My guess is investors are driving up the prices on PSA 10's as much, if not more than the registry.
If I was to advise someone on investing in sports cards, I would suggest to buy PSA 10's of HOF rookie cards.
Of course, the long time collectors would elaborate on there being good investments in other grades and players, as long as the card has very few (or no) 10's, but to keep things simple, I would just stick to PSA 10's.
I try to buy 10's for my registry sets, but I'm not a wealthy investor, so I often end up with 9's at a greatly reduced price. Why spend hundreds of dollars more on a 10 if a well centered 9 is available?
However, when I buy a card as an investment (recently bought a Fleer Glossy Randy Johnson rookie), I buy a 10.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
My guess is investors are driving up the prices on PSA 10's as much, if not more than the registry.
If I was to advise someone on investing in sports cards, I would suggest to buy PSA 10's of HOF rookie cards.
Of course, the long time collectors would elaborate on there being good investments in other grades and players, as long as the card has very few (or no) 10's, but to keep things simple, I would just stick to PSA 10's.
I try to buy 10's for my registry sets, but I'm not a wealthy investor, so I often end up with 9's at a greatly reduced price. Why spend hundreds of dollars more on a 10 if a well centered 9 is available?
However, when I buy a card as an investment (recently bought a Fleer Glossy Randy Johnson rookie), I buy a 10.
But I wasn't talking about PSA 9 vs 10.
I was talking about Topps vs OPC, and collecting(registry) not investing.
Topps is usually more plentiful than OPC in a given grade, but demand for Topps is usually higher than OPC.
How much of that is because of the registry?
And to extend my question to include Topps Tiffany as a similar example, it's likely the 'regular' Topps card is more plentiful than the Tiffany version in a given grade. Why is it that in some cases, the 'regular' Topps card sells for more than the Tiffany version in the same grade?
Does the registry have that much of an influence, as collectors try to fill their sets, which don't include the Tiffany or OPC versions?
@JoeBanzai said:
My guess is investors are driving up the prices on PSA 10's as much, if not more than the registry.
If I was to advise someone on investing in sports cards, I would suggest to buy PSA 10's of HOF rookie cards.
Of course, the long time collectors would elaborate on there being good investments in other grades and players, as long as the card has very few (or no) 10's, but to keep things simple, I would just stick to PSA 10's.
I try to buy 10's for my registry sets, but I'm not a wealthy investor, so I often end up with 9's at a greatly reduced price. Why spend hundreds of dollars more on a 10 if a well centered 9 is available?
However, when I buy a card as an investment (recently bought a Fleer Glossy Randy Johnson rookie), I buy a 10.
But I wasn't talking about PSA 9 vs 10.
I was talking about Topps vs OPC, and collecting(registry) not investing.
Topps is usually more plentiful than OPC in a given grade, but demand for Topps is usually higher than OPC.
How much of that is because of the registry?
And to extend my question to include Topps Tiffany as a similar example, it's likely the 'regular' Topps card is more plentiful than the Tiffany version in a given grade. Why is it that in some cases, the 'regular' Topps card sells for more than the Tiffany version in the same grade?
Does the registry have that much of an influence, as collectors try to fill their sets, which don't include the Tiffany or OPC versions?
I think most people want the cards they grew up with.
Most people didn’t rip packs of OPC or Tiffany…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
How much influence does the registry have on demand, collectability and pricing?
>
My guess is 30-40%. Maybe less, depending on the player.
Not all collectors participate in the registry. In the two sets I collect, Killebrew and Puckett, there's only 2 collectors for each player that have the Master set over 50% complete, yet there are plenty of collectors/investors buying PSA 10's when available.
>
I see team sets and key card sets only requiring the Topps versions.
>
This means the OPC versions have not been requested to be added by the registry guys to be in the sets, another indication that sales are being driven by collectors/investors.
>
Some Topps cards are going for more money than the OPC version despite the rarity and pop numbers.
