Why is a PSA 10 Mattingly rookie worth so much more than Larry Walker PSA 10 Tiffany ?

Goldenage

Worth WAY more ?
Is it the NY effect ?

pdoidoi

Because he played for the Yankees, And I'm not a Yankees fan.

erba

Because Bobby Orr said so.

Goldenage

@erba said:
Because Bobby Orr said so.

😂😂😂🤣😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣

That’s so funny !!!

😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You should try out in Vegas !!!

Goldenage

Need help from the baseball guys here.

Walkers lifetime OPS and SLG is higher than Griffey Jr. but his cards
aren’t.

Any ideas ?

BaltimoreYankee

Definitely NY effect.

3stars

Larry who?

DBesse27

We have another member who posts these kinds of threads all the time. The short answer is the DEMAND part of supply and demand.

So why the higher demand? The NY thing is a big factor, but also there’s a ton of collectors in their 40s and early 50s for whom this was THE card to get during their childhood and who can now afford a nice copy.

Goldenage

@DBesse27 said:
We have another member who posts these kinds of threads all the time. The short answer is the DEMAND part of supply and demand.

So why the higher demand? The NY thing is a big factor, but also there’s a ton of collectors in their 40s and early 50s for whom this was THE card to get during their childhood and who can now afford a nice copy.

Thank you

That makes perfect sense.

Will Walker one day catch Griffey Jr or was that the card to get also ?

DBesse27

Well the UD griffey card was a much more sought after card at the time, not to mention he had the better career. With that said, the 89 UD Griffey is a card with unlimited supply and seemingly unlimited demand. A unique/strange case.

GilR

Well, the Griffey card wasn't "much more sought after" BEFORE 1989. So these opinions are not mutually exclusive.

Cakes

The other factor is playing in Colorado.

Arenado's home runs/power have come down since going to the Cardinals.

rexvos

Mattingly was one of the most popular players of the 80s. I mean Top 5-10 for sure. Larry Walker was never super popular as good as was. The 80s non HOF guys all sell well (Mattingly, Strawberry, Gooden, Dale Murphy)

jordangretzkyfan

I think there are a few variables at play…

• NY fan base loves their team’s stars
• Mattingly’s career peak coincided with the hobby collecting explosion
• Mattingly was routinely featured on baseball card magazines during 86-89 (face of the hobby)
• Nostalgia is the #1 driver of value in the hobby (e.g. 52T Mantle vs. 51B Mantle)
• Walker became “known” in 93-95 just as the strike happened and fans left the hobby
• Walker played in a small market and benefitted from the thin air altitude
• Walker never had national endorsements to help fans know him outside Colorado

All that said, Walker is one of the most underrated HOFers out there.

82FootballWaxMemorys

The real question is why care about either when neither had Bobby Orr's career! On even their best days they simply were not good enough to even carry Orr's jock

daltex

Which Mattingly rookie do you refer to?

DeutscherGeist

@daltex said:
Which Mattingly rookie do you refer to?

I was thinking the same thing!

The 1984 Topps Tiffany and the 1984 Donruss are Mattingly's top two rookie cards.

ScoobyDoo2

B/c Mattingly is better looking.

1951WheatiesPremium

Larry Walker was one of several players - Todd Helton, Vinny Castilla, Troy Tulowitski - who people believe were significantly aided by the Coors Field park factor; they’ve since made many, many adjustments in an attempt to normalize the park ever since.

As to the players themselves, Mattingly and Griffey are generational icons that had incredible appeal to a generation of baseball fans. I mean, each guy was on the Simpsons softball team for crying out loud!

As for Walker, he was a very nice player and certainly put up some unique stats but none individually is all that impressive. Many didn’t even consider Walker the best on his own team for most of his Colorado run while each of Mattingly and Griffey were regarded as the best players (at their position, and period) in all of baseball for a pretty decent stretch, respectively.

JoeBanzai

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

As for Walker, he was a very nice player and certainly put up some unique stats but none individually is all that impressive.

>
>
I would call 16th all time in SLG pretty impressive, 3 juicers are ahead of him and a couple of current players who may or may not maintain the lead.

Centauri

When I started collecting, it was all about Mattingly and Gooden.

grote15

Munson, too, far greater value, at least with unopened product vs many HOFers, including Fisk who is in the HOF.

daltex

@grote15 said:
Munson, too, far greater value, at least with unopened product vs many HOFers, including Fisk who is in the HOF.

