are correct, I am definitely NOT a buyer at $200. I am not a buyer at $20.00 if I have to keep it. I can't stand the guy.
I will gladly take the $200.00 if I had one for sale!
The point is; I spent about $200.00 on a variety of 1987 unopened. I got it cheap and locally so I didn't have to pay shipping and there were 4 players selling for $100.00 or so. Figured I couldn't go wrong and have some fun while I was at it.
Not one Bonds that will grade a 10.
Had I wanted a Bonds (and I DON'T for my PC) I would have been better off buying one on ebay for $200.00.
I got a couple of awesome McGwire's and Canseco's and maybe up to four Bo's that might "10", a couple of Ryan's and a BUNCH of low pop commons.
Hoping to get them back from PSA by Christmas. ;-)
@dustinspeaks said:
The last printed Topps card that I think is not junk? That's a good question. I'd have to look at the numbers. Off the top of my head though, I think its 1980 Topps Henderson. But only in really high grade. I don't think any HOF rookie can really be called junk. But when there are a million copies of a 2nd year card...
I really don't get your line of thought.
The market right now only wants PSA 10's of the first year card. Generally speaking, since 1973(?) second year cards (except for the very few unusually scarce cards) are worth next to nothing.
There are a few exceptions. Ryan would be the guy who comes to mind right off the bat.
You picked the scarcest modern rookie card as not being "junk" well there are over 100,000 cards from that set graded. I could call that junk as well, but I won't. There's only been 58,000 1987's graded so far btw.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dustinspeaks said:
Are you buying them for 200 bucks? If not then it's not worth 200 bucks to you either.
That statement implies that a card only holds specific value to an individual if they buy it at that cost. The fact that I'm not buying card X doesn't mean I believe it isn't worth its cost. Not to mention that none of this matters. An individual's "market," or sense of value doesn't affect the true market value of the commodity (what it can get in an open market at auction).
If an open market auction says the card is worth $200, then the card is worth $200 (without getting pedantic).
Man I couldn't agree with this dude more. I have always detested traded sets. Such a stupid concept IMO. Should have released them in their own packs OR into late print runs of the main set. Morons.
Man I couldn't agree with this dude more. I have always detested traded sets. Such a stupid concept IMO. Should have released them in their own packs OR into late print runs of the main set. Morons.
Same here. His 87 cards do seem like his true rookies. I never bothered with special sets. Only purchased wax.
First off, that card doesn't look quite right. Too much border area on the top and bottom. Quite possibly a sheet cut card.
Secondly, his definition of a "rookie" may be correct, but beginning with the Cal Ripken XRC (imo) collectors started thinking they wanted the best looking and hardest to find first card issued. "Rookie" card does not mean "best" or most valuable card any longer.
He's trying to get an astronomical (Idiotic?) price for his card. If he can sell it for anything close to his price, I would be stunned.
@dustinspeaks said:
The date is what determines what their rookie cards are. It's about their first appearance and the MLB license. My whole life the book has agreed with me. The earlier card is the more valuable one. Except with RIpken for some reason. Where the later traded card is the one people like. I personally believe that minor league cards should be more respected. Like with a negro league player. You're not going to discount his negro league card just because it's not MLB or major manufacturer. Or maybe you are? Calling the minor league card a trump on the 86 Topps Traded would at least make sense. Rarer and earlier. The thing about Bonds is, he has many earlier licensed cards than his 1987 Topps card. These days Traded cards are called rookie cards often. Then again it seems like guys these days get 3 rookie years. Topps also releases factory sets, which are box sets. 1987 Topps isn't only distributed in packs. You can just go buy the whole set. Just like the Traded set.
Sorry the "book" did NOT agree with you XRC's, traded, minor league cards were not considered "rookie" cards.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dustinspeaks said:
It did as far as value is concerned. I don't care what the little letters next to the guys name says. Every time I ripped a rookie card out of a wax pack I would check book and the traded card was always higher.
And hey, what does the RC stand for in XRC?
I'm not saying minor league cards were considered rookie cards. I'm saying if anybody is going to try to claim any cards should be more respected, it's the minor league cards. Not the 2nd year cards...
They're not 2nd year cards. Thats why they're rookie cards.
