1989 Fleer Glossy...PSA 10's

olb31

Ken griffey Jr sold for $5500

Randy Johnson sold for $160

Nolan ryan sold for $200 and $100

Bo Jackson sold for $117 and $100

Does this make any sense at all? Randy sales for 35 times less than the griffey and essentially the same as nolan ryan? What gives?

Randy was a pretty darn good pitcher. I would assume a top 10 - 15 pitcher since 1920? maybe higher. And this is his Rookie card. A good case can be made that Randy was as good as Griffey (based on positions).

dallasactuary

Randy was very much better than Griffey; a case hardly needs to be made. Two things: Griffey is much more popular, and Griffey doesn't have the PED cloud. Still, $5,500 is absurd. I wouldn't dream of buying any card from 1989 as an investment, but that Griffey card will be available for a whole lot less than $5,500 in the future.

NGS428

The Griffey card has a pop of 118, so quite low for his rookie year. The 1989 Topps Traded Tiffany has a pop of 337, which sells for about $2.6k.

Granted they did print 2x as many of the Fleer glossy (30k vs 15k).

Supply and demand as usual. Let’s see where this one ends..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/385633396833?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ppxv2bK5S4e&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=6QcuQCLzR1e&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

RonSportscards

Popularity and collectability of hitters vs. pitchers not named Nolan Ryan.
118, 6% of Jr submitted are 10's.
131, 21% of RJ black out ad are 10's.
There are 4? varieties of Randy Johnsons and Marlboro ads, so $$$$ investors are not interested in the more common ones.

You can see the trend.

JoeBanzai

Randy is way undervalued here.
Griffey is the hobby darling, everybody wants his cards.
Same with Ryan, his cards are worth much more than they "should" be.
Bo Jackson was a tremendous athlete, but he really wasn't a great baseball player except for 1 year and of course his career was very short.

DBesse27

I’m sale-ing awaayyyy…..

BBBrkrr

@JoeBanzai said:
Randy is way undervalued here.
Griffey is the hobby darling, everybody wants his cards.
Same with Ryan, his cards are worth much more than they "should" be.
Bo Jackson was a tremendous athlete, but he really wasn't a great baseball player except for 1 year and of course his career was very short.

As someone who was a teen during the Bo years I still don't get why his cards are as valuable as they are. People just love the guy and everything he almost was. He's similar to Mattingly in the love folks have for him even though there were better players. On these two guys I follow the crowd though.

JoeBanzai

@BBBrkrr said:

@JoeBanzai said:
Randy is way undervalued here.
Griffey is the hobby darling, everybody wants his cards.
Same with Ryan, his cards are worth much more than they "should" be.
Bo Jackson was a tremendous athlete, but he really wasn't a great baseball player except for 1 year and of course his career was very short.

As someone who was a teen during the Bo years I still don't get why his cards are as valuable as they are. People just love the guy and everything he almost was. He's similar to Mattingly in the love folks have for him even though there were better players. On these two guys I follow the crowd though.

Thankfully people loved Bo, I went nuts a couple of years ago and bought a bunch of 1987 Topps unopened product.
Didn't get any PSA 10 Barry Bonds cards, but got 3 Bo's in a 10. Those 3 cards were the difference between a nice little profit and breaking even.

daltex

@RonSportscards said:
Popularity and collectability of hitters vs. pitchers not named Nolan Ryan.
118, 6% of Jr submitted are 10's.
131, 21% of RJ black out ad are 10's.
There are 4? varieties of Randy Johnsons and Marlboro ads, so $$$$ investors are not interested in the more common ones.

You can see the trend.

It's really bizarre that a) Fleer had three different varieties in what amounts to a factory set and b) that PSA graded 415 of them without knowing this.

Griffey has the reflection of the Upper Deck card, but as with the '52 Mantle, Griffey and Mantle were both great players, but their cards are priced far beyond their on field abilities.

olb31

Randy's most valuable 1989 cards are as follows

1) Topps tiffany
2) opc
3) Topps tiffany traded
4) fleer marlboro ad on scoreboard
5) Score Hottest
6) Fleer Glossy

olb31

I have been watching baseball since 1974. Nolan roger and randy where the most dominant (KO's type pitchers) I've seen.