Oddly enough, not everyone thinks a cards value is determined by rarity. Availability also comes into consideration. If a card rarely comes on the market, some people buy the best available and move on.
You could expand this discussion to include Topps Venezuela cards, even more rare than OPC, but I see a lot of low grade, very rare cards going unsold. Low grade cards are less attractive.
I know it's hard to understand, but not everyone's first factor in buying is rarity.
Some people actually give up on going after cards that are "too rare" and focus on what they can more easily find.
Crazy isn't it?
Edited to add; set builders may also not as interested in OPC as some years didn't have all the cards.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Supply is so low sometimes it can hurt the overall "real" value since no market value has been established and/or it has been a long time since a listed sell took place.
I have the number 1 1978 OPC registry set, but I will tell you that I have basically given up trying to get upgrade the set due to the lack of supply. Rarely if ever does one pop up on EBAY that I don't already have at that grade.
I do think when it comes to HOF type cards, especially their rookies, if an OPC is available it will usually out price the Topps due to supply, especially in the 1980's Gwynn, Sandberg, Bonds, Randy Johnson,
How have you seen grading recently? I have a handful of 79s I’d like to grade but when I sent an Ozzie rookie in earlier this year they sent it back ungraded due to miscut. It’s a bit off center but the size works.
@olb31 said:
Supply is so low sometimes it can hurt the overall "real" value since no market value has been established and/or it has been a long time since a listed sell took place.
I have the number 1 1978 OPC registry set, but I will tell you that I have basically given up trying to get upgrade the set due to the lack of supply. Rarely if ever does one pop up on EBAY that I don't already have at that grade.
I do think when it comes to HOF type cards, especially their rookies, if an OPC is available it will usually out price the Topps due to supply, especially in the 1980's Gwynn, Sandberg, Bonds, Randy Johnson,
Absolutely correct.
I picked up my PSA 8 OPC 1971 Killebrew 30 years ago, haven't seen a 9 since then. There are two 9's, no 10's.
Of course if one did pop up, I couldn't afford it.😁
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
This means the OPC versions have not been requested to be added by the registry guys to be in the sets, another indication that sales are being driven by collectors/investors.
I think more so, collectors are given a registry set to pursue, then they go out trying to complete the set, instead of trying to complete a set not listed, then ask for the set to be added.
Had PSA initially included the OPC versions in all the team sets for example, there would be more interest and demand in OPCs, which would likely increase their value more in line with their relative scarcity.
@JoeBanzai said:
I know it's hard to understand, but not everyone's first factor in buying is rarity.
Not hard to understand at all. I've never made that claim.
This means the OPC versions have not been requested to be added by the registry guys to be in the sets, another indication that sales are being driven by collectors/investors.
I think more so, collectors are given a registry set to pursue, then they go out trying to complete the set, instead of trying to complete a set not listed, then ask for the set to be added.
Had PSA initially included the OPC versions in all the team sets for example, there would be more interest and demand in OPCs, which would likely increase their value more in line with their relative scarcity.
When I started collecting Killebrew, almost 40 years ago, I initially thought the set would be 20 cards, one for each year 1955-75. Then I included League Leader cards, some of which weren't even listed in the registry (nothing was "automatically" added, each card had to be requested), then I discovered OPC, then Venezuelan, then other "oddball" issues, many I sent in to be graded and then had to request to be added to the Master set. I even had to contact SCD and have them instruct PSA to add some Topps more rare issues.
My thoughts are that PSA could have saved a LOT of time and trouble just automatically adding all of a players mainstream cards right from the start instead of how they did it. Obscure issues could be requested as they came up, but certainly OPC should have been included automatically.
This might have had an effect on demand for OPC's, but I don't think it would be a huge one. The cards just aren't there. Lots of people are impulse buyers and don't have the patience to wait for a nice OPC card to come along.
@JoeBanzai said:
I know it's hard to understand, but not everyone's first factor in buying is rarity.
Not hard to understand at all. I've never made that claim.
