Manning Contenders vs Pujols Bowman Chrome

ripkenintheminors · February 6, 2007 10:16AM

Greetings everyone. I've tried asking this to several other collectors and on another board or two. I wanted to get some feedback here as well. With all of that being said, thanks in advance.

I picked up Peyton's Contenders RC in April of '06 and have to say that I am so glad that I did. I have collected Manning since his days at UT and always wanted a copy. I took a gamble on a raw copy and it got a solid 8.5 grade. I have thought about asking this for some time and now is as good of a time as any. Sorry if it's an ignorant question, but I appreciate the input.

I've been tracking Manning cards for some time. When the Colts were unbeaten at the start of the season, I saw a BGS 8.5 Manning Contenders go for over $2,600. Since the Super Bowl, I've seen a PSA 9 with a $2,900 starting bid receive no bids. On the other hand, a PSA 9 Pujols Bowman Chrome just brought over $3,600.

At what point does the Manning Contenders reach the level of the Albert Pujols Bowman Chrome RC? Or, does that ever happen? I know it's different sports and a different group of collectors but comparing edition runs of 200 and 500 is anyone else surprised that the prices aren't any closer on the secondary market? Thanks for the feedback.

EAsports · February 7, 2007 12:05AM

FWIW,

The Manning Contenders is not a true RC. That may hold its market value back a little.

Allen · February 7, 2007 1:18AM

<< <i>The Manning Contenders is not a true RC. That may hold its market value back a little. >>

How do ya figure?

EAsports · February 7, 2007 1:52AM

Wasn't '98 Contenders the set that included a leather football-shaped card, a felt pennant shaped card, and a standard card? Or was that '97?

I could be completely wrong on this.

onlyanumber · February 7, 2007 1:57AM

How many of these Manning Contenders rcs are there?

Cubby · February 7, 2007 2:52AM

1998 Playoff Contenders #87 - Peyton Manning = Print run 200.
And, it appears it is NOT a true RC, but a Rookie Parallel.

ripkenintheminors · February 7, 2007 4:38AM

I have heard the argument that it's not a RC, but have not ever received any reasoning behind that. Why would it not be considered a RC?

Cubby · February 7, 2007 5:06AM

Why would it not be considered a RC? Because Peyton, along with
Moss, Ward, and others have cards in 1998 Playoff Momentum, which
are considered the true Rookies. Thus, the 1998 Playoff Contenders
are considered "parallels".

Allen · February 7, 2007 5:09AM

It is not a parallel, it is the base card. There is a red parallel of it that is like $40. But the auto is the true base card, the only argument for it not being a rookie is that there are only 200 of them so it could be considered "not widely distributed" but the product was.

Allen · February 7, 2007 5:11AM

Cubby that is 2 different sets and brands, by that logic the Pujols Bowman Chrome is not a rookie because he was in Bowman, Bowman Heritage and Bowman's Best. So Bowman Chrome is not a rookie.

Cubby · February 7, 2007 5:14AM

Oh, okay I must be mistaken. Sorry.

Please disregard any of my info in this thread, except the
print run = 200. I think I got that right.

ripkenintheminors · February 7, 2007 5:18AM

FWIW I've been asking around and here's one take on the card:

"The RC question is a good one. It is like the XRC in today's world of baseball. It is what the hobby percieves as the RC. I love the Barry Bonds, it is so easy to get a 86 traded it is ridiculus yet 87 fleer is his rc??? Or the Ryan Howard with a 2001 mass produced card yet 2003 is his RC. In this case it is whatever the hobby adopts as his RC from this product and this would be the RC...at least in my mind."

I may be totally off, but the Contenders auto was inserted in packs and is the base card in the set. Yes there was a parallel foil version of the card, but the autographed version is the base card in the set, even though it's a major SP and is autographed.

Manning Contenders vs Pujols Bowman Chrome

Comments