Browns1981

Randy’s popular card was the Marlboro Fleer, which was always completely blacked out in the glossy set (as far as I know).

daltex

@Browns1981 said:
Randy’s popular card was the Marlboro Fleer, which was always completely blacked out in the glossy set (as far as I know).

That would seem likely, as surely they'd have that "corrected" before they started to make Glossy sets, but PSA claims to have graded 15 with the sign, and another 13 with the sign partially obscured.

olb31

i noticed that too, but i have never seen one.

junkwaxgems

@RonSportscards said:
Popularity and collectability of hitters vs. pitchers not named Nolan Ryan.
118, 6% of Jr submitted are 10's.
131, 21% of RJ black out ad are 10's.
There are 4? varieties of Randy Johnsons and Marlboro ads, so $$$$ investors are not interested in the more common ones.

You can see the trend.

FYI - This info is a PSA mistake, there are no other versions on the glossy Randy than the blacked out version.

RonSportscards

@daltex said:

That would seem likely, as surely they'd have that "corrected" before they started to make Glossy sets, but PSA claims to have graded 15 with the sign, and another 13 with the sign partially obscured.

@junkwaxgems said:

FYI - This info is a PSA mistake, there are no other versions on the glossy Randy than the blacked out version.

I can't confirm, but according to this guy, there are at least 12 variations, with Beckett recognizing 5. He also claims the glossy cards include all variations.

https://cardlines.com/1989-fleer-randy-johnson-variations-error/

Regardless, the big money is going toward the rare versions.

azvike

Topps Tiffany (Expo's uniform) is the grail.

junkwaxgems

@RonSportscards said:

@daltex said:

That would seem likely, as surely they'd have that "corrected" before they started to make Glossy sets, but PSA claims to have graded 15 with the sign, and another 13 with the sign partially obscured.

@junkwaxgems said:

FYI - This info is a PSA mistake, there are no other versions on the glossy Randy than the blacked out version.

I can't confirm, but according to this guy, there are at least 12 variations, with Beckett recognizing 5. He also claims the glossy cards include all variations.

https://cardlines.com/1989-fleer-randy-johnson-variations-error/

Regardless, the big money is going toward the rare versions.

Can confirm with 100% certainty that the glossy cards do not come in ANY version aside from full black out.

RonSportscards

@junkwaxgems said:

@RonSportscards said:

@daltex said:

That would seem likely, as surely they'd have that "corrected" before they started to make Glossy sets, but PSA claims to have graded 15 with the sign, and another 13 with the sign partially obscured.

@junkwaxgems said:

FYI - This info is a PSA mistake, there are no other versions on the glossy Randy than the blacked out version.

I can't confirm, but according to this guy, there are at least 12 variations, with Beckett recognizing 5. He also claims the glossy cards include all variations.

https://cardlines.com/1989-fleer-randy-johnson-variations-error/

Regardless, the big money is going toward the rare versions.

Can confirm with 100% certainty that the glossy cards do not come in ANY version aside from full black out.

100% certainty?
Final answer?

woodstock2

@RonSportscards said:

@junkwaxgems said:

@RonSportscards said:

@daltex said:

That would seem likely, as surely they'd have that "corrected" before they started to make Glossy sets, but PSA claims to have graded 15 with the sign, and another 13 with the sign partially obscured.

@junkwaxgems said:

FYI - This info is a PSA mistake, there are no other versions on the glossy Randy than the blacked out version.

I can't confirm, but according to this guy, there are at least 12 variations, with Beckett recognizing 5. He also claims the glossy cards include all variations.

https://cardlines.com/1989-fleer-randy-johnson-variations-error/

Regardless, the big money is going toward the rare versions.

Can confirm with 100% certainty that the glossy cards do not come in ANY version aside from full black out.

100% certainty?
Final answer?