Well, you might not be making that claim, but, pretty much, this entire thread is.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
i ordered a 1974 killebrew from larry back in 1980. my dad told me about him. he was kind of a better version of kingman, in my opinion. no slight there, kingman was a huge hr guy.
I remember (barely, cause I’m almost that old) that everyone knocked DK for his strikeout rate. If he played now he’d probably be MVP candidate every year since no one cares about Ks anymore. Trams just want the HRs.
@BBBrkrr said:
I remember (barely, cause I’m almost that old) that everyone knocked DK for his strikeout rate. If he played now he’d probably be MVP candidate every year since no one cares about Ks anymore. Trams just want the HRs.
He could hit HRs, but very few Doubles and walks.
He had ONE great year (1979), and ONE almost great year in 1984.
He hit over 40 HR ONCE.
His SLG for the 7 seasons where he hit over 30 HR was .485.
His OBP for those 7 years was .298.
Killebrew on the other hand hit 39 or more HR NINE TIMES! Including 49 twice.
Harmon's SLG was .555 for those 9 seasons.
Kingman hit a lot of HR, but let's not say he was in the same universe as Harmon Killebrew.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
256 batting average has to be near the bottom of hof players. doesn't really make you think he was a terrific hitter. mcgwire hit 263 and no one was confusing him for a great hitter.
@olb31 said:
256 batting average has to be near the bottom of hof players. doesn't really make you think he was a terrific hitter. mcgwire hit 263 and no one was confusing him for a great hitter.
.256 was low if that's all you look at.
No one, I don't think, just looks at BA anymore.
Killebrew is the greatest right handed home run hitter in American League history. He hit more home runs in the 1960's than Mays, Aaron, Yaz and anyone else.
When he retired, only Babe Ruth had more HR and hit home runs as frequently as Harmon. Guess what? Still true today (with the exception of juicer McGwire).
Seven players who didn't use steroids hit more HR all time, and he's also top 15 in Walks. It is hard to get a hit when the pitcher refuses to throw the ball over the plate, unless your Ted Williams
McGwire's career might have been over after 6 seasons if he didn't become a juicer. He had one season with over a .500 SLG in his first six. I don't consider steroid users numbers to be accurate. At least Bonds was a great player before he became Mr Potatohead.
I have never, and will never, claim he was among the best all around players of all time. He obviously was below Mays, Aaron, Williams, Mantle and quite a few other top tier HOFers.
Dave Kingman is light years below Killebrew!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@olb31 said:
256 batting average has to be near the bottom of hof players. doesn't really make you think he was a terrific hitter. mcgwire hit 263 and no one was confusing him for a great hitter.
it really isnt about BA anymore. Killers OBP was only .12 from Tony Gwynns career OBP. They were getting on base at almost the same clip, but Killebrew was doing more with his hits.
if it's not about Batting average then Kingman deserves more credit than ya'll are giving him. But I like both of these guys. I really liked Kingman in the 70's. He could really crush the ball.
I have some really nice OPC rookies of Dave. 1972.
@olb31 said:
if it's not about Batting average then Kingman deserves more credit than ya'll are giving him. But I like both of these guys. I really liked Kingman in the 70's. He could really crush the ball.
I have some really nice OPC rookies of Dave. 1972.
It is about getting on base (OBP) and when you hit the ball driving it (SLG)
Kingman only got on base .302 of the time. abysmal. worlds worse than Killer.
@olb31 said:
if it's not about Batting average then Kingman deserves more credit than ya'll are giving him. But I like both of these guys. I really liked Kingman in the 70's. He could really crush the ball.
I have some really nice OPC rookies of Dave. 1972.
Kingman could crush the ball. He gets credit for one thing, at bats per home run.
Dave hit a HR every 15.11 times, very good.
Killebrew did it every 14.22 times, better.
The problem is he missed a lot of games.
He played in 90% of his teams games 3X, his OPS for those years averaged .756.
Killebrew did it 9X, his OPS for those years averaged .937.
