Informal Survey: The Rubber Band Myth?

Buccaneer

Ok, I just read something slvnumber2 wrote that I've been curious about. In the hobby, it has been long stated as a fact that the first and last cards of vintage are in higher demand due to the rubber banding effect. Joe perpetuated this in his book and I have seen several collectors repeating this. Here's the problem. As a collector starting in 1970, I never sorted my cards by number, nor do I recall anyone else doing that as well. Rubber banding by teams, yes, but not in numerical order. Here's the informal survey question, esp. among older collectors: did you ever rubber band your cards with #1 on top and the last card on the bottom?

RayBShotz

Steve,

In 1969 I had an army green baseball card locker that had slots for the cards of every team. I sorted my cards that way (by team) just because I had that to use.
I would say though as a general rule I also bunched the cards by team before and after "the locker".
RayBShotz

WinPitcher

buc i think it happened more in the 50's and that is why u hear abt it so often affecting those cards. later mainly during the late 50's early 60's those same cards 1 and the last card were of superstars and they were handled more often. In fact i think ted williams had a 1st card and last card in the same set. in the early to mid sixties topps used the previous years MVP as card 1 and 2. the last card also has the pressure of being in a hi series. many i am sure also rubber banded them in numerical order too.

goodriddance189

excellent post. i would think that the players with the first and last name alphabetically for each team would suffer the most damage. i would guess that yall used to sort em alphabetically by team?

Buccaneer

But why was it different in the 1950s then? Or was it?

Ray: I did too, except that I had 9and still have) that red plastic kind from 1970. I don't know if this forced me into sorting by teams or not, but I think I would have done so anyways (except those silly generic rookie cards - they didn't belong in any teams' pile).

aro13

It was the 54 Topps set where Williams was the first and last card.

We had lockers for our hockey cards in the 70's as well. They were sorted by team. However, I do remember usually putting the doubles in the locker and sorting our "main" set in numerical order. We usually took our main set to school to trade and we did indeed have elastics. Also, at card stores in the mid to late 80's they used to sell hockey sets that were wrapped tightly by number. The first and last cards would always have nicked corners.

ctsoxfan

I had one of those lockers also - and I always sorted the cards by team. But, I tried for several years to also make one complete set, in numerical order, but no rubber banding.

Stone193

I have to be honest, those who remember their first pack of cards, who the players were etc. is beyond my ability to recall - since cards were sold in series in the 50's, I for one probably carried around what I had purchased in a certain period and would never have been able to compile an entire set - so whatever card was on top that day, got the rubber band - I seem to recollect that I grouped the cards by teams and tried to accumulate as many Dodger guys I could get my hands on via trades and flipping. For the young collectors out there - we played a game where we stood about 3-5 ft. away from the curb and flipped the cards toward the curb, skimming them along the ground - the card "closest" to the curb took the rest - if the card hit the curb and stood up on an angle, a "leaner", everyone had to pay you double. So what about the condition of these cards? This one was originally my brother's card and my mom found them in the basement back in 1991 when I was heavy into collecting again - so for those who worried about that unthinkable act - they probably wouldn't have been in that good'a shape anyway?



Stone

Vargha

I sorted the stupid things eighty five different ways. And yes, I always rubber banded them.

aloof1003

i can remember having my fathers baseball cards mixed in with my own from the late 70's & early 80's and what always sticks in my mind was the 52 bowman berra and the 52 topps mays. i kept them by team and unfortunatly since the berra was smaller than the others it was on the top and as the mays was largest it went on the bottom of the giants pile. of course all were rubber banded together. for whatever reason these two always stuck in my head,(I WONDER WHY)
aloof

WinPitcher

But why was it different in the 1950s


i was implying that back in those days people did not understand that a future value existed like they did in the 70's thus they rubber banded them also all they had for storage back then was a shoebox. now i do not mean to say that everyone rubberbanded the cards however many did and thus that is one of the reasons card 1 has added pressure in regards to value. i think 1952 topps pafko is a perfect example of this .

Cubfan

I had my 1966-1969 cards in Velveeta boxes and also bought a plastic locker when they came out in 1970 (and I had to put the Brewers cards in the Pilots slot). I think I sorted by superstars and duds and then maybe by teams. I dont think I put them in numbered order, but did use checklists. And I really dont remember any of my friends using numbered orders, but they did use rubber bands.