You need to take a look at the back to see if it the glossy version. The backs of the glossy cards have blue ink. @junkwaxgems is right. The glossy cards do not come in ANY version aside from full black out. I have pictures of the backs of most these incorrectly labeled glossy cards somewhere. Can't find this exact one but here are two of the others.

ReggieCleveland

Plus, all Glossy cards have the two black dots up between the Y in Randy and the J in Johnson. If yours doesn't have those it's not a Glossy version.

I have seen a few error versions with white dots but those are extremely rare and probably occurred right at the transition over to the corrected plates.

Arthur

ndleo

PSA makes the same mistake on Tiffany Traded cards since the backs are the same. I had to escalate an issue with a 84 TTR Tiffany Gooden to get resolved.

Estil

Fun Fact: The 1989 Fleer Tiffany set is featured in Home Alone when Kevin tries to climb up Buzz's shelves and ends up tearing them down! Why they would pick such a super limited edition set for a movie prop when the regular set would've worked just as well is beyond me...

JoeBanzai

Picked up a set.

Thanks olb31 for posting about it!

👍

NGS428

@NGS428 said:
The Griffey card has a pop of 118, so quite low for his rookie year. The 1989 Topps Traded Tiffany has a pop of 337, which sells for about $2.6k.

Granted they did print 2x as many of the Fleer glossy (30k vs 15k).

Supply and demand as usual. Let’s see where this one ends..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/385633396833?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ppxv2bK5S4e&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=6QcuQCLzR1e&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Well, $3,805 for the one I posted above. So quite a bit off from the $5,500.

junkwaxgems

@RonSportscards said:

@junkwaxgems said:

@RonSportscards said:

@daltex said:

That would seem likely, as surely they'd have that "corrected" before they started to make Glossy sets, but PSA claims to have graded 15 with the sign, and another 13 with the sign partially obscured.

@junkwaxgems said:

FYI - This info is a PSA mistake, there are no other versions on the glossy Randy than the blacked out version.

I can't confirm, but according to this guy, there are at least 12 variations, with Beckett recognizing 5. He also claims the glossy cards include all variations.

https://cardlines.com/1989-fleer-randy-johnson-variations-error/

Regardless, the big money is going toward the rare versions.

Can confirm with 100% certainty that the glossy cards do not come in ANY version aside from full black out.

100% certainty?
Final answer?

Yeah, final answer. Those are mislabeled by PSA. None of those are glossy versions.

olb31

@NGS428 said:

@NGS428 said:
The Griffey card has a pop of 118, so quite low for his rookie year. The 1989 Topps Traded Tiffany has a pop of 337, which sells for about $2.6k.

Granted they did print 2x as many of the Fleer glossy (30k vs 15k).

Supply and demand as usual. Let’s see where this one ends..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/385633396833?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ppxv2bK5S4e&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=6QcuQCLzR1e&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Well, $3,805 for the one I posted above. So quite a bit off from the $5,500.

psa lists it at 6100, the last one that sold before the one you mentioned was 5500. even at 3800 thats much mor4e than 150 for randy.

ndleo

Ending that auction on a long weekend Sunday probably wasn’t a good idea.

olb31

Also, the overall economy is playing a huge part of the card prices/market right now. And has been for a while. Probably be the middle of next year or later before the overall market starts going back up.

JoeBanzai

@NGS428 said:
The Griffey card has a pop of 118, so quite low for his rookie year. The 1989 Topps Traded Tiffany has a pop of 337, which sells for about $2.6k.

Granted they did print 2x as many of the Fleer glossy (30k vs 15k).

Supply and demand as usual. Let’s see where this one ends..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/385633396833?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ppxv2bK5S4e&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=6QcuQCLzR1e&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

That wasn't a very nice looking 10. Seemed to have chipping on bottom right corner area.

JoeBanzai

@olb31 said:
Ken griffey Jr sold for $5500

>

Here's a question for the OP;
Should a PSA 10 Kirby Puckett be the second most valuable card in the set or the first.........based on scarcity?
There's a PSA 9 on eBay right now (not mine), seller is asking $750.00/best offer.

Secondly, does anyone know why so few have been submitted? Edge of sheet?