We can all have our own rookie card designation. I consider, in Bonds’ case, his 86 FU and TT to be his rookie cards. They have the XRC designation, but that designation was dropped in 89, so to me I wipe out that designation in previous years. Considering rookie cards as having to be pack pulled, I don’t follow that one. Give me the first card (non minor league card). I have a set of rules I follow...
Hobby or regional only distribution is no longer what it used to be. Glossy or Tiffany, I consider those rookie cards too.
@dustinspeaks said:
It did as far as value is concerned. I don't care what the little letters next to the guys name says. Every time I ripped a rookie card out of a wax pack I would check book and the traded card was always higher.
And hey, what does the RC stand for in XRC?
I'm not saying minor league cards were considered rookie cards. I'm saying if anybody is going to try to claim any cards should be more respected, it's the minor league cards. Not the 2nd year cards...
They're not 2nd year cards. Thats why they're rookie cards.
Even if you look at it like it's his first year card (rookie card) Then what would you call the earlier card? His pre-rookie card? He has lots of 1986 cards. The 1987 cards are his 2nd year cards...
Yes, they were actually called "pre-rookie" cards.
@dustinspeaks said:
Barry Bonds made his Major League debut in 1986. 1986 is his rookie year.
When they were rookies in MLB has nothing to do with it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dustinspeaks said:
It did as far as value is concerned. I don't care what the little letters next to the guys name says. Every time I ripped a rookie card out of a wax pack I would check book and the traded card was always higher.
And hey, what does the RC stand for in XRC?
I'm not saying minor league cards were considered rookie cards. I'm saying if anybody is going to try to claim any cards should be more respected, it's the minor league cards. Not the 2nd year cards...
They're not 2nd year cards. Thats why they're rookie cards.
Even if you look at it like it's his first year card (rookie card) Then what would you call the earlier card? His pre-rookie card? He has lots of 1986 cards. The 1987 cards are his 2nd year cards...
Yes, they were actually called "pre-rookie" cards.
@dustinspeaks said:
Barry Bonds made his Major League debut in 1986. 1986 is his rookie year.
When they were rookies in MLB has nothing to do with it.
True, Mark McGwire was still 2 plus years away from MLB in 1984 when Topps snapped his Olympic card pic for the '85 set. Most consider that his rookie card and if they don't whatever other card and issue is overshadowed by a gigantic margin.
@dustinspeaks said:
It did as far as value is concerned. I don't care what the little letters next to the guys name says. Every time I ripped a rookie card out of a wax pack I would check book and the traded card was always higher.
And hey, what does the RC stand for in XRC?
I'm not saying minor league cards were considered rookie cards. I'm saying if anybody is going to try to claim any cards should be more respected, it's the minor league cards. Not the 2nd year cards...
They're not 2nd year cards. Thats why they're rookie cards.
Even if you look at it like it's his first year card (rookie card) Then what would you call the earlier card? His pre-rookie card? He has lots of 1986 cards. The 1987 cards are his 2nd year cards...
Yes, they were actually called "pre-rookie" cards.
@dustinspeaks said:
Barry Bonds made his Major League debut in 1986. 1986 is his rookie year.
When they were rookies in MLB has nothing to do with it.
True, Mark McGwire was still 2 plus years away from MLB in 1984 when Topps snapped his Olympic card pic for the '85 set. Most consider that his rookie card and if they don't whatever other card and issue is overshadowed by a gigantic margin.
Exactly. That did come to mind.
Don't forget the guys that didn't even have cards until after their rookie season.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dustinspeaks said:
It did as far as value is concerned. I don't care what the little letters next to the guys name says. Every time I ripped a rookie card out of a wax pack I would check book and the traded card was always higher.
And hey, what does the RC stand for in XRC?
I'm not saying minor league cards were considered rookie cards. I'm saying if anybody is going to try to claim any cards should be more respected, it's the minor league cards. Not the 2nd year cards...
They're not 2nd year cards. Thats why they're rookie cards.
Even if you look at it like it's his first year card (rookie card) Then what would you call the earlier card? His pre-rookie card? He has lots of 1986 cards. The 1987 cards are his 2nd year cards...
Yes, they were actually called "pre-rookie" cards.
@dustinspeaks said:
Barry Bonds made his Major League debut in 1986. 1986 is his rookie year.
When they were rookies in MLB has nothing to do with it.
True, Mark McGwire was still 2 plus years away from MLB in 1984 when Topps snapped his Olympic card pic for the '85 set. Most consider that his rookie card and if they don't whatever other card and issue is overshadowed by a gigantic margin.