The theory makes sense but I dont think it was universal.

Golfcollector

How about rubber banded by star players and bums, at least that is what I did in the late 70's with my large collection of about 8,000 cards.

jrdolan

I sorted by team, HRs hit the previous year, ethnicity, even ranking them from most to least favorite player. But always by number within those criteria, so #1 and #last still got the rubber band treatment and (and so did many others that topped or ended my subsets).

jimtb

I collected as a kid in the early and mid 1970's I used shoe boxes to store them in and usually sorted by team. I often rubberbanded doubles because it made them easier for me to carry them on my bike. We use to trade cards all the time, and the doubles were great trade bait to help me complete my set.

Buccaneer

<< <i>But why was it different in the 1950s


i was implying that back in those days people did not understand that a future value existed like they did in the 70's thus they rubber banded them also all they had for storage back then was a shoebox. now i do not mean to say that everyone rubberbanded the cards however many did and thus that is one of the reasons card 1 has added pressure in regards to value. i think 1952 topps pafko is a perfect example of this . >>



I would take exception to the statement that us kids in the early-mid 1970s knew more about the "future value" of cards than those in the 1950s. I don't recall any mention of monetary value, only the value we individually put on each card - just like they did in the 1950s.

pebblyjack

As a kid in the mid-70s, I always sorted the players alphabetically by team. Multi-player cards, league leader cards, etc. went into their own pile. They were officially rubber banded and I stored them alphabetically by team in a dresser drawer. My friends also sorted by team, not by number.

I resolved to save my cards (and did), but it had nothing to do with future value. My dad said that he had a bunch of early fifties cards for me, and I was terribly excited. However, I was terribly disappointed when we found that my grandmother had pitched his cards after he had moved out. So, I made my mom promise not to pitch my cards, not because I thought they had any future value, but so my kids would not be similarly disappointed. So, I still have those ex-exmint beauties and my boys are almost ready for them.

Thanks

Randy

1954

1970s and up have 700+ cards in the set. That is a very large rubber band. I think most of the collectors from the 1970-80 years did exactly what Ray was talking about. The Locker and shoe box was a popular storage idea for me and my collecting friends.

1954

helionaut

I rubber banded my cards AND put them in a shoebox. I remember sorting and resorting my 1981 Topps cards about 15 times into teams, numberically, by position, by All-Stars, and back again. Those cards have long since vanished, but probably 100 of them would've had rubber band marks, not to mention rounded corners, creases and dings. I do remember using these big wide bands that my mom brought home from work that perfectly fit a stack of 25 cards, just enough for a team.

DirtyHarry

I started collecting as a kid in the early 60's and sorted in numeric order in my Thom McCann empty shoeboxes. I kept the checklists to the side, and marked them as I filed away new purchases. I would occasionally band the cards, if I was going off somewhere to trade them or flip them with friends. So for me, it was typically the lowest number and highest number cards that I had that showed band marks, not necessarily #1 and the last card in the set (unless I had them).

CuseSteve

I never used rubber bands...used card lockers..

Anyone still have one of those 'card lockers'?

I have been looking for one and cant seem to find one....

Steve

cameocards

I started buying packs seriously in 1955. Cards were sorted by team with the team card on top [starting with 56 of course] and rubberbanded. My mom had gotten a set of 16 large glasses. The box was made out of heavy duty cardboard and I saw immediately that my cards arranged by team would fit nicely into the slots. Since 1961 was my last year of collecting, I did not face the problem of what to do with the expansion teams. I actually still had my cards in this box until I got back into card collecting in the mid 80s Since we played dice games with our cards, putting them in numerical order was not even a consideration. Checklists were used and the last 10 or so needed to complete a series were commited to memory. Got it, got it, need it etc. as packs were opened is a fond memory.

BugOnTheRug

Early 1970's collecting as a kid.

Always into teams.

Rubber banded and/or shoeboxed.

Card #'s were irrelevant to me with the exception of the checking the checklists. I tried a few times to organize strickly by #'s, but it seemed so stupid to have a Pirate, then an Expo, then an Astros player, etc. in that type of order.

BOTR

Dhjacks

I too was early '70s, and I do recall putting them primarily in numerical order and having both rubber bands and shoe boxes.
I also remember beginning to think about value around 1977. That is the first year I ordered a couple of vending boxes, and I remember trying to talk ol' dad into buying a couple of cases to stash away. He didn't go for it.

jrinck

I sometimes sorted by number, but mostly it was by teams.

