1987 Barry Bonds card analysis..
olb31
Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
1987 Fleer psa 10 pop 1262
1987 fleer glossy psa 10 pop 580
These two cards sale for almost the same thing. Makes absolutely no sense. The Glossy set had a limited print run and has 45% of the PSA 10 pop. Huh???
Fleer Hottest stars psa 10 pop 159. Sales for about $50 or so more than the two above.
Toyr r us psa 10 pop 347 and opening day (pop 240 ) sales for $50 more than the topps (pop 1503) and donruss (pop 1807). Shouldn't even be close. The only unopened case of topps cards easier to find than the 1987 is 1988, Same with donruss.
After 32 years of PSA grading Bonds cards, is seems easy to figure out that the Fleer, Topps and Donruss regular issues are barely worth buying. Unlimited print runs, huge PSA 10 pops make these cards virtually useless.
1987 Rankings by Investment potential (IMO)
1) Opening Day error (5 Star)
2) OPC (5 Star)
3) Leaf (5 star)
4) Classic Green back (5 star)
5) Tiffany ( 5 star)
6) Fleer Hottest stars (4 star)
7) Fleer Glossy ( 4 star)
8) Opening day regular (3 Star)
9) Toys R us ( 3 star)
10) Classic Yellow back (2 star)
the remaining 4, all 1 star purchases ( Topps, Donruss, Fleer and topps all-star glossy) should not be purchased for more than $100 in PSA 10. It should only be purchased if working on some type of Bonds registry.
Comments
A lot of collecting is about nostalgia. People tend to not be nostalgic about cards they never owned or saw as significant when it was issued. Stuff like Toys R Us was considered a lesser card when it was issued. Same with the Classic. Hottest Stars, I believe, is a little Fleer box set. Stuff like that is generally considered insignificant. The Opening Day error is cool and all, but it is a box set that isn't in line with the regular issue. Gimmick cards. Some guys don't even like update stuff because box set. Fleer Glossy is cool, but it's still just Fleer and a box set.
A lot of the pops of these cards are low because people don't care enough to submit them. The pop report doesn't always reflect the rarity of objects. It just tells you how many have been sent to PSA, sort of.
If you look at it like all this box set stuff is significant, then all these cards are absolutely 2nd year.
The only 2 cards on this list that came in packs are Leaf and OPC. Leaf and OPC are lower pop, but they're Canadian. Generally in collecting the item from the home country is more significant as long as it was issued first or at the same time.
Fleer and Donruss were cool in the 80s. Even though they didn't produce sports cards regularly before 81. Now the lineage is totally broken. It's neat to see the rated rookie logo on cards. But, they have nearly no link to the 80s rated rookie stuff.
These days, with Topps issuing like 50 sets a year. Maybe a slight exaggeration. Only slight though. The lines do get blurry. Lots of guys collect Topps. Not every card Topps makes is significant. They're kinda making the hole industry trashy.
I know it has nothing to do with how much MSRP is on a pack.
It's also not directly related to rarity. The whole manufactured rarity thing has gone way too far and is pretty sad.
CardGeek, nice info. I feel like there are some collectors, but maybe more investors. Not sure of the breakdown and in some cases the distinction is very blurry. I love collecting cards and have been doing it since 1974, but the $$$ of card certainly doesn't hurt my spending habits.
PSA is in existence, imo, mainly for the investor or collector/investor. Probably not for just the collector.
I totally agree with the "non-maintstream sets". But at some point, the over production of 1987 wax, etc., makes it kind of a waste of time.
1987 Leaf and 1987 OPC much much tougher to find, but no impossible.
1987 Topps Stickers (came in packs, but not widely distributed)...I remember an article (Beckett?) mentioned this card might be a sleeper. A PSA 10 sold for $100 a few months back. But, probably the least attractive Bonds rookie year card, shared with Neil Allen.
Supply and demand, supply AND demand. . .
