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.
Unless it was made out of better materials then no it does not count as a premium set (1989 Upper Deck has the white slick cardboard and signature hologram; and 1988 Score is the first major set to have color printing and photo on both sides). Just like how 1993 SP doesn't count as an alleged "super-premium" set as (most) of the set is just regular Upper Deck style for that year with a copper SP logo (though its insert set is the first die-cut set IIRC). Whereas the for real first super premium sets (Flair/Finest) were most definitely above and beyond any other offering for 1993.
@hyperchipper09 said:
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.
Love it! I wish I had done the same with Rickey Henderson. I watched the Orioles play the Yankees in the 80's at Memorial Stadium in Baltimore and Rickey would wreck havoc on the bass paths. Once on base he would steal second and third. His first year with the Yankees in 1985 he had 80 steals and was caught 10 times. He was dominant that season, he led the league with a 9.9 WAR but came in third in the MVP voting behind Mattingly, who came in first (6.5 WAR) and Brett (8.3 WAR).
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
As many of you have already stated, more or less. from a hobby perspective, the 1984 Donruss Mattingly was an iconic card. While he was considered the best in Baseball for a significant run, his cards were in high demand by collectors due to several reasons: his playing prowess, being a Yankee with a large fanbase, having a likeable personality, looking ordinary while producing superhuman feats, the rumor that the 1984 Donruss were short printed, the lack of other prominent card manufacturers along side Fleer and Topps, card collecting was very popular, etc.
The non-HOF status has not hurt Mattingly in terms of hobby collectibility as that is just one factor. I am not saying having that HOF status is not significant, but there are other factors out there that make a particular card collectible. Walker is a HOFer, but he came at a time when there were many more card manufacturers out there with high print runs. He also never reached that same kind of popularity that Mattingly had in the 1980s. Yes, Mattingly had the advantage of being a Yankee, but that is not something we can use against him. They drafted him and he accepted. Also, it is important to note that Mattingly fills that chain link of Yankee greats going back to at least Babe Ruth, along with Dimaggio, Gehrig, Berra, Mantle, etc. That kind of pedigree also puts him in favor from a hobby perspective.
With all this said, the Walker rookie did go up significantly once enshrined in the HOF. I bought his 1990 Leaf rookie while it was still under $20. It's nowhere near that anymore. Walker was a great player, but simply did not get proper notoriety.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
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.
Unless it was made out of better materials then no it does not count as a premium set (1989 Upper Deck has the white slick cardboard and signature hologram; and 1988 Score is the first major set to have color printing and photo on both sides). Just like how 1993 SP doesn't count as an alleged "super-premium" set as (most) of the set is just regular Upper Deck style for that year with a copper SP logo (though its insert set is the first die-cut set IIRC). Whereas the for real first super premium sets (Flair/Finest) were most definitely above and beyond any other offering for 1993.
I don't mean to belittle your age and/or experience, but it's clear you weren't collecting out of packs in 1984 and possibly 1989. 1984 Donruss were really considered a step above, and the Mattingly was the poster child in exactly the same way the Upper Deck Griffey was five years later. That just didn't happen with 1988 Score or any other set in the 1980s (and before that you'd have to ask somebody else). While the 1986 Donruss Canseco was a key card, it was never considered transformational. It just was.
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.
Unless it was made out of better materials then no it does not count as a premium set (1989 Upper Deck has the white slick cardboard and signature hologram; and 1988 Score is the first major set to have color printing and photo on both sides). Just like how 1993 SP doesn't count as an alleged "super-premium" set as (most) of the set is just regular Upper Deck style for that year with a copper SP logo (though its insert set is the first die-cut set IIRC). Whereas the for real first super premium sets (Flair/Finest) were most definitely above and beyond any other offering for 1993.
I don't mean to belittle your age and/or experience, but it's clear you weren't collecting out of packs in 1984 and possibly 1989. 1984 Donruss were really considered a step above, and the Mattingly was the poster child in exactly the same way the Upper Deck Griffey was five years later. That just didn't happen with 1988 Score or any other set in the 1980s (and before that you'd have to ask somebody else). While the 1986 Donruss Canseco was a key card, it was never considered transformational. It just was.
I don't see how. They were made the same way the 82's and 83's were. And I know this is gonna be an unpopular opinion but I think the 85's looked a LOT better.