I once posted here about how I felt that LOWER GRADE #1 cards should not carry any premium, since, according to the theory, they shouldn't be any harder to find than any other card. HIGH GRADE #1 cards should see a DRAMATIC jump versus lower condition #1's--much more than for any other card number other than the last.

But I didn't see this theory played out in the SMR. The SMR seemed to give a premium price on ALL condition ranges for #1 cards. That I never agreed with.

aro13

jrinck - I agree with you and I always thought SMR and Beckett made that distinction. However, it seems in looking at the SMR that in most cases the #1 card increases more between a 7 and 8 than the other cards but not in the lower grades. One card where the price difference is huge is card #1 Andy Pafko in the 52 Topps set. A 5 lists at $425 a 6 at $850, a 7 at $4250 and an 8 at $15,000.

WinPitcher

I would take exception to the statement that us kids in the early-mid 1970s knew more about the "future value" of cards than those in the 1950s. I don't recall any mention of monetary value, only the value we individually put on each card - just like they did in the 1950s.


buc please do not put words in my mouth........not once did i say "kids" i said people and by the 70's PEOPLE knew that cards were becoming valuable and thus began to take care of them a little more. I hope this clarifies my thoughts properly to you.

DirtyHarry

Following up what WinPitcher stated, I never visited a hobby shop until the late 70's. That's when I learned about sleeves, toploaders, storage boxes and card mag's with card values...card shops and the "card protection" industry was really not prevalent in the 50's and 60's. So if you collected back then, you were largely uneducated and just collecting for the fun of it. IMO it became more of an industry and less of a hobby in the 70's, with a ton more information. That's when I went back to my vintage 1962 Thom McCann shoe boxes (originally had shoes in them), took the cards out of the rubber bands, and put them in sleeves or toploaders based on the new info then available. I think that's all that is being said. Regards.

Buccaneer

When in the 70s? (I'm a little ignorant of the hobby's history up until the late 70s.)

Steve D, sorry if I put words in your mouth.

WinPitcher

october 4 1974 to be precise...........a little bell when off in people's heads and the hobby that you see today was born.....

WinPitcher

by the way, this hobby started long before the issues of the post war era..........many collected sets in the 30's and before. i was, as you know replying to the original post regarding rubber bands........

ArtRossLives

I started in 1960 - rubber banded by team with team cards on top followed by managers. coaches, pitchers (by number of wins prior year), then starters by catcher, around the infield, and outfield followed by the scrubs. Of such are memories made....

My team cards and various poor hitting outfielders all have rubber band marks up through the 70s.

The first and last number high values is another scam foisted on us by dealers. Few rubber bands made in the 60s would handle 400/500/700 cards.

phreakydancin

I don't recall if I ever used elastic bands, but the cards were always in order by number... how else would you know how close you were to completing the set?

With or without elastic bands, the first and last cards would take more of a beating than the cards within.

Dhjacks

Rubber Bands - On March 17, 1845, the first rubber band was patented by Stephen Perry of London, made from vulcanized rubber. Perry owned the manufacturing company Messers Perry and Co., of London, England


In case anyone was wondering how far back rubber bands went. I wonder if there are rubber band collectors out there who have problems with card indentations.

Buccaneer

<< <i>I don't recall if I ever used elastic bands, but the cards were always in order by number... how else would you know how close you were to completing the set?

With or without elastic bands, the first and last cards would take more of a beating than the cards within. >>



When did you start doing this?

MorrellMan

Here's my 2 cents, since I collected in the late '50s early 60s:
At the start of the collecting season, with only the first series and half of the second series being issued, I never had enough cards to sort into teams and make any sense of what I had, so I kept them numerical. The teams didn't form until there were enough cards per team to actually seem like a team set. So I always agreed with the additional wear seen by the #1 card. Never really understood the significance of a premium for the last card, because, as has been stated here previously, most rubberbanded sets I ever saw were team sets, with the team card or manager card on top, if there was any order to the sets at all. I don't remember anybody rubberbanding cards by series, and if they did, there would be 7 different first and last cards. And I certainly never saw a whole set of 500 plus cards rubberbanded together in one brick.