I think the 87 opening day Bonds would be a HUGE card if only it had Bonds Picture and Johnny Ray's name instead of the other way around. I think many collectors consider it a Johnny Ray card with bonds name across the bottom.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
good point. 2001 bowman miguel same thing
ignorance. not you. the people who pay $250 for 1987 topps psa 10. they just don't know. knowledge is power.
1987 Sportflics Team Previews.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
Is the Griffey a waste of time? The whole concept of waste of time is interesting. The Griffey has something like 2500 listings on eBay. The 87 topps Bonds has over 3000 listings. Both of those cards have an enormous glut. People love that Griffey though. I wouldn't invest in either of these cards. Any baseball card collector should own one of each though.
1989 Upper Deck Griffey 4041 PSA 10s. 1800 dollar card.
1987 Topps Bonds 1503 PSA 10s. Not worth 250 according to ^^
I wonder what SMR says about these. I've never looked.
yeah that griffey makes no sense to me either. 4041 10's alone is ridiculous. all other upper deck psa cards are worthless, or under $100 except 1 or 2 others.
Should really be DEMAND and supply.
1952 Topps Mantle is not even his rookie card and it goes for $12M.
Supply is only a factor when demand is high.
When there is a huge supply and demand is low prices are supposed to drop. Huge glut. Just not a huge supply of 10s. Guys value the cases.
The whole grading situation blurs the lines too. MIllions of each of these cards were produced. Only so many 10s.
The way RC cards work now isn't helping. 86 is Bonds RC card year.
Eventually 87 Topps wax and 89 Upper Deck foiled paper, or whatever, and factory sets are going to dry up. Maybe not in my lifetime. Not 50 yet. Eventually though.
I don't have the Griffey. Every time I look the prices are too high.
I do really like the Toys R Us card.
Makes no sense. I never could figure out why the Griffey card sells for so much more?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Mostly agree.
I have a 1974 OPC Griffey rookie psa 9, pop 1 no 10's. I picked it up a year ago on ebay. The seller never stated that it was a pop 1. I bought it for $125 about the same price as the topps. I don't think this card has huge demand, but ok.
But If i were to put it up for sale and stated it was a pop 1 no 10's, I bet i get a lot more than $125. I bet I get alot more than a Topps psa 9. Most people that buy, just don't know, ignorant. Like I said before, knowledge means a lot.
I doubt that most people state that the Griffey PSA 10 has a pop of 4041, doesn't sound good and probably will not promote the card well.
I post this type of of stuff to help inform people. I do a lot of research.
>
>
I mostly agree with you, but what you seem to ignore is the fact that not everyone collects for investment purposes.
A couple of years ago I decided to buy a Larry Walker rookie and even though I liked the Topps Tiffany better, I bought the Bowman because I heard it was a lower produced set.
Well, now I am hearing it's not, and there are actually more Walker Bowman's in PSA 10.
I am OK with the Bowman, but I should have just bought the one I liked and quit worrying about rarity.
Years ago a friend advised me to "collect what you like, if it doesn't go up in value, you still have something you like".
I really like the 1987 Fleer Glossy set, there are probably scarcer sets out there, but the Fleers are beautiful.
On the other hand, I am somewhat obsessed with Venezuelan's from the 1960's featuring Killebrew. Are they actually good investments? Doesn't look like it right now. Very rare!
venezuelan - cards
went to chantilly show in june. a dealer there specialized in high end psa 8.5 and 9's of mays rose mantle aaron, etc. we had a brief discussion about his cards and he brought up the venezuelan cards. he said that they were one of the items he was looking for.
he had traveled from california to sale at the chantilly show.
killebrew is an interesting collectible. awesome player. but his cards just aren't very well collected. i think you could put him in with whitey ford, brooks, frank r. not sure why. i have a psa 7 rookie and it barely sales for more than $1,000. should be several times that imo.
like i said i am a collector/investor. there will be items in your inventory that you like and items that have $$$ value and items with both. i focus on the investment end on the posts i make.
by the way, if i had $1800 to spend, it would be for a 2001 bowman gold pujols psa 10, not a 1989 upper deck griffey.
