Some upcoming additions for the Registry

NickM

HOF Player set - Boggs and Sandberg
HOF Complete set - Boggs and Sandberg
HOF Player Post-War Rookies set - Boggs and Sandberg
HOF Red Sox set - Boggs
HOF Yankees set - Boggs

Thanks in advance to BJ, Gayle, and Cosetta

Nick

DataDriven05

Pretty safe to assume, but will it be the Topps issue for those sets that require a specific card... like the HOF Post War Rookie set?

jrdolan

<< <i>Pretty safe to assume, but will it be the Topps issue for those sets that require a specific card ... like the HOF Post War Rookie set? >>


A good point, because this is the first time since 1948-49 Bowman and Leaf that PSA has had to choose between different rookie cards (Spahn, Paige, etc.) for the HOF Postwar Rookies set. I believe they went with the card that was more "desirable" or "difficult" -- i.e. the most expensive.

After that, Topps was the only game in town until the '80s. The issue didn't arise with Puckett because '84 Fleer Update was his only first card. It will be just as simple with Clemens.

But now Boggs and Ryno both have rookie cards from multiple manufacturers in '83. I think most of the collecting world regards '83 Topps as the "definitive" rookie cards for these two, and Gwynn as well. Ripken, most people regard '82 Topps Traded as his "definitive" rookie, even though he has cards in the regular '82 sets.

Maybe these aren't tough choices -- unless you have only the regular '82 Ripken and don't want to have to spring for the much more valuable Traded version.

But it gets stickier a little further down the road with Bonds, Randy Johnson, A-Rod, Sosa and (if he keeps it up) Pujols. These players have so many rookie cards it's almost a joke. OK, with Barry maybe you could argue that '86 Fleer Update should be the "definitive" rookie. But Pujols? He's got more different rookies than he has fingers and toes.

I've suggested before that the Postwar HOF Rookies set as we now know it should be cut off at some point, perhaps 1985 with McGwire. Perhaps another set could be started: Post-Glut HOF Rookies or whatever.

NickM

For Boggs and Sandberg, I would choose '83 Topps on each.

With Clemens, the situation is the same as Puckett - '84 Fleer Update.

For Ripken, '82 Topps Traded should NOT be considered. It was not a rookie card. '82 Topps should be the choice.

I agree that Bonds would be '86 Fleer Update.

Maddux should be '87 Donruss.

Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey Jr. are fairly easy - '89 Upper Deck.

Sosa and Frank Thomas should be '90 Leaf.

Piazza should be '92 Bowman.

Jeter should be '93 SP, and A-Rod should be '94 SP. There is normally one card that stands out in a player's first year cards from this era.

By the Pujols era, it's more of a mess. I guess the 2001 Bowman Chrome would be the best choice. Luckily we will have a lot more years to worry about this.

Nick

WinPitcher

Don't forget Palmiero

NickM

I had to leave some players for other people to chime in with.

Nick

NickM

The additions of Boggs and Sandberg have already been made.

Thanks to the wonderful registry staff.



Nick

Iseeyou

How about a hall of shame set featuring the infamous NickM who ebay has suspended before. He won't admit how many times he has been suspended.

pandrews

<< <i>How about a hall of shame set featuring the infamous NickM who ebay has suspended before. He won't admit how many times he has been suspended. >>



who the hell are you?

jrdolan

Did somebody forget to spray the troll repellent again?

shagrotn77

Nick,

I agree with all of your choices except for Piazza. I believe his '92 Fleer Update is more valuable than his Bowman rookie. I definitely agree that Ripken's regular issue '82 Topps card should be used. The Traded isn't his rookie.

Shag

fsjeter

jrDolan and NickM,

Why wouldn't you use the 1987 Fleer as Bonds "definitive" rookie? It is a true rookie card (not an XRC) and right now the value consistantly remains above that of the '86 Fleer Update and the '86 Topps Traded even though the '86 Fleer Update has a lower print run than the other issues.

Scott

5thScaleRacer

<< <i>

<< <i>How about a hall of shame set featuring the infamous NickM who ebay has suspended before. He won't admit how many times he has been suspended. >>



who the hell are you? >>




He's the po-po, one time, five oh, pac man.

NickM

My reasoning is this on Piazza and Bonds.

Cards from his first year appearing on any maor league cards take precendence over all later years. For Bonds, the choices are then '86 Fleer Update and '86 Topps Traded (and the Fleer Update wins hands down).

If a player has cards in multiple sets in the same first year, the criteria for choosing the card are both value and how mainstream it is. For Piazza, a valuable card included in a major set sold in packs beats a valuable card only included in boxed sets (I still have some dislike for the idea of breaking open sets to grade one card), so Bowman is the choice.

Nick

ctsoxfan

I understand your logic on the Bonds, but I agree more with Scott. The 87 Fleer Bonds is his "real" RC in the eyes of most collectors, and has been his most valuable rookie issue. I don't consider cards issued in limited type smaller sets to be true RC's. Even considering it was issued in his second year, I would vote for the 87 Fleer Bonds.

Axtell

Why would we say the 84 fleer update for clemens and puckett should be the choice, but we should take Bonds' regular issue over the traded/extended sets?

I think there should be some consistency in choosing these types of things.

Axtell

<< <i>How about a hall of shame set featuring the infamous NickM who ebay has suspended before. He won't admit how many times he has been suspended. >>




Wow you just spew hate everywhere you go, don't you?

shagrotn77

IMHO, the included cards should be a player's most desirable rookie, or XRC. You can't tell me Traded and Update sets aren't mainstream. If you want any card from one of those sets, they are plentiful and readily available. So '82 Topps Ripken, '86 Fleer Update Bonds and '92 Fleer Update Piazza get my vote. I've been collecting cards for 20+ years now and I've always been drawn to a player's best rookie card. Cards like Bonds' '87 Fleer and Ripken's '82TT mean nothing to me. Yes, they're valuable, but they're not rookie cards in my book because they are not first issues - and no I don't think Minor League issues should be considered first issues.

5thScaleRacer

don't forget about '86 Donruss "The Rookies" when talking about Bonds

jrdolan

PSA already set the precedent with 1984FU Puckett. That means Clemens' key rookie will be '84FU, too. Why would they treat Bonds differently? In my mind it's hard to say that '87 is a rookie card but '86 is not. It's just some folks' personal opinion that "Traded" or "Update" should not count, it's not a rule. Certainly not in the registry, where PSA has already demonstrated with Puckett that they DO count. I will bet my '84FU Clemens that '85T Clemens is not chosen for the HOF Rookies set.

That's why I expect '86FU for Bonds. It's his toughest and most-sought '86 card.

fsjeter

I was thinking in terms of value and desireability among all of his "rookie" cards. When you are talking about Puckett and Clemens, yes the 84F Update win for both of them. However, that is not the case with Bonds. While the '86F update may win in the desireability category (which is a topic for another thread), it still lags behind the '87F in value (not far mind you but it does). I searched completed items on eBay and found that the '86F Update in a PSA 10 is trading around $300.00 while the '87F is trading around $375.00 (a BGS 9.5 sold for $500.00) in the same grade. Once people figure out that there are far fewer '86F Update RC's than '87F that may actually change.

Scott

jrdolan

You may be right about how PSA will treat Bonds. I just joined the 500 HR Club registry. Bonds card? '87 Fleer.

I don't agree with PSA on this, but that's what they did. I would think it would be hard to justify using '87 Fleer as his rookie card in one registry and '86FU in another.

I sold all my '87 Fleers. I guess I need to get one of them back.