1960's Football Undervalued?
2dueces
Posts: 6,532 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is a topic I have thought of for many years now. 1990 price guides value 1960's football about the same as they are today 15 years later. Will there be a time when these sets take off like the 60's baseball sets have in the last 15 years or will they always be the bargains they are today? I'm not saying they will ever be worth as much as the same baseball sets but comparing a $1500 football set to a $7500 baseball set from the same year it seems quite a dspairity in prices. Could this be the next soaring price craze. Remember, in 1980 a Pete Rose rookie card was 10 times the value of a T206 Ty Cobb and carmel cards could be has for $5 a piece along with T205 and T206 commons. Will collectors find these under valued sets and start the escalation or will they always be the best 45 year old bargains?
W.C.Fields
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
0
Comments
I was at an Angels game a couple of weeks ago and Vlad hit a homer. As soon as he rounded the bases, the scoreboard flashed that he was the 11th player to hit 300 before 30 y/o. Sorta useless info, but it connects today's game with the past.
On the plus side I am building a pretty nice collection of vintage football. Specific cards are comparable in value to baseball, especially early 1970's Steelers. I am still bullish on FB, but the NFL needs to do a better job promoting the history. Maybe the NFL Network will help, those old football videos are superior to anything the other sports have.
Most young to middle-age fans don't really relate to the NFL's history. At least, not until the league AFL/NFL merger / Super Bowl era began. The baseball season is too long and kids seem to now gravitate towards the NFL. So, only time will tell if the NFL ever makes that magic historical connection that baseball offers ... and creates childhood memories.
As the NFL fan base continues to grow, there will be more tradition associated to NFL. Except for a few deceased NFL superstars, most are still alive. As they begin to pass away, more tributes will be conducted and their legend celebrated.
I stopped being a diehard baseball fan since '94, and I'm even more turned off now with the steroid issue. Because baseball is a stats driven sport, this is where it really hurts ... especially after last year's playoffs. I will take my soon to be 4 year old son to NFL football games this fall and begin a Sunday tradition with him. I am a transplanted Packer fan here in AZ, so I've adopted the Cardinals and became a season ticket holder. I will have 6 season tickets, for the entire family, when the new stadium opens next year. Although the Cardinals still struggle, the NFL is still the best ticket in town.
As far as football goes I think it is hurt by various items.
One already named is the stats that connect and compare generations. In football you have quite a few players that generate no stats whatsoever (guard,center annd tackle). On defense the stats are ones that are not easily remembered such as tackles fumbles recovered and interceptions. That leaves the QB, RB, WR and TE So each team in the NFL will have 5-6 guys that can be compared.
The second point is you never see the guys faces or very rarely. People like to identify with players. If you see many of these guys on the street you would think they are a weightlifter and walk by them. If you walk by the 25th man on a MLB team you can at least recognize him.
The 3rd point is retired players seem to fade into oblivion for some reason. It is not often you see a great running back or quarterback still invloved in the game. Ask today's kids who Barry Sanders is and you will get a blank look. Ask them who Steve largent is and even a blanker look. Today the only ex players you see are normally for the Raiders. Al Davis has them circled around himself to make it feel like the old days.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
I stopped being a diehard baseball fan since '94 (remember the strike?), and I'm even more turned off now with the steroid issue. The numbers will forever be tarnished. The current home run numbers diminish the accomplishments of the past players. Baseball was rejuvenated by the home run numbers ... inflated numbers by cheaters.
As far as football goes, I would feel the same way if players such as Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders or Jerry Rice were caught using them or ever admitted to using them.
I agree that it's easier to identify with baseball players individually and NFL fans perceive football as more of a team sport.
Steve
---------------------
I don't want to get into a baseball vs. football debate, but based on this logic, the last 15 years of baseball have been a lie.
At least the NFL tests for steriods, MLB didn't do it until they were pressured by Congress. Plus you never hear rumors about the top NFL stars.
There just isn't that much out there in good condition, which is a factor that's generally overlooked. There is still ALL KINDS of '60's baseball sitting out there in shoeboxes and binders that hasn't been graded, but I don't think the same thing is true for football.
There is less football out there, but there are also fewer collectors. Boopotts is right, vintage football won't decline in value, however it will take a significant change in the hobby to drive values higher. Football has boomed in popularity over the past 25 years, but the hobby has declined over the same period.
Plus vintage football lacks the national star power of vintage baseball. In baseball you can point to Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Aaron, Mays, etc as the base stars. In football the list is much shorter and the different positions makes comparisons harder. Can you really argue in football if Unitas is better than Jim Brown?
Like I said before, it will take a huge marketing push by the NFL to increase demand for vintage football. They really should do a documentary on the history of football. What is Ken Burns up to today?
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Looking at the most current SMR I have handy (July), I see there is only 1 1960's football set listed with a set value. Well I'll do the same comparison with that one here at least.
Comparing relative set values, and average per card values in NM (7).