Home runs;
Killebrew led league 6X was in top ten 13X.
Kingman led 2X was in top ten 10X.
There's credit given where it's due, after this it gets ugly for Dave.
RBI;
Killer led 3X in top ten 10X.
Kong led 0X was top ten 5X (twice at #10).
Base on balls;
Killebrew led 4X top ten 13X.
Kingman led 0X once in top ten.
SLG;
Killebrew led 1X, top ten 11X.
Kingman led 1X, top ten 3X.
Total bases;
Killebrew never led, top ten 9X.
Kingman never led, top ten 3X.
OPS;
Seasons at 1.000 or above;
Killebrew 2X.
Kingman 0X.
Seasons at .900-.999;
Killebrew 7X.
Kingman 1X.
Seasons at .850-.899;
Killebrew 3X.
Kingman 3X.
Seasons BELOW .850;
Killebrew 3.
Kingman 12X.
Kingman had 1 great year (1979) and 1, possibly two very good years (1984 & maybe 1975). The other 6 seasons where he had an OPS over .775 he averaged playing in 100 games per season.
Killebrew had 2 phenomenal years (1961 & 1969) and another 7 seasons where he played in 90% of the games or more and slugged over .850 (5 of those 7 he slugged over .912).
Lastly Kong was only able to play first base, while Killebrew was able to play at third and in left field also.
Kingman hit a lot of HR for a part time player, he really didn't do anything else well AT ALL.
Kingman was NOWHERE NEAR the player Harmon Killebrew was, NOWHERE NEAR.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Killebrew ranks 208 all-time in HOF batting average. Sounds like he was kind of one dimensional. Mostly pitchers are behind him. I would say Mcgwire was better than Killebrew. Kingman was behind him but a similar type of player, but a notch below.
@olb31 said:
Killebrew ranks 208 all-time in HOF batting average. Sounds like he was kind of one dimensional. Mostly pitchers are behind him. I would say Mcgwire was better than Killebrew. Kingman was behind him but a similar type of player, but a notch below.
I'm not sure why you are obsessed with batting average when discussing sluggers who had low ones, but you are obviously ignoring all the walks Killebrew had.
McGwire was (other than his great rookie year) a nothing player until he used steroids to bulk up. In his 5th season he played 154 games, hit 22 HR and batted .201. Pathetic.
IF you ignore the steroids and again, I don't, he was a better slugger than Harmon, however Killebrew was much better in the field.
Kingman was not nearly anywhere in the same universe as Killebrew as you can see in my post, if you bothered to read it.
I'm not saying you or anyone else shouldn't like Kingman, just that he's about 1/4 the player Killebrew was. They were close in HR hitting, but that's it.
Killebrew DOMINATES Kingman in every other aspect of hitting and fielding, and he played every day unless he was injured.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@balco758 said:
I like both you guys. Can I help resolve this, lol.
Killebrew was way better and nicer; but Kingman did hit some bombs for a few years.
Nothing to resolve, Killebrew was way better.
Kingman did hit some bombs with very good frequency, I have never disputed that.
Killebrew was known as one of the nicest players ever and Kingman one of the worst. I'm not using those facts in my evaluation.
>
Kingmam wins on creating fear in pitchers and his powerful strikeouts and angry face. I remember even when he was in the OF he looked pissed off.
>
Kingman might have looked mean, but pitchers sure were afraid to throw him strikes, he rarely walked.
>
@pdoidoi said:
I thought this topic was about OPC . I keep clicking on here for Topps OPC.
>
The OP brought up the comparison, I responded.
These threads go off topic often, sorry if it bothered you.
>
Here's my attempt to show some nice Killebrew cards to get back on topic.
Hope you enjoy them.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai wow Joe, great looking Killebrews! I like all of the cards you posted but I especially love those side rough cuts on the 72 and 73 and 74, and what appears to be a rough cut on the bottom of the 66.