Is Munson's rookie especially expensive, or is it just the 1971?

daltex

@DeutscherGeist said:

@daltex said:
Which Mattingly rookie do you refer to?

I was thinking the same thing!

The 1984 Topps Tiffany and the 1984 Donruss are Mattingly's top two rookie cards.

The reason I ask is because the Donruss Mattingly was the initial, albeit imperfect, key premium card, which was overtopped by the Upper Deck Griffey. If Upper Deck hadn't come along, the Donruss Mattingly would have been the iconic card of the '80s.

1951WheatiesPremium

@daltex said:

@DeutscherGeist said:

@daltex said:
Which Mattingly rookie do you refer to?

I was thinking the same thing!

The 1984 Topps Tiffany and the 1984 Donruss are Mattingly's top two rookie cards.

The reason I ask is because the Donruss Mattingly was the initial, albeit imperfect, key premium card, which was overtopped by the Upper Deck Griffey. If Upper Deck hadn't come along, the Donruss Mattingly would have been the iconic card of the '80s.

I think there were more 1980’s chase cards than that.

Topps Boggs, Sandberg and Gwynn

Topps Traded Strawberry and Gooden

1985 Topps - McGwire USA, Clemens, Eric Davis

1989 Griffey

Billy Ripken infamous card and variations

1948_Swell_Robinson

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@daltex said:

@DeutscherGeist said:

@daltex said:
Which Mattingly rookie do you refer to?

I was thinking the same thing!

The 1984 Topps Tiffany and the 1984 Donruss are Mattingly's top two rookie cards.

The reason I ask is because the Donruss Mattingly was the initial, albeit imperfect, key premium card, which was overtopped by the Upper Deck Griffey. If Upper Deck hadn't come along, the Donruss Mattingly would have been the iconic card of the '80s.

I think there were more 1980’s chase cards than that.

Topps Boggs, Sandberg and Gwynn

Topps Traded Strawberry and Gooden

1985 Topps - McGwire USA, Clemens, Eric Davis

1989 Griffey

Billy Ripken infamous card and variations

I was discussing this other day. Gooden was really the first chase card out of packs, in 1985. His mania may have been higher than Mattingly's, but didn't last as long. Opening 1985 packs and pulling a card worth so much more than any other card in the set was really the beginning of that mania.

Mattingly didn't have that with his cards. It was the opposite. People had to go back to their 1984 donruss cards they had opened and hope they had Mattingly's hidden in there with the commons. But then soon that became the pinnacle card and for the longest time in the 1980's.

grote15

@daltex said:

@grote15 said:
Munson, too, far greater value, at least with unopened product vs many HOFers, including Fisk who is in the HOF.

Is Munson's rookie especially expensive, or is it just the 1971?

The 71 Munson is definitely the more highly sought after card and much more valuable than the 1970, especially so in higher grades.

daltex

Yes, but this misses the point. I contend that 1984 Donruss was the first premium set, and then 1989 Upper Deck was the first "super premium" set. It didn't take the Mattingly long to become the key card in the key set. For better or worse, Walker never had that.

No question Griffey was far better than Mattingly, but I'll argue that he has some of the same thing going on with the Upper Deck.

Tabe

@JoeBanzai said:

I would call 16th all time in SLG pretty impressive, 3 juicers are ahead of him and a couple of current players who may or may not maintain the lead.

Yeah but, again, Colorado. He slugged .710 there and like .500 elsewhere.

Estil

Because Don has been a legendary figure in the baseball card hobby since 1984. Larry, not nearly so much.

JoeBanzai

@Tabe said:

@JoeBanzai said:

I would call 16th all time in SLG pretty impressive, 3 juicers are ahead of him and a couple of current players who may or may not maintain the lead.

Yeah but, again, Colorado. He slugged .710 there and like .500 elsewhere.

.500 is awfully good and a lot of guys hit better at home. How much are you going to penalize him? He didn't play his entire career in Coors.
Still pretty impressive to me.

1951WheatiesPremium

@JoeBanzai said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

As for Walker, he was a very nice player and certainly put up some unique stats but none individually is all that impressive.

>
>
I would call 16th all time in SLG pretty impressive, 3 juicers are ahead of him and a couple of current players who may or may not maintain the lead.