I don't see how. They were made the same way the 82's and 83's were. And I know this is gonna be an unpopular opinion but I think the 85's looked a LOT better.
I think so, too, but you have to understand: for a long time there was just Topps, with the occasional oddball issue for variety. But then in 1981 Fleer and Donruss came along with bizarrely collated, low quality sets with a ton of errors that seemed to be all over the place. I won't say that they couldn't give them away; that was basketball, but Topps was number 1 by a large margin. Come 1984 all anyone can talk about was how scarce the new Donruss cards were. I don't remember what the packs sold for, but they were more than Fleer and Topps right away. Suddenly Topps wasn't the undisputed number one anymore. In fact, Topps wouldn't be king again until sometime during my sabbatical from the hobby after 1991. And who was leading the charge with the new, super limited packs? Good old number 248.
If you weren't collecting from packs then, you'll never understand the mythical nature of that set.
Why is it a surprise that a player from New York has more people interested in buying his cards than a player from Montreal/Denver?
The better question would be is why is Mattingly rookie more than Frank Thomas?
The nuance of why is explained several times and can be applied here too...even though in this case Thomas has and always been seen as a bona fide HOFer, where as Walker not as much.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Why is it a surprise that a player from New York has more people interested in buying his cards than a player from Montreal/Denver?
The better question would be is why is Mattingly rookie more than Frank Thomas?
The nuance of why is explained several times and can be applied here too...even though in this case Thomas has and always been seen as a bona fide HOFer, where as Walker not as much.
Both these guys won Super Bowls.
So no, your question is not better. 😉
Simms inferior to Elway. Worth less.
Mattingly inferior to Walker. Worth more.
Stats are but a small component of card values; again, it’s when players are crossing over into the public consciousness as opposed to sports fans consciousness.
Soccer moms that don’t follow baseball know the names Don Mattingly and Derek Jeter, too, not just sports fans.
It’s not just performance but popularity too…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Why is it a surprise that a player from New York has more people interested in buying his cards than a player from Montreal/Denver?
The better question would be is why is Mattingly rookie more than Frank Thomas?
The nuance of why is explained several times and can be applied here too...even though in this case Thomas has and always been seen as a bona fide HOFer, where as Walker not as much.
Both these guys won Super Bowls.
So no, your question is not better. 😉
Simms inferior to Elway. Worth less.
Mattingly inferior to Walker. Worth more.
Hence why I added, "The nuance of why is explained several times and can be applied here too."
PS: Simms was not even the most popular player on his own team, let alone the entire league . Lawrence Taylor RC is $500 in PSA 9 , and not even a QB.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Stats are but a small component of card values; again, it’s when players are crossing over into the public consciousness as opposed to sports fans consciousness.
Soccer moms that don’t follow baseball know the names Don Mattingly and Derek Jeter, too, not just sports fans.
It’s not just performance but popularity too…
Great points. Totally agree. Playing in the biggest market has a lot of benefits, but man that pressure and scrutiny is rough. The guys that can shine and perform in that environment are a different breed.
@Goldenage said:
Worth WAY more ?
Is it the NY effect ?
Larry would rule the Sports Card world if he ended with Exactly those stats. The same Mantle Card and Stat freak people would turn him in to the level of the Mantle on card Holiness.
If Larry ended his career with exactly a 300 batting average, 350 home runs, 200 stolen base, and 400 obh.. Card Godness would have been designated.
I don't see how. They were made the same way the 82's and 83's were. And I know this is gonna be an unpopular opinion but I think the 85's looked a LOT better.
I think so, too, but you have to understand: for a long time there was just Topps, with the occasional oddball issue for variety. But then in 1981 Fleer and Donruss came along with bizarrely collated, low quality sets with a ton of errors that seemed to be all over the place. I won't say that they couldn't give them away; that was basketball, but Topps was number 1 by a large margin. Come 1984 all anyone can talk about was how scarce the new Donruss cards were. I don't remember what the packs sold for, but they were more than Fleer and Topps right away. Suddenly Topps wasn't the undisputed number one anymore. In fact, Topps wouldn't be king again until sometime during my sabbatical from the hobby after 1991. And who was leading the charge with the new, super limited packs? Good old number 248.