That 68 really "pops". Something about the bright vivid colors of OPC make me think of them as the "Topps Tiffany" of the 60s and 70s.
I will post my Dave Kingman Collection later. LOL!!! Nice cards. to have a psa 9 opc 1974 is really rare. I think the only Killebrew graded card I have is the 1955. I have a psa 7.
@waxman2745 said: @JoeBanzai wow Joe, great looking Killebrews! I like all of the cards you posted but I especially love those side rough cuts on the 72 and 73 and 74, and what appears to be a rough cut on the bottom of the 66.
That 68 really "pops". Something about the bright vivid colors of OPC make me think of them as the "Topps Tiffany" of the 60s and 70s.
Thanks Adam!
I am very grateful that I was on the lookout for high grade OPC's almost right from the beginning of my collecting Killebrew.
Many of these were purchased by me responding to ads in SCD by sending my wantlist to sellers in Canada and later submitting to PSA. This was before the Internet and grading companies existed.
The 1966 & 1971 cards were a lucky pick up. Saw them for sale in SCD and immediately called the seller. If I remember, they charged me $25.00 for each card. Higher than book price at the time, but I was very happy to get them!
I have mixed feelings on the rough cuts, a little doesn't bother me but the left edge on the 1972 is a little worse than I like.
Glad you enjoyed them!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I picked up a 1967 OPC mantle from one of the big canadian sellers a few years back for $420. PSA 7. About 10 - 12 years ago you could have picked up the mantle above in PSA 8 for $999. That was a little rich for me at the time.
@olb31 said:
I picked up a 1967 OPC mantle from one of the big canadian sellers a few years back for $420. PSA 7. About 10 - 12 years ago you could have picked up the mantle above in PSA 8 for $999. That was a little rich for me at the time.
I like to buy cards rather than holders and between the price, print job, centering and gorgeous OPC rough cut on top and bottom, I just thought it was a beautiful example and I had to have it...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Comments
My guess is investors are driving up the prices on PSA 10's as much, if not more than the registry.
If I was to advise someone on investing in sports cards, I would suggest to buy PSA 10's of HOF rookie cards.
Of course, the long time collectors would elaborate on there being good investments in other grades and players, as long as the card has very few (or no) 10's, but to keep things simple, I would just stick to PSA 10's.
I try to buy 10's for my registry sets, but I'm not a wealthy investor, so I often end up with 9's at a greatly reduced price. Why spend hundreds of dollars more on a 10 if a well centered 9 is available?
However, when I buy a card as an investment (recently bought a Fleer Glossy Randy Johnson rookie), I buy a 10.
But I wasn't talking about PSA 9 vs 10.
I was talking about Topps vs OPC, and collecting(registry) not investing.
Topps is usually more plentiful than OPC in a given grade, but demand for Topps is usually higher than OPC.
How much of that is because of the registry?
And to extend my question to include Topps Tiffany as a similar example, it's likely the 'regular' Topps card is more plentiful than the Tiffany version in a given grade. Why is it that in some cases, the 'regular' Topps card sells for more than the Tiffany version in the same grade?
Does the registry have that much of an influence, as collectors try to fill their sets, which don't include the Tiffany or OPC versions?
I think most people want the cards they grew up with.
Most people didn’t rip packs of OPC or Tiffany…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
>
My guess is 30-40%. Maybe less, depending on the player.
Not all collectors participate in the registry. In the two sets I collect, Killebrew and Puckett, there's only 2 collectors for each player that have the Master set over 50% complete, yet there are plenty of collectors/investors buying PSA 10's when available.
>
>
This means the OPC versions have not been requested to be added by the registry guys to be in the sets, another indication that sales are being driven by collectors/investors.
>
Oddly enough, not everyone thinks a cards value is determined by rarity. Availability also comes into consideration. If a card rarely comes on the market, some people buy the best available and move on.
You could expand this discussion to include Topps Venezuela cards, even more rare than OPC, but I see a lot of low grade, very rare cards going unsold. Low grade cards are less attractive.