Then its really a "pre-rookie." I like his 87 topps card better because its a Oakland uniform.
Topps stopped releasing cards in series in 1974. 1974 to 1980. When Donruss and Fleer came aboard in 81 in cut into Topps sales. So, instead on a"7th" series in 1983, they put out the " traded set". Knowing that sales for baseball cards were low and unpredictable in the late fall and winter, they boxed all the cards in one box and sold them to dealers. That way they knew exactly how many cards they were selling. Fleer saw this in 1984 and did the same thing. Then in 85, all 3 were making these "late " series. most kids at regular retail store were buying football cards, but baseball shops were flurishing, So the dealers could push traded sets, update sets or rookie sets. Most of the hobby considers the xrc the " True rookie" card up to about 1988 or 89.( Or later).Opinions vary. then the 90's brought Score, Bowman, Upper Deck, and now it's anybody guess. But rookie card means Major League baseball. McGwires 85 topps was part of a sub-set and at the time was not considered his major league rookie card. But it is his first card produced by major league card producers, Now it's become " First Card produced ( Robert, Wander. Acuna, etc.) by any licensed company.
@dustinspeaks said:
See, I wrote a whole post and the site just trashed it because I edited it fast. Not cool...
You guys buy what you like. Ill stick to the 1986 cards. The market totally agrees with me. the 1986 cards is $$$$$ while the 1987 card is only $.
You are absolutely correct! The market will always determine the best card.
I have posted this before; I was in a card shop in 1983 and saw both the Ripken cards. I thought the "rookie" card sucked compared to the traded card and they were the same price. The guy behind the counter made a big deal about the traded card "not being his rookie", so I didn't buy either.
Buy what you think is the best card, in many cases it won't be a "true" rookie.
Have fun collecting!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Publius1787 said:
Question: What is the future trajectory for unopened baseball product from 1981 to 1987?
Hi Everyone,
I am a new arrival to these message boards and appreciate whatever insight you can offer. I would like to ask for your feedback on the future trajectory of prices and collectability for unopened baseball product for the years 1981 – 1987.
My questions:
In the last year unopened wax boxes, rack and cello boxes, of products from 1981 – 1987 have increased dramatically. For example, 1983 Topps has doubled from around $400 to close to $800 (the BBCE buy price for 1983 Topps wax boxes recently increased to $600). Obviously the supply of this material has diminished over the last decade with collectors opening boxes at a lower price point for nostalgia or grading. But at $800 for a 1983 Topps wax box, the economics of opening for grading begins to lose its support and I assume that collectors are approaching unopened wax as the object for collecting in itself. Do others agree or disagree? At $800 a box for 1983 Topps is anyone still opening it?
Keeping with this theme, other issues, like 1985 Topps have experienced a significant increase in price. Is there a natural ceiling to what this stuff can be worth? Will 1985 Topps wax boxes ever surpass $1000 a box? Why would it? Here I would like to note that I have excluded 1980 Topps for a reason. 1980 Topps has shown its ability to appreciate in value and the Henderson rookie is iconic. I also think that 1980 Topps has more in common with the late 1970s than it does with the mid-1980s in terms of collectability and scarcity. My question here, is whether you think prices over the next 5 – 10 years will increase exponentially, linearly, or non-linearly with diminishing marginal increases until the price reaches a steady-state?
1987 Donruss. An amazing issue and one that I love for its design and rookie class. I have noticed that BBCE FASC wrapped boxes and OPC FASC wrapped boxes are priced at $100 or more. I feel like there should still be a strong supply of 1987 Donruss out there to support a lower price point. Is anyone buying these boxes at $100? If so, I’m interested in your rationale for making the purchase. I think you can find them case fresh and unsearched on eBay for close to $40 per box if you are patient. Granted, they have increased in price over the last 5 years, but $100 for a FASC wrapped box seems high.
Bottom Line: Do you think that unopened baseball product from the period 1981 – 1987 is overpriced and we will experience a market correction? Do you think some issues will increase and others stabilize? Do you think it will continue to increase? I’m really interested in your thoughts on this question, considering consumer buying habits, tastes, market supply, and dealer pricing.
Thanks for your consideration and taking the time to read.