If you weren't collecting from packs then, you'll never understand the mythical nature of that set.
sighing and tapping fingers I'm not disputing the "mythical nature of that set" at all. I'm well aware that it's the most famous 80s set and why. But scarcity and it having Donnie and all those other iconic cards don't make the cards themselves "premium" in terms of how they are made. Now 1989 Upper Deck and to a lesser extent 1988 Score, that's when you got truly premium quality cards (color on both sides and especially UD's hologram.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Stats are but a small component of card values; again, it’s when players are crossing over into the public consciousness as opposed to sports fans consciousness.
Soccer moms that don’t follow baseball know the names Don Mattingly and Derek Jeter, too, not just sports fans.
It’s not just performance but popularity too…
If they're not "sports fans" then how are they soccer moms? I mean soccer is a sport is it not?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Stats are but a small component of card values; again, it’s when players are crossing over into the public consciousness as opposed to sports fans consciousness.
Soccer moms that don’t follow baseball know the names Don Mattingly and Derek Jeter, too, not just sports fans.
It’s not just performance but popularity too…
If they're not "sports fans" then how are they soccer moms? I mean soccer is a sport is it not?
A term for moms who are enthusiastic about youth sports but didn’t play them and don’t always know the rules of the sport. They drive the kids to and from and socialize at games more than watch.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Goldenage said:
Worth WAY more ?
Is it the NY effect ?
Larry would rule the Sports Card world if he ended with Exactly those stats. The same Mantle Card and Stat freak people would turn him in to the level of the unworthy Mantle on card Holiness.
If Larry ended his career with exactly a 300 batting average, 350 home runs, 200 stolen base, and 400 obh.. Card Godness would have been designated.
but alas, the world is left with losers like 'duty' dudes, collecting actual girly picture cards, due to his constant wife dumps.... and hating the world because they don't get enough free stuff so they don't have to work TRU RULED ! (won't win again though so you can mirrorwack)
Social
ist
(if someone can survive this message board after telling the whole community to eff their mom, then post a highly political hate thread against his god, and not be banned from this message board.. and I get banned ??? there is some woke sucking going on.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Why is it a surprise that a player from New York has more people interested in buying his cards than a player from Montreal/Denver?
The better question would be is why is Mattingly rookie more than Frank Thomas?
The nuance of why is explained several times and can be applied here too...even though in this case Thomas has and always been seen as a bona fide HOFer, where as Walker not as much.
Both these guys won Super Bowls.
So no, your question is not better. 😉
Simms inferior to Elway. Worth less.
Mattingly inferior to Walker. Worth more.
Hence why I added, "The nuance of why is explained several times and can be applied here too."
PS: Simms was not even the most popular player on his own team, let alone the entire league . Lawrence Taylor RC is $500 in PSA 9 , and not even a QB.
Even the great LT doesn’t outdistance Elway the way Donnie does Larry. 😉
That NY-Denver thing has absolutely nothing to do with it here.
Comparing LT to Elway doesn’t fit the narrative. LT is considered the greatest LB ever. The narrative is why is a lesser player worth so much more then a greater player.
Please try to stay within the narrative next time.😉
Simms lesser player then Elway.
Mattingly lesser player then Walker.
LT greater player then all of them.
Simms, LT, and Carson are the top 3 Giants from those teams. Simms is a household name. Even soccer moms know him.
Nor does the “Montreal-Denver” thing matter either.
I don't see how. They were made the same way the 82's and 83's were. And I know this is gonna be an unpopular opinion but I think the 85's looked a LOT better.
I think so, too, but you have to understand: for a long time there was just Topps, with the occasional oddball issue for variety. But then in 1981 Fleer and Donruss came along with bizarrely collated, low quality sets with a ton of errors that seemed to be all over the place. I won't say that they couldn't give them away; that was basketball, but Topps was number 1 by a large margin. Come 1984 all anyone can talk about was how scarce the new Donruss cards were. I don't remember what the packs sold for, but they were more than Fleer and Topps right away. Suddenly Topps wasn't the undisputed number one anymore. In fact, Topps wouldn't be king again until sometime during my sabbatical from the hobby after 1991. And who was leading the charge with the new, super limited packs? Good old number 248.