Every player has their own trajectory in the MLB so this isn’t perfect. However, Larry Walker from when he entered the league until the strike year of ‘94 was a dramatically different player in Montreal from age 23-27; he was a very good average and on base hitter that had never even hit 25 HR. Upon landing in Colorado, everything goes up dramatically. There’s certainly ‘late bloomer’ possibilities but I am unwilling to ignore the amount of HR hit in Colorado in the 1990’s that were measurably inflated and well documented. He went from 23 as the most HR he hit in 5 full seasons in Montreal to 23 as his fewest season total for HR in his first 5 full seasons as a Rocky…

FirstBeard

I was always impressed with Walker's batting average, no so much the homers. He batted over .330 multiple times and over .350 in several seasons. He is underrated.

BBBrkrr

@FirstBeard said:
I was always impressed with Walker's batting average, no so much the homers. He batted over .330 multiple times and over .350 in several seasons. He is underrated.

I agree. He was just a really, really good all-around player. Beyond the usual stats he was a smart player, great baserunner and also seemed like a good teammate. He wasn't flashy or trying to be in the news all the time, and is underrated.

Goldenage

@FirstBeard said:
I was always impressed with Walker's batting average, no so much the homers. He batted over .330 multiple times and over .350 in several seasons. He is underrated.

He got in the HOF on his last chance ? Is that true ?

https://www.mlb.com/news/larry-walker-top-career-moments

JoeBanzai

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

As for Walker, he was a very nice player and certainly put up some unique stats but none individually is all that impressive.

>
>
I would call 16th all time in SLG pretty impressive, 3 juicers are ahead of him and a couple of current players who may or may not maintain the lead.

Every player has their own trajectory in the MLB so this isn’t perfect. However, Larry Walker from when he entered the league until the strike year of ‘94 was a dramatically different player in Montreal from age 23-27; he was a very good average and on base hitter that had never even hit 25 HR. Upon landing in Colorado, everything goes up dramatically. There’s certainly ‘late bloomer’ possibilities but I am unwilling to ignore the amount of HR hit in Colorado in the 1990’s that were measurably inflated and well documented. He went from 23 as the most HR he hit in 5 full seasons in Montreal to 23 as his fewest season total for HR in his first 5 full seasons as a Rocky…

I never mentioned HRs.

He slugged almost.600 his final year in Montreal.

Tabe

@JoeBanzai said:

@Tabe said:

@JoeBanzai said:

I would call 16th all time in SLG pretty impressive, 3 juicers are ahead of him and a couple of current players who may or may not maintain the lead.

Yeah but, again, Colorado. He slugged .710 there and like .500 elsewhere.

.500 is awfully good and a lot of guys hit better at home. How much are you going to penalize him? He didn't play his entire career in Coors.
Still pretty impressive to me.

.500 is very good but it would put him at 114th all-time. That's wonderful but a far cry from 16th.

Lots of guys are better at home but c'mon. .500 vs .710?

Cakes

@FirstBeard said:
I was always impressed with Walker's batting average, no so much the homers. He batted over .330 multiple times and over .350 in several seasons. He is underrated.

He did that while at Colorado. Playing there considerably helps with all of the offensive stats. On the flipside it kills the pitchers, it could be 50 years before they get a Pitcher in the HOF.

olb31

@daltex said:
Yes, but this misses the point. I contend that 1984 Donruss was the first premium set, and then 1989 Upper Deck was the first "super premium" set. It didn't take the Mattingly long to become the key card in the key set. For better or worse, Walker never had that.

No question Griffey was far better than Mattingly, but I'll argue that he has some of the same thing going on with the Upper Deck.

weren't the 1982 and 1983 donruss cards printed on the same stock as the 1984? i don't see the difference in appearance nor feel the difference when holding each card.

Tabe

@olb31 said:

weren't the 1982 and 1983 donruss cards printed on the same stock as the 1984? i don't see the difference in appearance nor feel the difference when holding each card.

1984 had a more updated look and was "short printed", hence feeling it was a (relatively) premium set.

daltex

@olb31 said:

@daltex said:
Yes, but this misses the point. I contend that 1984 Donruss was the first premium set, and then 1989 Upper Deck was the first "super premium" set. It didn't take the Mattingly long to become the key card in the key set. For better or worse, Walker never had that.

No question Griffey was far better than Mattingly, but I'll argue that he has some of the same thing going on with the Upper Deck.

weren't the 1982 and 1983 donruss cards printed on the same stock as the 1984? i don't see the difference in appearance nor feel the difference when holding each card.