Hi there and these are great questions. As far as an 83 box going for $800, I think that is going to come down a little. I have always thought unopened individual packs from 81-85 were undervalued and are finally starting to get the recognition I thought they deserved. I think the industry in general had blown up in the last few months due to the COVID isolation and I feel these packs will at least hold there value when it is over.
I think 85 Topps boxes and packs will continue to go up for sure. I have a store on eBay and have sold 22 lots of 50 Topps common's. It is my most popular item. It seems like a lot of people are building this set, which will continue to make the packs and boxes increase in value
I have seen somewhat of a bump in the boxes of 86-87 as well, but because these cards were so overproduced I can't see them holding any recent gains they have made, with boxes or packs.
Comments
1984 football boxes are still under valued I think
Baseball boxes on hold for me. Basketball boxes seem to be going up by 10% - 30% almost weekly.
A base issue card that sells for $200.00 printed in 1987 is "clearly" JUNK? Please send any to me that you have.
Ebay is where the vast majority of his cards that are available are located. Any cards not listed for sale where people can find them are NOT available.
Let's do a little 1987 Topps research; (all recent sales)
1987 Bonds 1313 PSA 10's out of 13,573 submitted. Selling for $200.00.
1987 Bo Jackson 1165 PSA 10's out of 3,380 submitted. Selling for $125.00.
1987 Jose Canseco 163 10's out of 1016 submitted $133.00.
1987 McGwire 1171 10's out of 10188 submitted around a $100.00.
This set is as close to "iconic" as any newer set can be. The Bonds card is the hardest to get in a ten and will continue to be when any unopened product gets ripped. Out of 8,000 (or so) 1987 Topps I recently opened, I got ZERO Barry Bonds that were centered anywhere near 50-50.
Like him or not (I do not, btw), he's both the best and hardest rookie card to find card in the set.
Please share the last card printed you think was not clearly junk. 1952 Topps Mantle?
Do you see the inherent flaw in your logic here?
Arthur
The flaw is there are many who ARE willing to spend the $ they spend it as they see fit.
And you are correct, I am definitely NOT a buyer at $200. I am not a buyer at $20.00 if I have to keep it. I can't stand the guy.
I will gladly take the $200.00 if I had one for sale!
The point is; I spent about $200.00 on a variety of 1987 unopened. I got it cheap and locally so I didn't have to pay shipping and there were 4 players selling for $100.00 or so. Figured I couldn't go wrong and have some fun while I was at it.
Not one Bonds that will grade a 10.
Had I wanted a Bonds (and I DON'T for my PC) I would have been better off buying one on ebay for $200.00.
I got a couple of awesome McGwire's and Canseco's and maybe up to four Bo's that might "10", a couple of Ryan's and a BUNCH of low pop commons.
Hoping to get them back from PSA by Christmas. ;-)
I really don't get your line of thought.
The market right now only wants PSA 10's of the first year card. Generally speaking, since 1973(?) second year cards (except for the very few unusually scarce cards) are worth next to nothing.
There are a few exceptions. Ryan would be the guy who comes to mind right off the bat.
You picked the scarcest modern rookie card as not being "junk" well there are over 100,000 cards from that set graded. I could call that junk as well, but I won't. There's only been 58,000 1987's graded so far btw.
That statement implies that a card only holds specific value to an individual if they buy it at that cost. The fact that I'm not buying card X doesn't mean I believe it isn't worth its cost. Not to mention that none of this matters. An individual's "market," or sense of value doesn't affect the true market value of the commodity (what it can get in an open market at auction).
If an open market auction says the card is worth $200, then the card is worth $200 (without getting pedantic).
Arthur
What would be a fair asking price for an 87 Topps Jumbo pack with Bonds card at the bottom?
I didnt realize Mcgwire and Canseco retired the same year.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Almost $20,000 for this 87 topps Bonds. His comments about the best and worst Bonds rookies is interesting.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1987-Topps-320-Barry-Bonds-RC-His-ONLY-True-Topps-RC-BGS-10-PRISTINE-Pop-9/133415419392?hash=item1f102dbe00:g:1aUAAOSwqShexQb0
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Man I couldn't agree with this dude more. I have always detested traded sets. Such a stupid concept IMO. Should have released them in their own packs OR into late print runs of the main set. Morons.
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 it me or does that card have some tilt?
Arthur
Well, you can say that he did put some effort into those comments at least.
I wonder what he would say if he was selling a 86 fleer update or a 86TT Tiffany??? Yeah..