There are 50 PSA 10's in the standard set, less than some of the other stars of the time, but still quite a few.

FirstBeard

This is very odd on the Puckett. Good catch.

Is Randy Johnson top 5 all time? Best left-hander ever?

JoeBanzai

Lefty Grove was right there with Randy.

Spahn and Carlton pitched forever, after that, Ford was very good but with only 3,000 IP.

Clayton Kershaw has some pretty amazing numbers, he has surpassed Koufax in innings pitched and has a much higher ERA+ than Sandy.

I would put Grove at #1, then Randy.
Spahn/Carlton 3 & 4.
Ford would be my #5, Stengel kind of screwed up Ford's numbers, but it is what it is.

azvike

In my book, the Big Unit is #1, and it's not close.

miwlvrn

@JoeBanzai said:
Lefty Grove was right there with Randy.

Spahn and Carlton pitched forever, after that, Ford was very good but with only 3,000 IP.

Clayton Kershaw has some pretty amazing numbers, he has surpassed Koufax in innings pitched and has a much higher ERA+ than Sandy.

I would put Grove at #1, then Randy.
Spahn/Carlton 3 & 4.
Ford would be my #5, Stengel kind of screwed up Ford's numbers, but it is what it is.

Makes you wonder what might have been, if Satchel Paige had been in MLB from the beginning of his career.

JoeBanzai

@azvike said:
In my book, the Big Unit is #1, and it's not close.

Just curious, have you looked at Lefty's numbers?

azvike

Honestly, not closely, but I just feel that Johnson, would absolutely dominate even more if he pitched in that era. Just no disputing that today's players are bigger, stronger, faster and better trained than 75 years ago. Would Grove or Spahn, at 6' and 170 lbs pitch as well in today's game as they did when they played? Maybe, but I would tend to doubt it...I know its only "fair" to compare players vs the era they played in, but Johnson would carve up early hitters and Grove/Spahn, etc probably would not vs todays hitters. JMHO.

JoeBanzai

@azvike said:
Honestly, not closely, but I just feel that Johnson, would absolutely dominate even more if he pitched in that era. Just no disputing that today's players are bigger, stronger, faster and better trained than 75 years ago. Would Grove or Spahn, at 6' and 170 lbs pitch as well in today's game as they did when they played? Maybe, but I would tend to doubt it...I know its only "fair" to compare players vs the era they played in, but Johnson would carve up early hitters and Grove/Spahn, etc probably would not vs todays hitters. JMHO.

I understand that way of thinking, but each player was playing against major league guys. I don't get into too much speculation. You aren't going to take your imaginary time machine and swap players anyway, if Grove pitched in today's game he would have had the modern day advantages, heck Randy Johnson might not have even been given an opportunity back then because he might have been considered too tall. No way of knowing.
Grove led the league in ERA and ERA+ nine times and strikeouts seven times. Could he have struck out Tony Gwynn? Who knows? He dominated the hitters he came up against.
He had one bad year and it looks like he must have been hurt.

azvike

True...you just don't know, I guess that's why sports is so compelling and fun to discuss! For me it's Johnson (and I'm old...LOL). One guy who could've been one of the best was Herb Score...he was amazing before that devastating eye injury.

JoeBanzai

@azvike said:
True...you just don't know, I guess that's why sports is so compelling and fun to discuss! For me it's Johnson (and I'm old...LOL). One guy who could've been one of the best was Herb Score...he was amazing before that devastating eye injury.

My favorite player, Harmon Killebrew, said Score threw harder than anyone he ever faced.

daltex

@JoeBanzai said:
Lefty Grove was right there with Randy.

Spahn and Carlton pitched forever, after that, Ford was very good but with only 3,000 IP.

Clayton Kershaw has some pretty amazing numbers, he has surpassed Koufax in innings pitched and has a much higher ERA+ than Sandy.

I would put Grove at #1, then Randy.
Spahn/Carlton 3 & 4.
Ford would be my #5, Stengel kind of screwed up Ford's numbers, but it is what it is.

I just don't see it. Ford was a good pitcher, but not in the same league as Kershaw, Glavine, or Hubbell. Eddie Plank appears to be very good, but it's hard to compare dead ball guys.