1962 Topps Baseball
# of cards in set = 598, set SMR in NM = 11,651, average per card = $19.48
1962 Topps Football
# of cards in set = 176, set SMR in NM = 5,067, average per card = $28.78
I know this is just one way to look at it, but if you do look at it this way, then football cards, at least the 1962's, are not quite the bargain compared to baseball, on a per card average. I'm willing to bet that most 60's sets will have a similar comparison.
So yes, while the total value of individual baseball sets is generally higher, you genreally need to spend more per card to complete football sets. I'm guessing this is because there is a higher percentage of stars and HOFers compared to how small the sets are.
Even though the price per card is probably higher for football cards, I still believe they are a relative bargain, mostly because of the fact that fewer were made and even fewer have survived.
Also, to touch on the subject of pre-war football cards. Yes, the only pre-war football set, as we think of cards today, that feature mainly professional players is the Chicle. But, there are other items you can buy that feture alot of the stars and greats of the pre-war football era. I'm talking of course, of the Diamond Matchbook sets. Truly UNDERVALUED and underappreciated sets in my opinion. One could actually argue that they ARE in fact, "football cards", since they are printed on card stock, and depict football players, and were used as a promotion for matches, not unlike "cigarette" cards. Alot of the players in these sets were never featured on any other card, and this is the only way to obtain a contemporaneous "card" for them. Personally, I consider alot of these to be "rookie cards", but that is just me.
You also have to remember that the NFL as we know it today, didn't even start until, what 1920 I think? Basball had already been around for many years, as an established professional sport.
I'd say what really hurts football as a collectors sport is that football fans generally are not collectors. Football is more of a gambling-oriented sport, much more so than baseball.
Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
Text
Also, Bow, I don't think a comparison between 1962 football and baseball is entirely fair. The 1962 Football set is widely regarded (wrongfully, but that isn't the point) as the most condition sensitive set of any sport in the past 45 years, with the possible exception of 1969 basketball. Also, the football set is smaller then the baseball set and has two key RC's (Tarkenton and Ditka) while the baseball set has none.
A better comparision would probably be 1963, since both sets are about equally condition sensitive.
I paid 2X SMR and my snipe didn't even go off!
<< <i>1967 Philly is a freaky set. There are some guys out there collecting this set for whom price just doesn't seem to be an object.
Also, Bow, I don't think a comparison between 1962 football and baseball is entirely fair. The 1962 Football set is widely regarded (wrongfully, but that isn't the point) as the most condition sensitive set of any sport in the past 45 years, with the possible exception of 1969 basketball. Also, the football set is smaller then the baseball set and has two key RC's (Tarkenton and Ditka) while the baseball set has none.
A better comparision would probably be 1963, since both sets are about equally condition sensitive. >>
I agree, I just did that comparison because the 1962 FB set was the only 60's FB set that had a set price listed in the SMR. I would love to do comparisons of all the 60's sets, just out of curiosity.
FWIW, most of the early 50's comparisons I did turned out to be fairly similar, with a few exceptions.
Edited:
Actually, I don't think it's that bad of a comparison. The 62 BB set is also a condition sensitive set. The BB set has expensive high numbers, and the FB set has SP's. The FB set has key rookie cards, but the BB set has just as many super stars that are valued high.
It's true that the FB sets are much smaller, but if you state that they can't be compared because of that, then FB sets in general shouldn't be compared to BB at all, considering that most of the vintage FB sets are smaller.
One of the points made here was that FB sets don't compare in set value to BB sets. That's true, and they likely will never, or at least I hope they never do. I would hate to have to pay $11,000+ for a FB set of 176, which would be a whopping $62 per card.
I guess it's all how you look at it.
Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
High grade football is much harder to find then high grade baseball.
Yes the print runs are smaller but that is balanced out by the fact that the collector base is smaller,But with that said i think football has a much bigger upside then baseball as more people turn to football.
Ask any of the long term high grade colletor , Frank is a perfect example he could tell you how many guys have turned to football over the past couple of years alone.Just a few years ago there was just a handful of us ,Frank,wolfbear,fuzz,nearmint,myself were some of the first guys to go heavy into it and now there are a ton of regulars many came from baseball.Dave lemon is a good example of a ex baseball guy who now does football who says himself there is just more of a upside to football.
Sevens and to some point 8,s are cheap but two years ago and still today many 8,s comand insane prices.
The above mention 67 philly set has a ton of very very hard to find cards Frank,myself and a couple others have looked with no luck for a couple of years now,check the pop counts on the nines most are 1 or 2 and still there a few with no 8,s graded.
The 66 checklist last card has only 2 seven none higher no baseball set i can think of boasts those type of pops.