Nic
Guides Authored - Graded Card Scanning Guide PDF | History of the PSA Label PDF
Same here. His 87 cards do seem like his true rookies. I never bothered with special sets. Only purchased wax.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
For almost $20K for that BGS 10, I'd rather have 100 of the 1987 Topps in PSA 10 ($200 / card). I can then sell them individually as I need money...
First off, that card doesn't look quite right. Too much border area on the top and bottom. Quite possibly a sheet cut card.
Secondly, his definition of a "rookie" may be correct, but beginning with the Cal Ripken XRC (imo) collectors started thinking they wanted the best looking and hardest to find first card issued. "Rookie" card does not mean "best" or most valuable card any longer.
He's trying to get an astronomical (Idiotic?) price for his card. If he can sell it for anything close to his price, I would be stunned.
Sorry the "book" did NOT agree with you XRC's, traded, minor league cards were not considered "rookie" cards.
They're not 2nd year cards. Thats why they're rookie cards.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
We can all have our own rookie card designation. I consider, in Bonds’ case, his 86 FU and TT to be his rookie cards. They have the XRC designation, but that designation was dropped in 89, so to me I wipe out that designation in previous years. Considering rookie cards as having to be pack pulled, I don’t follow that one. Give me the first card (non minor league card). I have a set of rules I follow...
Hobby or regional only distribution is no longer what it used to be. Glossy or Tiffany, I consider those rookie cards too.
RC, something we all can’t agree on for sure!
Nic
Guides Authored - Graded Card Scanning Guide PDF | History of the PSA Label PDF
Yes, they were actually called "pre-rookie" cards.
When they were rookies in MLB has nothing to do with it.
True, Mark McGwire was still 2 plus years away from MLB in 1984 when Topps snapped his Olympic card pic for the '85 set. Most consider that his rookie card and if they don't whatever other card and issue is overshadowed by a gigantic margin.
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
Exactly. That did come to mind.
Don't forget the guys that didn't even have cards until after their rookie season.
1987 topps set = 1986 season...NOT 1987.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Then its really a "pre-rookie." I like his 87 topps card better because its a Oakland uniform.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Topps stopped releasing cards in series in 1974. 1974 to 1980. When Donruss and Fleer came aboard in 81 in cut into Topps sales. So, instead on a"7th" series in 1983, they put out the " traded set". Knowing that sales for baseball cards were low and unpredictable in the late fall and winter, they boxed all the cards in one box and sold them to dealers. That way they knew exactly how many cards they were selling. Fleer saw this in 1984 and did the same thing. Then in 85, all 3 were making these "late " series. most kids at regular retail store were buying football cards, but baseball shops were flurishing, So the dealers could push traded sets, update sets or rookie sets. Most of the hobby considers the xrc the " True rookie" card up to about 1988 or 89.( Or later).Opinions vary. then the 90's brought Score, Bowman, Upper Deck, and now it's anybody guess. But rookie card means Major League baseball. McGwires 85 topps was part of a sub-set and at the time was not considered his major league rookie card. But it is his first card produced by major league card producers, Now it's become " First Card produced ( Robert, Wander. Acuna, etc.) by any licensed company.
You are absolutely correct! The market will always determine the best card.
I have posted this before; I was in a card shop in 1983 and saw both the Ripken cards. I thought the "rookie" card sucked compared to the traded card and they were the same price. The guy behind the counter made a big deal about the traded card "not being his rookie", so I didn't buy either.
Buy what you think is the best card, in many cases it won't be a "true" rookie.
Have fun collecting!
I thought only boxing card collectors argued this much about what a rookie card is.
Arthur
Hi there and these are great questions. As far as an 83 box going for $800, I think that is going to come down a little. I have always thought unopened individual packs from 81-85 were undervalued and are finally starting to get the recognition I thought they deserved. I think the industry in general had blown up in the last few months due to the COVID isolation and I feel these packs will at least hold there value when it is over.
I think 85 Topps boxes and packs will continue to go up for sure. I have a store on eBay and have sold 22 lots of 50 Topps common's. It is my most popular item. It seems like a lot of people are building this set, which will continue to make the packs and boxes increase in value
I have seen somewhat of a bump in the boxes of 86-87 as well, but because these cards were so overproduced I can't see them holding any recent gains they have made, with boxes or packs.