Favorite sports card price guides?
goodriddance189
Posts: 2,388 ✭✭
what are your favorite card mags? not in terms of the price guide, just in terms of card or player articles. personally, i think Beckett is the worst. Tuff Stuff used to be an interesting read in the late 90's, but recent issues have been boring.
my top 3 are:
1. Vintage and Classic Baseball Collector
2. Collectors Sportslook (best hobby mag ever)
3. SCD
in a related note, did anyone ever read Sportslook? the main writers now write for the men's mag FHM. if anyone happens to have any old issues, let me know. i will buy them
my top 3 are:
1. Vintage and Classic Baseball Collector
2. Collectors Sportslook (best hobby mag ever)
3. SCD
in a related note, did anyone ever read Sportslook? the main writers now write for the men's mag FHM. if anyone happens to have any old issues, let me know. i will buy them
0
Comments
1) ebay
2) ebay
3) ebay
like it or not beckett is the most up to date of the sports mags, even though that isn't saying much!
Kevin
1. CU Board (when they are discussing cards, and not flips)
2. Net 54 Board (see above)
3. Vintagecardboard.com (brand new, but great potential)
4. Mastro/RE catalogs
5. VCBC (this could easily go higher, if he'd actually have some sort of schedule)
Boards like this are magazines, to an extent. And the news is up to the minute. Just sifting thru all the garbage is increasingly tough.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
2. Collectors Sportslook (best hobby mag ever)
I have never heard of these, and now I am curious. Are these on newsstands?
<< <i>not in terms of the price guide, just in terms of card or player articles >>
This quote from the person who started the thread, compared to most of the responses, definitely leads me to believe that almost nobody actually reads what another person writes in this forum.
As for the topic, I don't like any of the current guides. However, I would spend hours pouring over an issue of Tuff Stuff back in the early to mid 90s.
I used to read Tuff Stuff just for the TJ Schwartz column. He did provide some insight occasionally, but I got some sado-masochistic pleasure from reading his whiney rants about dealers with dice and spinner games on their tables. Calling the cops on them. What a tool.
My favorite magazine was "Baseball Cards" magazine, which later became "Sportscards." I bought the first issue when it came out when I was 10 and was just starting to really get into cards. I read that thing to pieces. I picked up another copy a couple years ago and it all came flooding back. I happen to have it right here on my bookcase. The "centerfold" with all those beautiful vintage cards that I'd never seen, an article on 1981 Fleer's errors, an article on team collecting. It even had an investment column with priceless nuggets like "Buy all Ty Cobb cards," "1954 Aaron not a great buy for $175," and "1952 Topps Eddie Mathews Difficult in Mint." And did you know the Rod Carew and Steve Garvey cards were once considered the keys to the 1972 set? Wow. This magazine sells for about $10 but really is priceless.
Sadly, think hobby magazines in general are on the way out. Because the centerpiece has always been price guides and price guides are being continually supplanted by ebay, fewer people buy them. If there was a content-only magazine on the hobby, that could be worth buying.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
They should have back issues available.
Website for VCBC
<< <i>
<< <i>not in terms of the price guide, just in terms of card or player articles >>
This quote from the person who started the thread, compared to most of the responses, definitely leads me to believe that almost nobody actually reads what another person writes in this forum. >>
To be fair, the topic title is "Favourite sports card price guides?". 'Twas a tad misleading.