As for that Nobis it was a good thing mosh did not bid or a few others i can think of or it would have gone well over 500 or 600 or 700
And trust me it will not be on the market for a long time it has a good home
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Your Namath is nice it looks like a 8 to me they sell for between 400-450
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
email me at jelly_man@msn.com give me your mailing info i will send you a smr
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
SD
<< <i>
<< <i>1967 Philly is a freaky set. There are some guys out there collecting this set for whom price just doesn't seem to be an object.
Also, Bow, I don't think a comparison between 1962 football and baseball is entirely fair. The 1962 Football set is widely regarded (wrongfully, but that isn't the point) as the most condition sensitive set of any sport in the past 45 years, with the possible exception of 1969 basketball. Also, the football set is smaller then the baseball set and has two key RC's (Tarkenton and Ditka) while the baseball set has none.
A better comparision would probably be 1963, since both sets are about equally condition sensitive. >>
I agree, I just did that comparison because the 1962 FB set was the only 60's FB set that had a set price listed in the SMR. I would love to do comparisons of all the 60's sets, just out of curiosity.
FWIW, most of the early 50's comparisons I did turned out to be fairly similar, with a few exceptions.
Edited:
Actually, I don't think it's that bad of a comparison. The 62 BB set is also a condition sensitive set. The BB set has expensive high numbers, and the FB set has SP's. The FB set has key rookie cards, but the BB set has just as many super stars that are valued high.
It's true that the FB sets are much smaller, but if you state that they can't be compared because of that, then FB sets in general shouldn't be compared to BB at all, considering that most of the vintage FB sets are smaller.
One of the points made here was that FB sets don't compare in set value to BB sets. That's true, and they likely will never, or at least I hope they never do. I would hate to have to pay $11,000+ for a FB set of 176, which would be a whopping $62 per card.
I guess it's all how you look at it. >>
I think you also have to account for the fact that the FB sets are smaller, yet they still include all the stars of the day, which means the average 'per card' price is going to be higher by virtue of the fact that a higher percentage of the cards in the set are HOF's.
<< <i>Joe your SMR should be there today, or 2morrow. I sent you the current one.
SD >>
Steve, Thank you very much. Can I send you something for shipping or do you a favor down the road?
Btw, Does my scan of the Butkus show now? If it does any guesses on a grade. Its a good example of the set overall.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
<< <i>I think you also have to account for the fact that the FB sets are smaller, yet they still include all the stars of the day, which means the average 'per card' price is going to be higher by virtue of the fact that a higher percentage of the cards in the set are HOF's. >>
boopotts, I think that's pretty much the problem with trying to compare FB and BB sets, the difference in size. I hope that the overall set prices do NOT EVER come close to being comparable. I would hate to have to spend in the $11,000 range to complete a 1962 FB set in NM. If more and more BB collectors are switching to FB, what will that eventually do to BB prices? Will they drop? That's about the only way I can see set prices evening out. One has to rise a bit and one has to fall, and meet somewhere in the middle.
But, since this is a 60's FB thread, and others have posted scans.......
I havn't really been too active in the 1966 set, but I do have a few, no Namath, although I've had my share of opp's.
Here are a couple of my favorite 66's which represent the overall condition of what I do have (about 50% complete). Actually, I'd say most of the commons are better than these. No graded cards, all raw.
And I also notice someone mentione MOSH and the 68 stand ups. Here is my Namath in that set. Pretty decent, except for a "ding" along the right edge, about halfway up. It actually only affects the front surface of the cardboard, not the entire thickness or the back.
Never really thought about what they'd grade, and never really thought about having them graded. Also, seeing some of the blazers in some of these threads, I wouldn't hold out too much hope of getting too high a grade anyway, even if I did send them in.
Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
Nope
you can do something for someone else if the opportunity arises.
SD
When PSA 9 examples of the mega stars of the 60's like Jim Brown and Gale Sayers are available at less than $1,000, there is definitely room for growth.
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
A 2nd year Namath 9 listed for just over 1k when there has only been 1 on the open market of ebay and all the auction houses in at least 6 years is a joke.
Mega stars in 9, or dare i say 10,s have big time room for growth
Kinda keeps it all in the family
<< <i>YOU SAID IT FRANK.
A 2nd year Namath 9 listed for just over 1k when there has only been 1 on the open market of ebay and all the auction houses in at least 6 years is a joke.
Mega stars in 9, or dare i say 10,s have big time room for growth >>
I completely agree. Didn't a PSA 9 '62 Y.A. Tittle sell for 2K or something last year? Unreal. That card can ONLY go up. Ditto for the '66's and 69's.
The one oddity is the '71 set, which seems to have 'caught up' (more or less) to it's baseball counterpart.
The difference though is that I believe there is enough 70's material that prices will come down. I don't believe that to be true with 60's football.
" estimate that a 1967 Philly set in PSA 8 would go for $1200-$1500 and PSA 9 set $3000. There aren't any big rookies in the set to drive demand any higher. "
Was that a typo? An entire graded PSA 8 set for $1,200 or $12,000? There have been raw sets on ebay go for $500-700. An that Packer team set go for $999.