It's interesting to compare Ford to Johan Santana, but since this is the trading card forum, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

JoeBanzai

@daltex said:

@JoeBanzai said:
Lefty Grove was right there with Randy.

Spahn and Carlton pitched forever, after that, Ford was very good but with only 3,000 IP.

Clayton Kershaw has some pretty amazing numbers, he has surpassed Koufax in innings pitched and has a much higher ERA+ than Sandy.

I would put Grove at #1, then Randy.
Spahn/Carlton 3 & 4.
Ford would be my #5, Stengel kind of screwed up Ford's numbers, but it is what it is.

I just don't see it. Ford was a good pitcher, but not in the same league as Kershaw, Glavine, or Hubbell. Eddie Plank appears to be very good, but it's hard to compare dead ball guys.

It's interesting to compare Ford to Johan Santana, but since this is the trading card forum, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

I loved Santana and hated to see you he Twins trade him, but he ended up with just over 2000 IP. Not enough.

I REALLY missed on Hubbell, I would put him at my #5.

I didn't consider Plank, he didn't seem to be a top pitcher in his time to me. His best season was in the Federal League? In looking at his years in the top 10, he just didn't make it into the top 5 much. Best left hander of HIS time, but not all time.

Glavine never did anything for me, although he was better than I thought. His ERA+ was about the same as Carlton/Spahn and he pitched a lot less innings than they did. He would not make my top 5, but prolly be in the top 10

Ford was better than you think. Casey Stengle didn't pitch him every fourth day, instead holding him out to match up against the opponents top pitcher. This cost him wins and innings. I also like that Ford was able to "reinvent" himself when he began to lose his fastball, he changed his approach and was able to pitch well (better?) for a number of years.

I did compare Ford and Santana and again innings pitched is the difference. Santana struck out more and walked less batters per inning, but gave up more HR, but he just didn't last long enough to make a top 5 of all time.

Top two of all time looks easy, Grove and Johnson. Randy was better at striking batters out, but Grove the better pitcher, by a little.

I think it's easy to pick a top 5, but after that it gets harder.

Cakes

@miwlvrn said:

@JoeBanzai said:
Lefty Grove was right there with Randy.

Spahn and Carlton pitched forever, after that, Ford was very good but with only 3,000 IP.

Clayton Kershaw has some pretty amazing numbers, he has surpassed Koufax in innings pitched and has a much higher ERA+ than Sandy.

I would put Grove at #1, then Randy.
Spahn/Carlton 3 & 4.
Ford would be my #5, Stengel kind of screwed up Ford's numbers, but it is what it is.

Makes you wonder what might have been, if Satchel Paige had been in MLB from the beginning of his career.

Agreed, but Satch was a righty!

daltex

@JoeBanzai said:

Ford was better than you think. Casey Stengle didn't pitch him every fourth day, instead holding him out to match up against the opponents top pitcher. This cost him wins and innings. I also like that Ford was able to "reinvent" himself when he began to lose his fastball, he changed his approach and was able to pitch well (better?) for a number of years.

I've heard this, and I think it's true, in the same way that Johnson was "hurt" by Pinella not trotting him out every fourth day. Except for his injury filled 1957 nobody had appreciably more starts than Ford. So Stengel wasn't pitching ANYONE every fourth day.

This (very long) article https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/whitey-ford/ shows that at least part of his change in "approach" was due to cheating. Please, don't take my word for it, take Ford's, but don't assume he's admitting to every bit of cheating he did. Everyone who gets caught cheating admits to less than they did. Everybody. Not just baseball players.

JoeBanzai

Good story.
I have read books on Mantle and Berra, so I knew most of that.
I didn't realize (or had forgotten) Ford had so many injuries.
He doctored balls at times, it didn't always help him.
He's not a top 5 all time left hander, but I'll still rank him in the top 10 and closer to #5 than #10.

JoeBanzai

Just opened a 1989 glossy set and the centering was atrocious!
Fortunately the Griffey, Johnson and Smoltz cards were well centered, many of the other star cards had no border on one side. The Puckett was miscut.