If you weren't collecting from packs then, you'll never understand the mythical nature of that set.
sighing and tapping fingers I'm not disputing the "mythical nature of that set" at all. I'm well aware that it's the most famous 80s set and why. But scarcity and it having Donnie and all those other iconic cards don't make the cards themselves "premium" in terms of how they are made. Now 1989 Upper Deck and to a lesser extent 1988 Score, that's when you got truly premium quality cards (color on both sides and especially UD's hologram.
I'm not disagreeing at all. But look at, what, 1991 when Topps Stadium Club and those sets came along and then try to describe 1989 Upper Deck as "premium". Things were changing very quickly then, but if you started collecting in, say, 1995 there is no way you'd consider 1989 Upper Deck anything special. I can see you weren't there because no one in 1988-89 compared Upper Deck to Score. Score was just never considered anything special. Sorry. There were only two sets that moved the needle in the hobby in the 1980s (well, 1984 Fleer Update did only a little while after release). 1984 Donruss and 1989 Upper Deck.
“Household name” is kind of a key in my opinion. Does a soccer mom know Larry Walker’s name? Probably not. Don Mattingly’s name pops to most non-baseball people’s minds long before Larry Walker does, stats be damned. There are examples in every sport, but I’ll stick with hockey (at the risk of you bringing Orr into the conversation ). Dave Andreychuk is 15th in all-time goals in the NHL, but there are dozens of goal scorers that most people think of before landing on his name. Adam Oates is 20th in all-time points but I’d have been hard-pressed to name him in my top 40 if I was trying to rattle off point producers yesterday. Stats aren’t the only driver in collectibility. Flash, personality, team/market, team success, marketing of the player, … Not saying Don had all that in his favor, but a lot of collectors aren’t die-hard followers of the sports they collect - they follow their teams and fall in love with their favorites or the names they constantly hear.
It is really simple. Don Mattingly was the most popular player in the game and was from New York. The Phil Simms comparisons are ridiculously bad. LT was the most popular football player in NY and it didn't matter what position they played, LT was the most popular....and LT PSA 9 rookie outshines Elway PSA 9 rookie by plenty, and LT being a defensive player HURTS his popularity compared to an elite QB.
You really think that if Elway did what he did for New York that he wouldn't be MORE popular and valuable? Give me a break. Do you just hate New York and that is why you don't see the obvious?
Larry Walker was simply not as known as Mattingly. Really simple.
Mattingly was viewed as the top hitter in MLB for a span of a few years. Larry Walker was never considered that because most people know Coors played a big role in that.
During Walker's prime years in Colorado, Sosa and McGwire were the face of baseball. More than the face. In 1998 they were MLB. Nobody cared about Larry Walker, other than if you played fantasy baseball and you put him in your lineup when he was at home(and then got pissed when he took all his days off).
So yes, Walker ended up being a better player overall, but Mattingly's star shined brighter in the minds of everyone who collects cards and watched baseball. Walker was an afterthought even though he won an MVP as he was outshined by one of the most historic runs in MLB history(Sosa and McGwire), then by Bonds.
If you paid attention in that era, Walker was known by most as a Coors aided hitter who was always injured....not a very endearing quality to attract fans.
Then there is the whole card side of it. 1990 cards are in the era of the most overproduced cards ever. Why is it a surprise that rookie cards from those sets are basically worth nothing? Frank Thomas cards should be worth way more than they are too.
Then there is the whole card side of it. 1990 cards are in the era of the most overproduced cards ever. Why is it a surprise that rookie cards from those sets are basically worth nothing? Frank Thomas cards should be worth way more than they are too.
Given the near limitless PSA 10 Population the 90 Leaf is should be worth much less.
Is there any pre-2010 baseball card with higher PSA 10 pops?
The card has plummeted like it should since the bubble burst and its quite possible in the next 6-12 months it will drop to or below its pre-pandemic going rate. Given the nigh infinite and growing PSA10 population nothing more than the supply side of an economic pillar at work
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I don't see how. They were made the same way the 82's and 83's were. And I know this is gonna be an unpopular opinion but I think the 85's looked a LOT better.
As a teen collector in the 80's, 1984 Donruss was always considered to be "premium" compared to other sets.
My favorite pack pull of my life was around 1987 when I bought 6 packs of 1984 Donruss for $6 each from Bud's Baseball Cards in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. My father thought I was crazy but I pulled a Mattingly, which had a book value of $100 at the time. I also got Nolan Ryan, Ryne Sandberg & Mike Schmidt.