I know it's hard to understand, but not everyone's first factor in buying is rarity.
Some people actually give up on going after cards that are "too rare" and focus on what they can more easily find.
Crazy isn't it?
Edited to add; set builders may also not as interested in OPC as some years didn't have all the cards.
thank you for posting that pack. I love the variation from the base topps pack
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Supply is so low sometimes it can hurt the overall "real" value since no market value has been established and/or it has been a long time since a listed sell took place.
I have the number 1 1978 OPC registry set, but I will tell you that I have basically given up trying to get upgrade the set due to the lack of supply. Rarely if ever does one pop up on EBAY that I don't already have at that grade.
I do think when it comes to HOF type cards, especially their rookies, if an OPC is available it will usually out price the Topps due to supply, especially in the 1980's Gwynn, Sandberg, Bonds, Randy Johnson,
How have you seen grading recently? I have a handful of 79s I’d like to grade but when I sent an Ozzie rookie in earlier this year they sent it back ungraded due to miscut. It’s a bit off center but the size works.
I think they were thrown by the OPC edges.
Absolutely correct.
I picked up my PSA 8 OPC 1971 Killebrew 30 years ago, haven't seen a 9 since then. There are two 9's, no 10's.
Of course if one did pop up, I couldn't afford it.😁
I think more so, collectors are given a registry set to pursue, then they go out trying to complete the set, instead of trying to complete a set not listed, then ask for the set to be added.
Had PSA initially included the OPC versions in all the team sets for example, there would be more interest and demand in OPCs, which would likely increase their value more in line with their relative scarcity.
Not hard to understand at all. I've never made that claim.
When I started collecting Killebrew, almost 40 years ago, I initially thought the set would be 20 cards, one for each year 1955-75. Then I included League Leader cards, some of which weren't even listed in the registry (nothing was "automatically" added, each card had to be requested), then I discovered OPC, then Venezuelan, then other "oddball" issues, many I sent in to be graded and then had to request to be added to the Master set. I even had to contact SCD and have them instruct PSA to add some Topps more rare issues.
My thoughts are that PSA could have saved a LOT of time and trouble just automatically adding all of a players mainstream cards right from the start instead of how they did it. Obscure issues could be requested as they came up, but certainly OPC should have been included automatically.
This might have had an effect on demand for OPC's, but I don't think it would be a huge one. The cards just aren't there. Lots of people are impulse buyers and don't have the patience to wait for a nice OPC card to come along.
Well, you might not be making that claim, but, pretty much, this entire thread is.
i ordered a 1974 killebrew from larry back in 1980. my dad told me about him. he was kind of a better version of kingman, in my opinion. no slight there, kingman was a huge hr guy.
MUCH better than Kingman.
Forget the fact that Kingman was a colossal asshole.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
and Killebrew was one of the nicest.
yep better, but mainly a home run hitter. BA is low, couldn't steal bases. similar, but yes harmon was better. personality wise, i have no idea.
dave was a big time hr dude, he could really blast it.
I remember (barely, cause I’m almost that old) that everyone knocked DK for his strikeout rate. If he played now he’d probably be MVP candidate every year since no one cares about Ks anymore. Trams just want the HRs.
He could hit HRs, but very few Doubles and walks.
He had ONE great year (1979), and ONE almost great year in 1984.
He hit over 40 HR ONCE.
His SLG for the 7 seasons where he hit over 30 HR was .485.
His OBP for those 7 years was .298.
Killebrew on the other hand hit 39 or more HR NINE TIMES! Including 49 twice.
Harmon's SLG was .555 for those 9 seasons.
Kingman hit a lot of HR, but let's not say he was in the same universe as Harmon Killebrew.
256 batting average has to be near the bottom of hof players. doesn't really make you think he was a terrific hitter. mcgwire hit 263 and no one was confusing him for a great hitter.
.256 was low if that's all you look at.
No one, I don't think, just looks at BA anymore.