You wouldn't, now. I don't suppose one would think 1989 Upper Deck would be anything special now, if they didn't have the memories.

JoeBanzai

@Tabe said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@Tabe said:

@JoeBanzai said:

I would call 16th all time in SLG pretty impressive, 3 juicers are ahead of him and a couple of current players who may or may not maintain the lead.

Yeah but, again, Colorado. He slugged .710 there and like .500 elsewhere.

.500 is awfully good and a lot of guys hit better at home. How much are you going to penalize him? He didn't play his entire career in Coors.
Still pretty impressive to me.

.500 is very good but it would put him at 114th all-time. That's wonderful but a far cry from 16th.

Lots of guys are better at home but c'mon. .500 vs .710?

No denying the facts, but I don't think it's fair to take the entire .200 away. He did help his team more than any of his team mates offensively.

82FootballWaxMemorys

@Tabe said:

@olb31 said:

weren't the 1982 and 1983 donruss cards printed on the same stock as the 1984? i don't see the difference in appearance nor feel the difference when holding each card.

1984 had a more updated look and was "short printed", hence feeling it was a (relatively) premium set.

While the 1984 print run was slightly less than 1983, the difference is akin to a drop or two of water being removed from the Pacific Ocean.

The alleged 1984 Donruss short-printing IMHO is fallacy that has mislead hobbyists since the very beginning. A very effective myth BTW as it's propped up prices for 38+ year now. IMHO 1984 Donruss is "Junk Wax" adjacent!

olb31

@82FootballWaxMemorys said:

@Tabe said:

@olb31 said:

weren't the 1982 and 1983 donruss cards printed on the same stock as the 1984? i don't see the difference in appearance nor feel the difference when holding each card.

1984 had a more updated look and was "short printed", hence feeling it was a (relatively) premium set.

While the 1984 print run was slightly less than 1983, the difference is akin to a drop or two of water being removed from the Pacific Ocean.

The alleged 1984 Donruss short-printing IMHO is fallacy that has mislead hobbyists since the very beginning. A very effective myth BTW as it's propped up prices for 38+ year now. IMHO 1984 Donruss is "Junk Wax" adjacent!

It's harder to find 1983 wax than 1984 for donruss and 1984 and 1985 fleer wax are impossible to find.

BBBrkrr

@olb31 said:

@82FootballWaxMemorys said:

@Tabe said:

@olb31 said:

It's harder to find 1983 wax than 1984 for donruss and 1984 and 1985 fleer wax are impossible to find.

And I prefer the 85 Fleer wax to all those.

justmero3

because Larry Walker's rookie year cards was in the multiyear span of arguably the most overproduced baseball cards in history. theres more of them....and the rockie fan base is not anywhere near the depth of the yankee fan base. that being said, i know this is the wrong forum, but you can have this for 40 bucks
https://www.myslabs.com/slab/view/826755/

82FootballWaxMemorys

^ Good point - if all 1989-1991 Upper Deck Baseball were stacked one upon the other it would easily reach Mars. Whereas 1983-1985 Donruss would probably only reach the moon.

daltex

@82FootballWaxMemorys said:

@Tabe said:

@olb31 said:

weren't the 1982 and 1983 donruss cards printed on the same stock as the 1984? i don't see the difference in appearance nor feel the difference when holding each card.

1984 had a more updated look and was "short printed", hence feeling it was a (relatively) premium set.

While the 1984 print run was slightly less than 1983, the difference is akin to a drop or two of water being removed from the Pacific Ocean.

The alleged 1984 Donruss short-printing IMHO is fallacy that has mislead hobbyists since the very beginning. A very effective myth BTW as it's propped up prices for 38+ year now. IMHO 1984 Donruss is "Junk Wax" adjacent!

I don't disagree, but if you were collecting in 1984, the Donruss felt special. It doesn't matter how scarce the set is, just its perception. After all, there is any number of cards scarcer than the T-206 Wagner.

lawyer05

Mattingly is the 80's Mickey Mantle

hyperchipper09

Mattingly's popularity is monstrous. He was the major focus of my original collection. From 87-95 I poured ungodly amounts of time , cash and trade into Don. Fun times. I'm glad that 90% of my Mattingly's were bought by a mega Mattingly fan in 08/09.

Goldenage

👍