I've pulled more valuable cards, but the Mattingly was always my favorite.
Then there is the whole card side of it. 1990 cards are in the era of the most overproduced cards ever. Why is it a surprise that rookie cards from those sets are basically worth nothing? Frank Thomas cards should be worth way more than they are too.
Given the near limitless PSA 10 Population the 90 Leaf is should be worth much less.
Is there any pre-2010 baseball card with higher PSA 10 pops?
The card has plummeted like it should since the bubble burst and its quite possible in the next 6-12 months it will drop to or below its pre-pandemic going rate. Given the nigh infinite and growing PSA10 population nothing more than the supply side of an economic pillar at work
100% agree.
The premise that Larry Walker cards should be worth more just doesn't have any teeth. As you pointed out Frank Thomas prices sinking like a rock and he is superior to Walker in ability and and cardboard popularity. They are so easy to find in high grade and I agree there isn't much upside going forward with those cards.
Remember the price of those PSA 10 Leaf Sosa cards? Those were gold at one time.
Frank Thomas, Sosa, and Griffey are the cards everyone always wanted from those Leaf sets. They were super hot!
Walker never had any steam and was never near the top dog in demand in any of those year's sets. His HOF gave him a small demand boost. That is gone now.
Maybe if PSA comes out with a "Disabled List" set registry, then Larry Walker rookies may really take off.
It's interesting how a lot of players in the 90s who are now in the Hall of Fame were just "semistars" (not good enough to get an individual listing in the monthly magazine/price guide) as far as Beckett back then was concerned!
Comments
Unless it was made out of better materials then no it does not count as a premium set (1989 Upper Deck has the white slick cardboard and signature hologram; and 1988 Score is the first major set to have color printing and photo on both sides). Just like how 1993 SP doesn't count as an alleged "super-premium" set as (most) of the set is just regular Upper Deck style for that year with a copper SP logo (though its insert set is the first die-cut set IIRC). Whereas the for real first super premium sets (Flair/Finest) were most definitely above and beyond any other offering for 1993.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Love it! I wish I had done the same with Rickey Henderson. I watched the Orioles play the Yankees in the 80's at Memorial Stadium in Baltimore and Rickey would wreck havoc on the bass paths. Once on base he would steal second and third. His first year with the Yankees in 1985 he had 80 steals and was caught 10 times. He was dominant that season, he led the league with a 9.9 WAR but came in third in the MVP voting behind Mattingly, who came in first (6.5 WAR) and Brett (8.3 WAR).
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Mantle, Mattingly...there's room for both!!!!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
As many of you have already stated, more or less. from a hobby perspective, the 1984 Donruss Mattingly was an iconic card. While he was considered the best in Baseball for a significant run, his cards were in high demand by collectors due to several reasons: his playing prowess, being a Yankee with a large fanbase, having a likeable personality, looking ordinary while producing superhuman feats, the rumor that the 1984 Donruss were short printed, the lack of other prominent card manufacturers along side Fleer and Topps, card collecting was very popular, etc.
The non-HOF status has not hurt Mattingly in terms of hobby collectibility as that is just one factor. I am not saying having that HOF status is not significant, but there are other factors out there that make a particular card collectible. Walker is a HOFer, but he came at a time when there were many more card manufacturers out there with high print runs. He also never reached that same kind of popularity that Mattingly had in the 1980s. Yes, Mattingly had the advantage of being a Yankee, but that is not something we can use against him. They drafted him and he accepted. Also, it is important to note that Mattingly fills that chain link of Yankee greats going back to at least Babe Ruth, along with Dimaggio, Gehrig, Berra, Mantle, etc. That kind of pedigree also puts him in favor from a hobby perspective.
With all this said, the Walker rookie did go up significantly once enshrined in the HOF. I bought his 1990 Leaf rookie while it was still under $20. It's nowhere near that anymore. Walker was a great player, but simply did not get proper notoriety.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I don't mean to belittle your age and/or experience, but it's clear you weren't collecting out of packs in 1984 and possibly 1989. 1984 Donruss were really considered a step above, and the Mattingly was the poster child in exactly the same way the Upper Deck Griffey was five years later. That just didn't happen with 1988 Score or any other set in the 1980s (and before that you'd have to ask somebody else). While the 1986 Donruss Canseco was a key card, it was never considered transformational. It just was.