Cakes

@JoeBanzai said:
Just opened a 1989 glossy set and the centering was atrocious!
Fortunately the Griffey, Johnson and Smoltz cards were well centered, many of the other star cards had no border on one side. The Puckett was miscut.

That hurts! It's always a gamble. What do they go for?

The 89 UD Baseball sets are another fun rip. I feel like the RJ card is undervalued. Sale was the only modern lefty similar to him but his career has been diminished due to injuries.

olb31

griffey jr pop 98,621 - 4,079 psa 10
Johnson pop 35,000 - 5,150 psa 10

these two psa 10 numbers are the highest on any cards on the PSA pop report, by far. The topps johnson has about 1600 psa 10's if that puts into perspective. there were endless amount of 1989 topps printed and yet based on"scarcity" it would appear that it's much harder to find a topps 10 vs an upper deck 10.

JoeBanzai

@Cakes said:

@JoeBanzai said:
Just opened a 1989 glossy set and the centering was atrocious!
Fortunately the Griffey, Johnson and Smoltz cards were well centered, many of the other star cards had no border on one side. The Puckett was miscut.

That hurts! It's always a gamble. What do they go for?

The 89 UD Baseball sets are another fun rip. I feel like the RJ card is undervalued. Sale was the only modern lefty similar to him but his career has been diminished due to injuries.

^
^
^
The 2 last Griffey's sold on ebay for $5,500.00 and $3,800.00.
The Randy Johnson goes for $160.00. kind of confusing on this one in looking at sold items as a couple were best offers accepted.
Hoping for a nice Puckett as there is only one PSA 10.
I have been buying factory sets lately instead of unopened wax and have NEVER seen such horrible cutting.
You would think a premium product would be better than that.
I happened to buy a set that had been opened and saw the Griffey was well centered. The seller came down a bit in price,and I'm happy the Griffey has a shot at a 10, but I don't think I'll be breaking any more of these sets. They are already expensive, if you got a set with the key card(s) off center it would be very disturbing.

@olb31 said:
griffey jr pop 98,621 - 4,079 psa 10
Johnson pop 35,000 - 5,150 psa 10

these two psa 10 numbers are the highest on any cards on the PSA pop report, by far. The topps johnson has about 1600 psa 10's if that puts into perspective. there were endless amount of 1989 topps printed and yet based on"scarcity" it would appear that it's much harder to find a topps 10 vs an upper deck 10.

I ripped a couple of Topps rack boxes last year and didn't get any Griffey's worth submitting.

daltex

@JoeBanzai said:
Good story.
I have read books on Mantle and Berra, so I knew most of that.
I didn't realize (or had forgotten) Ford had so many injuries.
He doctored balls at times, it didn't always help him.
He's not a top 5 all time left hander, but I'll still rank him in the top 10 and closer to #5 than #10.

Saying [cheating] didn't always help [Ford] presupposes you'd know how well he would have done without cheating. Also it requires you to believe a confessed cheater tells you exactly when he cheated.

Regardless, by WAA and WAR he's about 20th. Now I'll say up front that these numbers aren't determinative, but if you want "one size fits all" numbers then they work better than anything else. Some of the guys ahead of Ford have just no chance to make the Hall. On the WAA list, Ford is behind Buehrle, Sale, Santana and Hamels. On the WAR list, Wells, Koosman Tanana, Hamels, Finley, and Buehrle.

I just can't see Ford as great. Sorry.

ChanceP

@NGS428 said:
The Griffey card has a pop of 118, so quite low for his rookie year. The 1989 Topps Traded Tiffany has a pop of 337, which sells for about $2.6k.

Granted they did print 2x as many of the Fleer glossy (30k vs 15k).

Supply and demand as usual. Let’s see where this one ends..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/385633396833?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ppxv2bK5S4e&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=6QcuQCLzR1e&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Is it 15k topps tiffany every year from 1984-1990?

Thanks, I never knew how many Tiffany cards came out each year

Is there any actual number for regular Topps cards from that same era?

Thanks again for any reply