Pujols so hot right now.
You can always find a buyer for Tony Conigliaro rookies in the Boston area.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
I’m sale-ing awaayyy….
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Picked this one up a few months ago.......
>
>
Absolutely what you enjoy and exactly what you should do.
Griffey is a more popular player than Bonds, regardless of graded card pop.
I agree. But I would still never pay $1800 or more for the Upper deck, I don't care if Griffey is the most popular player of all-time. As a collector or investor that is not that best use of your money.
This Pujols is above is a good buy for the $1800. POP 50. Odds of getting one in a pack is 1 in 720 packs (30 boxes). The Griffey comes 3 or 4 per box.
But this thread is about the Bonds cards. The Leaf, Tiffany, and green back classic of bonds are better uses of your money than the griffey upper deck. The Griffey card is iconic because it was the first upper deck set and topps didn't put griffey in their set. Nice card but not much if any room for market appreciation based on the current prices.
I will usually favor the true rarity over a conditional rarity. especially with the trimming concerns of recent years.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Not only is Griffey more popular than Bonds, but 1989 Upper Deck is incomparably more popular than 1987 Topps, and the Griffey is far and away the most iconic card in that set. In fact the most iconic card of the '80s, right there with the '86 Fleer Jordan, with the exception that the Griffey was iconic from day one.
Griffey is nowhere near as popular as Michael Jordan. I'm getting real tired of logging in to facebook and seeing endless Michael Jordan posts suggested for me. I don't follow anything that would make facebook think I like Michael Jordan. If that Griffey card goes the way of the Jordan card. There will be twice as many people wondering why they bought that stuff 20-30s years down the road. I'd rather have a real nice Dr. J, Alcindor, Chamberlain, or Russell. I'm sure I could come up with 10 Baseball cards I'd rather spend 1800 dollars on if I tried.
That Griffey card is more popular than Bonds RCs. It was engineered that way. In 87 Bonds was just another RC in the mix. McGwire and Canseco were the hotness. In 89 Griffey completely had the spotlight on him. Then Frank Thomas.
I would rather invest in a psa 10 1987 Bonds OPC, then a psa 10 1989 UD Griffey.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Very well said.
looking over their stats bonds is way and above better than griffey jr. the stat everyone seems to point to is war.
bonds 163
griffey jr 84
having watched both play their entire careers, bonds was a way better hitter. plus he stole over 500 bases. people on this board may "like" griffey jr as a person better but the stats all lean toward bonds.
i am not a bonds fan by the way.
is this comparable and does it matter? bonds had 2 careers. one where he was a raw stud and another where he was a juiced up bobble head. sadly the juiced up bobble head is what everyone remembers and the legacy he chose for himself
Yes, Bonds seems more collectible than Griffey because he holds the prestigious records. But to each their own. I assume its mostly Griffey's Seattle fans that still admire him. He wasn't very well liked while playing in Cincinnati.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Griffey had two careers, also. In Seattle and his first year in Cincinnati he was an elite superstar and looked as though he'd be an all-time great. From age 31 to 40, his two all-star appearances notwithstanding he had essentially the same career as Ben Revere or Drew Stubbs.
His reckless and play and injuries contributed to his decline in Cinci:
Right shoulder surgery, right knee surgery, left knee surgery, left knee surgery twice, hamstring surgery and five or six drainage procedures after the hamstring surgery.
His pre-30s numbers (398 homers and a .300 average) weren't even close to his numbers in his 30s (.263 and 210 homers).
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Griffey was just hurt too often in the latter part of his career. Im not sure he would have challenged for the HR record of he’d stayed healthy, but he’d surely have 700+.
Not claiming that the reasons were the same, just that Griffey had two distinct careers and that he was awful after his age 30 season.
its amazing how many baseball players suffer from career changing injuries. (non-pitchers). if they want to feel some real pain let them try football for a few years. they make so much money there is not much pain tolerance. sniffles puts them out for two weeks,