Yea those 84 donruss where premuim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
I don't see how. They were made the same way the 82's and 83's were. And I know this is gonna be an unpopular opinion but I think the 85's looked a LOT better.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I think so, too, but you have to understand: for a long time there was just Topps, with the occasional oddball issue for variety. But then in 1981 Fleer and Donruss came along with bizarrely collated, low quality sets with a ton of errors that seemed to be all over the place. I won't say that they couldn't give them away; that was basketball, but Topps was number 1 by a large margin. Come 1984 all anyone can talk about was how scarce the new Donruss cards were. I don't remember what the packs sold for, but they were more than Fleer and Topps right away. Suddenly Topps wasn't the undisputed number one anymore. In fact, Topps wouldn't be king again until sometime during my sabbatical from the hobby after 1991. And who was leading the charge with the new, super limited packs? Good old number 248.
If you weren't collecting from packs then, you'll never understand the mythical nature of that set.
DeutscherGeist and daltex - thank you for the great write-ups and perspective.
Why is it a surprise that a player from New York has more people interested in buying his cards than a player from Montreal/Denver?
The better question would be is why is Mattingly rookie more than Frank Thomas?
The nuance of why is explained several times and can be applied here too...even though in this case Thomas has and always been seen as a bona fide HOFer, where as Walker not as much.
Both these guys won Super Bowls.
So no, your question is not better. 😉
Simms inferior to Elway. Worth less.
Mattingly inferior to Walker. Worth more.
Paul Molitor vs. Derek Jeter. They have almost identical offensive stats.
Stats are but a small component of card values; again, it’s when players are crossing over into the public consciousness as opposed to sports fans consciousness.
Soccer moms that don’t follow baseball know the names Don Mattingly and Derek Jeter, too, not just sports fans.
It’s not just performance but popularity 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
Hence why I added, "The nuance of why is explained several times and can be applied here too."
PS: Simms was not even the most popular player on his own team, let alone the entire league
. Lawrence Taylor RC is $500 in PSA 9 
, and not even a QB.
Great points. Totally agree. Playing in the biggest market has a lot of benefits, but man that pressure and scrutiny is rough. The guys that can shine and perform in that environment are a different breed.
Larry would rule the Sports Card world if he ended with Exactly those stats. The same Mantle Card and Stat freak people would turn him in to the level of the Mantle on card Holiness.
If Larry ended his career with exactly a 300 batting average, 350 home runs, 200 stolen base, and 400 obh.. Card Godness would have been designated.
sighing and tapping fingers I'm not disputing the "mythical nature of that set" at all. I'm well aware that it's the most famous 80s set and why. But scarcity and it having Donnie and all those other iconic cards don't make the cards themselves "premium" in terms of how they are made. Now 1989 Upper Deck and to a lesser extent 1988 Score, that's when you got truly premium quality cards (color on both sides and especially UD's hologram.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
If they're not "sports fans" then how are they soccer moms? I mean soccer is a sport is it not?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
A term for moms who are enthusiastic about youth sports but didn’t play them and don’t always know the rules of the sport. They drive the kids to and from and socialize at games more than watch.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
WHO f THEIR MOM ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Even the great LT doesn’t outdistance Elway the way Donnie does Larry. 😉
That NY-Denver thing has absolutely nothing to do with it here.
Comparing LT to Elway doesn’t fit the narrative. LT is considered the greatest LB ever. The narrative is why is a lesser player worth so much more then a greater player.
Please try to stay within the narrative next time.😉
Simms lesser player then Elway.
Mattingly lesser player then Walker.
LT greater player then all of them.
Simms, LT, and Carson are the top 3 Giants from those teams. Simms is a household name. Even soccer moms know him.
Nor does the “Montreal-Denver” thing matter either.
Sincerely,
Patrick
I'm not disagreeing at all. But look at, what, 1991 when Topps Stadium Club and those sets came along and then try to describe 1989 Upper Deck as "premium". Things were changing very quickly then, but if you started collecting in, say, 1995 there is no way you'd consider 1989 Upper Deck anything special. I can see you weren't there because no one in 1988-89 compared Upper Deck to Score. Score was just never considered anything special. Sorry. There were only two sets that moved the needle in the hobby in the 1980s (well, 1984 Fleer Update did only a little while after release). 1984 Donruss and 1989 Upper Deck.