Killebrew is the greatest right handed home run hitter in American League history. He hit more home runs in the 1960's than Mays, Aaron, Yaz and anyone else.
When he retired, only Babe Ruth had more HR and hit home runs as frequently as Harmon. Guess what? Still true today (with the exception of juicer McGwire).
Seven players who didn't use steroids hit more HR all time, and he's also top 15 in Walks. It is hard to get a hit when the pitcher refuses to throw the ball over the plate, unless your Ted Williams
McGwire's career might have been over after 6 seasons if he didn't become a juicer. He had one season with over a .500 SLG in his first six. I don't consider steroid users numbers to be accurate. At least Bonds was a great player before he became Mr Potatohead.
I have never, and will never, claim he was among the best all around players of all time. He obviously was below Mays, Aaron, Williams, Mantle and quite a few other top tier HOFers.
Dave Kingman is light years below Killebrew!
it really isnt about BA anymore. Killers OBP was only .12 from Tony Gwynns career OBP. They were getting on base at almost the same clip, but Killebrew was doing more with his hits.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
if it's not about Batting average then Kingman deserves more credit than ya'll are giving him. But I like both of these guys. I really liked Kingman in the 70's. He could really crush the ball.
I have some really nice OPC rookies of Dave. 1972.
It is about getting on base (OBP) and when you hit the ball driving it (SLG)
Kingman only got on base .302 of the time. abysmal. worlds worse than Killer.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Worse than Stanton for the yankees?
Kingman could crush the ball. He gets credit for one thing, at bats per home run.
Dave hit a HR every 15.11 times, very good.
Killebrew did it every 14.22 times, better.
The problem is he missed a lot of games.
He played in 90% of his teams games 3X, his OPS for those years averaged .756.
Killebrew did it 9X, his OPS for those years averaged .937.
Home runs;
Killebrew led league 6X was in top ten 13X.
Kingman led 2X was in top ten 10X.
There's credit given where it's due, after this it gets ugly for Dave.
RBI;
Killer led 3X in top ten 10X.
Kong led 0X was top ten 5X (twice at #10).
Base on balls;
Killebrew led 4X top ten 13X.
Kingman led 0X once in top ten.
SLG;
Killebrew led 1X, top ten 11X.
Kingman led 1X, top ten 3X.
Total bases;
Killebrew never led, top ten 9X.
Kingman never led, top ten 3X.
OPS;
Seasons at 1.000 or above;
Killebrew 2X.
Kingman 0X.
Seasons at .900-.999;
Killebrew 7X.
Kingman 1X.
Seasons at .850-.899;
Killebrew 3X.
Kingman 3X.
Seasons BELOW .850;
Killebrew 3.
Kingman 12X.
Kingman had 1 great year (1979) and 1, possibly two very good years (1984 & maybe 1975). The other 6 seasons where he had an OPS over .775 he averaged playing in 100 games per season.
Killebrew had 2 phenomenal years (1961 & 1969) and another 7 seasons where he played in 90% of the games or more and slugged over .850 (5 of those 7 he slugged over .912).
Lastly Kong was only able to play first base, while Killebrew was able to play at third and in left field also.
Kingman hit a lot of HR for a part time player, he really didn't do anything else well AT ALL.
Kingman was NOWHERE NEAR the player Harmon Killebrew was, NOWHERE NEAR.
KING KONG!!!!
Killebrew ranks 208 all-time in HOF batting average. Sounds like he was kind of one dimensional. Mostly pitchers are behind him. I would say Mcgwire was better than Killebrew. Kingman was behind him but a similar type of player, but a notch below.
I'm not sure why you are obsessed with batting average when discussing sluggers who had low ones, but you are obviously ignoring all the walks Killebrew had.
McGwire was (other than his great rookie year) a nothing player until he used steroids to bulk up. In his 5th season he played 154 games, hit 22 HR and batted .201. Pathetic.
IF you ignore the steroids and again, I don't, he was a better slugger than Harmon, however Killebrew was much better in the field.
Kingman was not nearly anywhere in the same universe as Killebrew as you can see in my post, if you bothered to read it.
I'm not saying you or anyone else shouldn't like Kingman, just that he's about 1/4 the player Killebrew was. They were close in HR hitting, but that's it.
Killebrew DOMINATES Kingman in every other aspect of hitting and fielding, and he played every day unless he was injured.
I like both you guys. Can I help resolve this, lol.
Killebrew was way better and nicer; but Kingman did hit some bombs for a few years.
Kingmam wins on creating fear in pitchers and his powerful strikeouts and angry face. I remember even when he was in the OF he looked pissed off.
I thought this topic was about OPC . I keep clicking on here for Topps OPC.
Latest OPC pick up to get back on topic.
i picked up a 1979 opc murphy psa 9 one of my favs.opc pop 37, 2 psa 10.
topps pop 157, 9 psa 10. a very significant card with a pretty low pop.
Nothing to resolve, Killebrew was way better.
Kingman did hit some bombs with very good frequency, I have never disputed that.
Killebrew was known as one of the nicest players ever and Kingman one of the worst. I'm not using those facts in my evaluation.
>
>
Kingman might have looked mean, but pitchers sure were afraid to throw him strikes, he rarely walked.
>
>
The OP brought up the comparison, I responded.
These threads go off topic often, sorry if it bothered you.
>
Here's my attempt to show some nice Killebrew cards to get back on topic.
Hope you enjoy them.
@JoeBanzai wow Joe, great looking Killebrews! I like all of the cards you posted but I especially love those side rough cuts on the 72 and 73 and 74, and what appears to be a rough cut on the bottom of the 66.
That 68 really "pops". Something about the bright vivid colors of OPC make me think of them as the "Topps Tiffany" of the 60s and 70s.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
I will post my Dave Kingman Collection later. LOL!!! Nice cards. to have a psa 9 opc 1974 is really rare. I think the only Killebrew graded card I have is the 1955. I have a psa 7.
Thanks Adam!
I am very grateful that I was on the lookout for high grade OPC's almost right from the beginning of my collecting Killebrew.
Many of these were purchased by me responding to ads in SCD by sending my wantlist to sellers in Canada and later submitting to PSA. This was before the Internet and grading companies existed.
The 1966 & 1971 cards were a lucky pick up. Saw them for sale in SCD and immediately called the seller. If I remember, they charged me $25.00 for each card. Higher than book price at the time, but I was very happy to get them!
I have mixed feelings on the rough cuts, a little doesn't bother me but the left edge on the 1972 is a little worse than I like.
Glad you enjoyed them!
@JoeBanzai
Wow! That’s a beautiful OPC Mantle!
Wait, is Killebrew on there, too?!?!
😂
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I massively regret not attempting to cross this one over or crack and send to PSA back when I had the chance.
(The scratch by the ‘Y’ in Mickey is on the case).
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I picked up a 1967 OPC mantle from one of the big canadian sellers a few years back for $420. PSA 7. About 10 - 12 years ago you could have picked up the mantle above in PSA 8 for $999. That was a little rich for me at the time.
Great Killebrew run!! Thanks for sharing.
Here's another Mantle!
I like to buy cards rather than holders and between the price, print job, centering and gorgeous OPC rough cut on top and bottom, I just thought it was a beautiful example and I had to have it...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
@smallstocks
I wish I could find a Topps Killebrew IA cut that nicely. Every one I see is very noticeably tilted.
A card shop owner once told me that a lot of the Killebrew In Action cards were tilted, both Topps and OPC.
Here's mine;
KING KONG ROOKIE!!!!!
OPC Tom- I want your OPC collection. Any chance on a big trade and cash for it?
Shameless request.
Really looking form PSA 9 1977 OPC Baseball I don't have.
Feel free to reach out.
What a great thread.
Here's a rare one. Numbered differently than Topps but same photo.
Weird.