“Household name” is kind of a key in my opinion. Does a soccer mom know Larry Walker’s name? Probably not. Don Mattingly’s name pops to most non-baseball people’s minds long before Larry Walker does, stats be damned. There are examples in every sport, but I’ll stick with hockey (at the risk of you bringing Orr into the conversation
). Dave Andreychuk is 15th in all-time goals in the NHL, but there are dozens of goal scorers that most people think of before landing on his name. Adam Oates is 20th in all-time points but I’d have been hard-pressed to name him in my top 40 if I was trying to rattle off point producers yesterday. Stats aren’t the only driver in collectibility. Flash, personality, team/market, team success, marketing of the player, … Not saying Don had all that in his favor, but a lot of collectors aren’t die-hard followers of the sports they collect - they follow their teams and fall in love with their favorites or the names they constantly hear.
Jim
It is really simple. Don Mattingly was the most popular player in the game and was from New York. The Phil Simms comparisons are ridiculously bad. LT was the most popular football player in NY and it didn't matter what position they played, LT was the most popular....and LT PSA 9 rookie outshines Elway PSA 9 rookie by plenty, and LT being a defensive player HURTS his popularity compared to an elite QB.
You really think that if Elway did what he did for New York that he wouldn't be MORE popular and valuable? Give me a break. Do you just hate New York and that is why you don't see the obvious?
Larry Walker was simply not as known as Mattingly. Really simple.
Mattingly was viewed as the top hitter in MLB for a span of a few years. Larry Walker was never considered that because most people know Coors played a big role in that.
During Walker's prime years in Colorado, Sosa and McGwire were the face of baseball. More than the face. In 1998 they were MLB. Nobody cared about Larry Walker, other than if you played fantasy baseball and you put him in your lineup when he was at home(and then got pissed when he took all his days off).
So yes, Walker ended up being a better player overall, but Mattingly's star shined brighter in the minds of everyone who collects cards and watched baseball. Walker was an afterthought even though he won an MVP as he was outshined by one of the most historic runs in MLB history(Sosa and McGwire), then by Bonds.
If you paid attention in that era, Walker was known by most as a Coors aided hitter who was always injured....not a very endearing quality to attract fans.
Then there is the whole card side of it. 1990 cards are in the era of the most overproduced cards ever. Why is it a surprise that rookie cards from those sets are basically worth nothing? Frank Thomas cards should be worth way more than they are too.
Given the near limitless PSA 10 Population the 90 Leaf is should be worth much less.
Is there any pre-2010 baseball card with higher PSA 10 pops?
The card has plummeted like it should since the bubble burst and its quite possible in the next 6-12 months it will drop to or below its pre-pandemic going rate. Given the nigh infinite and growing PSA10 population nothing more than the supply side of an economic pillar at work
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Can we all agree that it is unbelievable that Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, and Don Mattingly all played at the same time with those insane stats?
I second the 85 Donruss mention
As a teen collector in the 80's, 1984 Donruss was always considered to be "premium" compared to other sets.
My favorite pack pull of my life was around 1987 when I bought 6 packs of 1984 Donruss for $6 each from Bud's Baseball Cards in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. My father thought I was crazy but I pulled a Mattingly, which had a book value of $100 at the time. I also got Nolan Ryan, Ryne Sandberg & Mike Schmidt.
I've pulled more valuable cards, but the Mattingly was always my favorite.
100% agree.
The premise that Larry Walker cards should be worth more just doesn't have any teeth. As you pointed out Frank Thomas prices sinking like a rock and he is superior to Walker in ability and and cardboard popularity. They are so easy to find in high grade and I agree there isn't much upside going forward with those cards.
Remember the price of those PSA 10 Leaf Sosa cards? Those were gold at one time.
Frank Thomas, Sosa, and Griffey are the cards everyone always wanted from those Leaf sets. They were super hot!
Walker never had any steam and was never near the top dog in demand in any of those year's sets. His HOF gave him a small demand boost. That is gone now.
Maybe if PSA comes out with a "Disabled List" set registry, then Larry Walker rookies may really take off.
.
It's interesting how a lot of players in the 90s who are now in the Hall of Fame were just "semistars" (not good enough to get an individual listing in the monthly magazine/price guide) as far as Beckett back then was concerned!
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars