I just inventoried my card collection; can you believe I have over 55,000 cards in my PERMANENT coll

Estil · March 16, 2007 1:59AM

Here is my pride and joy; everything listed is in my permanent collection. That is, these sets are pretty much off-limits as far as selling goes. And yes, these are all baseball.

Regular sets:
1978-2004 Topps (2000 set has ALL Magic Moments cards); 1978 is missing John Denny #609 (I really need a NRMT copy of this, BTW)
1981-1992 Donruss
1981-1995 Fleer (except 1993)
1988-1992 Score
1989-1993 Upper Deck
1991-1995 Ultra (1995 set is the Gold Medallion version)
1991-1995 Studio
1993-1997 Finest (bronze only on 1996 and 1997)
1993 Flair (I want 1994 and 1995 as well)
Total: 50,594 cards, $3924 book value

Traded/Update sets:
1981, 1983-91 Topps Traded
1985-1994 Fleer Update (except 1992)
1986-1992 Donruss Rookies, 1985-1987 Highlights, 1989 Traded
1988-1992 Score Rookie Traded
Total: 4006 cards, $554 book value

Insert set highlights:
ALL Insert sets: 1992 Fleer, 1992 Ultra, 1993 Ultra, 1994 Fleer, 1995 Fleer
All 1994 Ultra inserts except for the four that were seeded one per box (on my wishlist below)
About half the 1995 Ultra inserts
1996-2001 Topps reprint inserts (Mantle, Mays, Clemente, Ryan, Aaron, Through the Years)
My goal is to collect ALL the Fleer/Ultra/Flair insert sets from 1986-1995, which happens to be exactly 111 sets.
Total: 1091 cards, $1807 book value

I also have the complete run of Topps baseball sticker albums w/ all stickers in the albums (1982-1990); just need the 1981 and one short in the 1984.

GRAND TOTAL: 55,691 cards (all complete sets), $6285 book value

So how many cards are in your permanent collection? By that I mean, do not count any duplicates (especially 5000 count boxes of random commons) or store inventory or anything you most likely want to sell if given the chance. Only count your permanent collection.

Now if I can just get caught up on binder/pages; I still got several sets that need to go in binder/pages (I insist on all the above sets to be in binder/pages).

FavreFan1971 · March 16, 2007 2:16AM

What, no Football? You should be ashamed.

I have approx 20,000 individual cards. Never thought it was this much.

Complete Football sets
1970
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
2005 Heritage

Partial sets
1950's (750)
1960's (1500)
1980's (3,000)
1990's (none)

Favre Cards
2,500 ish (All different)

Packer Cards (Not including Favre, but all different)
9,000 +

I have about 10,000 of just crap I have not gone through. Those will go into player and team sets shortly.

tennesseebanker · March 16, 2007 2:24AM

un-believeable

jeffcbay · March 16, 2007 2:29AM

As far as "permanent" cards, I only collect Ripkens for keeps, so I have 3167 ungraded Ripken cards with a Beckett book value of $7747.40 (I keep a spreadsheet), and I have 164 PSA graded Ripkens, 48 are 10s, the rest are 9s. I have no clue what the SMR value of those are. As far as my random cards that have no personal value to me, I have well over 100,000 cards stacked in 5k count boxes stacked floor to ceiling in my closet, along with several binders containing all of the 1982, 1987 baseball sets, and various other sets.

jeffcbay · March 16, 2007 2:33AM

Hey Favre Fan, what do you keep your Favre cards in? I have all of mine in penny sleeves inside top loaders and they're kept in boxes. That was expensive to do, but I'm glad I did it.

artistlost · March 16, 2007 2:42AM

I have 74 PSA graded rookie cards (all baseball) from 1956 to 2006 (everything from Frank Robinson, Nolan Ryan, Cal Ripken JR (topps traded) to David Wright (bowman chrome auto), Ryan Howard (bowman's best auto) and Albert Pujols (spx auto)

and 2 complete sets (1975 Topps Baseball in NM-MT condition (the year i was born) and 2004 Bowman Chrome Draft Picks in MINT condition (the year my son was born))

Total is 830 cards and the RAW value is $10,750 (many of my graded rookies are 10s so I only value the cards as if they are not graded, hope that makes sense).

FavreFan1971 · March 16, 2007 3:08AM

Starting about 5 years ago I began putting them in Card Saver II's. Boy was that a mistake. Any card that was remotely thicker than a standard card got F'd. I transferred to Card Saver I's and Penny Sleeves. No Top Loaders, can't stand them. I was very expensive to lose some great cards to chipping from the Card Saver II's and to just buy the plastic. Every once and awhile I sell a couple of computers for good bank and buy more protection for my investment.

So, for the Favre and Packer Cards. Yes I have 1989 Topps Football commons in Card Saver II's and penny sleeves.

I have about 15,000 cards in Card Saver I's. Figure I paid about $85-$90 a case plus shipping so lets say $100 for the boot. Thats 8 cases or $800. And then the investment is those damn Card Saver II's was about $200. So I have a grand in protection.

Hmmm, sounds like college again.

Estil · March 16, 2007 3:11AM

<< What, no Football? You should be ashamed. >>

I'm going to start a Topps football set (with the 1000 yard club glossy inserts) run once I get the funds; be patient!

Of course, if you want to help expidite the process...

Buccaneer · March 16, 2007 3:26AM

Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68.

jmbkb4 · March 16, 2007 3:30AM

<< Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68. >>

Wow. Having a bad day???

Buccaneer · March 16, 2007 4:09AM

<< 

<< Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68. >>

Wow. Having a bad day??? >>

Well, it didn't happen today.

Seriously, I had many of those sets (full and updates) plus unopened and vendor boxes from cases leftover from when I bought all that stuff in the 80s. I was excited to follow their book values and set them away until I got back into collecting in 2003. It was soon after that I discovered the true book value of this stuff when 1) I saw that you could buy the same things for less than I paid in the 80s and 2) I tried to sell any of the factory sets or boxes for $0.99 plus shipping on eBay and couldn't. I figured it was worth more if I claimed the book (or more accurately, re-sell) value as a deduction. The cases of 88T and 89T that I had were literally thrown away because it was taking up too much room in my closet and my wife needed the room for some spare blankets. True story.

Collect because you want to reach a goal or you just simply like those sets. Don't put down the "book value" because that will give you a false sense of net worth.

jeffcbay · March 16, 2007 4:19AM

That's why I said "Beckett" book value... nobody really thinks their cards are worth THAT much. The cards I actually collect to keep are worth more to me than book value anyway.

...and if my wife told me to get rid of my cards in order to make room for her blankets, I would kindly tell her where to shove those blankets, and it wouldn't be inside my baseball card closet, regardless of the value of those cards.

artistlost · March 16, 2007 4:27AM

I agree that book value and actual value are two different things. That being said I called my collection $10,750 book value. The actual value if I was to sell would still be very close to that at approx 8,000-9,000 not taking into account the graded PSA 10 cards. And there is a VERY strong chance that I could get the book value or more. I think it all depends on what you have in your collection. For instance...a PSA 9 Cal Ripken Topps Traded rookie will always sell for more than Beckett RAW book value.

jeffcbay · March 16, 2007 4:31AM

Yeay, PSA 10 cards can sell for WAY more than book value, depending on what card it is. For instance, if it's a hard to grade common in a vintage set, the $0.75 book value card could sell for over $100!

artistlost · March 16, 2007 4:35AM

True...unfortunatley most of my PSA 10s are of current players such as Travis Hafner's 2001 SPX auto RC, Jason Bay's Topps Finest AUTO rc and others. My older rookies range from PSA 7s to 9s. I only actually own 1 card graded lower a perfectly centered PSA 6 Frank Robinson Topps RC. But for a card like that I am happy for a 6. Mind you I did take into accoount the value of the 6 as slightly less than Book value when I did my adding up.

Buccaneer · March 16, 2007 4:41AM

<< That's why I said "Beckett" book value... nobody really thinks their cards are worth THAT much. The cards I actually collect to keep are worth more to me than book value anyway.

...and if my wife told me to get rid of my cards in order to make room for her blankets, I would kindly tell her where to shove those blankets, and it wouldn't be inside my baseball card closet, regardless of the value of those cards. >>

I (we) have a large walk-in closet on the lower level next my home/office. At one time I had about 12 Banker Boxes full of cards and I told my wife that I needed to sort that junk out and that was what spurred her to store the blankets there. It's actually a good place because if they weren't there, they would be put somewhere more obvious. Trust me, the blankets are a better use of that space than the stuff that were there.

Now, for my real cards - the 1957 set, I have three displays on my home/office walls plus a shelf in a cabinet. There's no way to put blankets in those places.

Buccaneer · March 16, 2007 4:43AM

<< True...unfortunatley most of my PSA 10s are of current players such as Travis Hafner's 2001 SPX auto RC, Jason Bay's Topps Finest AUTO rc and others. My older rookies range from PSA 7s to 9s. I only actually own 1 card graded lower a perfectly centered PSA 6 Frank Robinson Topps RC. But for a card like that I am happy for a 6. Mind you I did take into accoount the value of the 6 as slightly less than Book value when I did my adding up. >>

I have one of those and the only value that I use is what the card would sell for on eBay.

artistlost · March 16, 2007 4:59AM

For sure. Ebay is pretty much the best gauge for a value of a card. Is it the Robinson that you have? I bought mine from Ebay for 170.00

stown · March 16, 2007 5:03AM

<< Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68. >>

Don't poop on another man's collection.

It's comments like this that will continue the perceived bitterness between modern and vintage collectors.

Enjoy your collection, Estil

lawnmowerman · March 16, 2007 5:23AM

<< 

<< Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68. >>

Don't poop on another man's collection.

It's comments like this that will continue the perceived bitterness between modern and vintage collectors. >>

jimq112 · March 16, 2007 5:23AM

<< if you don't count 1991 Ultra Gold. >>

Why not count the 91 ultra gold, you don't like em?

jeffcbay · March 16, 2007 5:29AM

If I were to value my cards at what they sell for on ebay, then I wouldn't own the cards anymore! lol

pandrews · March 16, 2007 5:33AM

<< Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68. >>

ummmm, well arent you special?..

julen23 · March 16, 2007 5:34AM

addicts, anybody seen "Requiem for a Dream"?

julen

ps: the last vingette w/ the old guy saying "A$$ to A$$" was the director's dad btw

jmbkb4 · March 16, 2007 5:35AM

<< 

<< Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68. >>

Don't poop on another man's collection.

It's comments like this that will continue the perceived bitterness between modern and vintage collectors.

Enjoy your collection, Estil

>>

Perceived?

haha!!

I'll tell you -- it's hella more than perceived!!!

softparade · March 16, 2007 5:35AM

<< Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68. >>

Steve,

I know you are a cool guy ... but you have a history of making snooty comments like this. There are alot of guys who love to collect cards they love and don't give a rats a$$ what they paid for them or what they can sell them for. We all know you collect with investment as a priority..... I love your 57's too .... BUT they would be out the door light years before my 1978 Topps ever would be

pandrews · March 16, 2007 5:36AM

<< haha!!

I'll tell you -- it's hella more than perceived!!! >>

not all of them.. i know plenty of vintage collectors who dont put down other peoples collections like Buccaneer did with his comment..

i collect everything, from the 1800's to 2000's..

jmbkb4 · March 16, 2007 5:37AM

In short, I think it is pathetic and rather insecure to trash another's collection, regardless of your *perceived* knowledge of the sets and the afore mentioned collection.

To the average JOE on the street, all baseball cards, from a 1991 Topps set to a T206 Wagner are complete and utter wastes of time that are being collected by fat, lazy, and immature idiots.

To make fun of any collection belittles everyone within the hobby, gives justification to outside people who believe it is of no consequence, and, ultimately, makes the accuser look like a fool.

Carry on...

Josh

jmbkb4 · March 16, 2007 5:39AM

<< 

<< haha!!

I'll tell you -- it's hella more than perceived!!! >>

not all of them.. i know plenty of vintage collectors who dont put down other peoples collections like Buccaneer did with his comment..

i collect everything, from the 1800's to 2000's.. >>

True. BUT, you have to concede that there is a tremendous amount of snooty anomisity against modern collectors on these boards (and this thread supports it gloriously). I have tried to make 'waves' in combatting it, but it is like trying to nail down jell-o.

BTW, I collect EVERYTHING between '93 and '93.

jeffcbay · March 16, 2007 5:42AM

It just sucks that someone can't start a thread like this one without someone making it into a pi$$ing match with a comment like that. It's just sad.

Buccaneer · March 16, 2007 5:53AM

<< 

<< Ummm, I have thrown out or gave away around 55,000 cards, many of which are on your list. The only difference was that the actual value (not book value) was about $2.68. >>

Steve,

I know you are a cool guy ... but you have a history of making snooty comments like this. There are alot of guys who love to collect cards they love and don't give a rats a$$ what they paid for them or what they can sell them for. We all know you collect with investment as a priority..... I love your 57's too .... BUT they would be out the door light years before my 1978 Topps ever would be

>>

You're wrong, softy. I do NOT collect with investment as a priority. If I were to put a value on my set, it would simply be what I could sell them for, no more, no less. The true value is in the journey in building the set.

That's where everyone misses the point. The contention comes when collectors start putting a "book value" in describing their collection, as the first poster did, regardless if that number is real or not. Don't go by book value or even by sell value. It is irrelevant. The minute you state that your 80s collection is worth $$$, you are defeating the purpose for collecting and likely overinflating its worth in your mind. In the talk about the 57s, I don't mention how much something is worth, only when helping others in what they will likely end up paying for a card based on previous experience. Look at my response to Lothar when he put the cost of the cards in his Registry - I told him it was inapproriate to do that publically.

So if you are like me and don't really care what the book or sell value is, don't mention the @%#$! book value in talking about your collection.

softparade · March 16, 2007 5:59AM

<< 
You're wrong, softy. I do NOT collect with investment as a priority. If I were to put a value on my set, it would simply be what I could sell them for, no more, no less. The true value is in the journey in building the set.

. >>

No, I am not wrong. Like I said, YOU HAVE A HISTORY of saying things like this Steve. I would love to dig the threads up but it would be too boring.

Stone193 · March 16, 2007 6:00AM

Estil

Congratulations!

I don't know whether I'm bragging, complaining or apologizing...

I've got around 200K...give or take a few.

Buccaneer · March 16, 2007 6:17AM

<< 

<< 
You're wrong, softy. I do NOT collect with investment as a priority. If I were to put a value on my set, it would simply be what I could sell them for, no more, no less. The true value is in the journey in building the set.

. >>

No, I am not wrong. Like I said, YOU HAVE A HISTORY of saying things like this Steve. I would love to dig the threads up but it would be too boring. >>

The only thing that I have said repeatedly was that I aim to get what I paid if I sell. That is why I am being careful in paying attention to what I pay as I finish the set. Investment implies making money and I don't have that view on anything that I own, whether it's the 57s or the 70s and 80s sets that I have.

Besides, wasn't it you that mentioned a while back that you would have to sell your set because of home improvement priorities?

I admit that I did have a knee jerk reaction. If he hadn't put in the book value, I wouldn't have said anything. I just don't think that's appropriate to mention (even if it's a wrong figure), just like I brought up the same thing with Lothar on the 57s.

stown · March 16, 2007 6:17AM

<< True. BUT, you have to concede that there is a tremendous amount of snooty anomisity against modern collectors on these boards (and this thread supports it gloriously). I have tried to make 'waves' in combatting it, but it is like trying to nail down jell-o.

BTW, I collect EVERYTHING between '93 and '93.

>>

I said it before and I'll say it again, it's a perceived notion. I'm not aware of "snooty anomisity" by vintage collectors towards modern ones here. Perhaps you are thinking of the Net54 (or something) boards?

Rarely do I see comments like Buccaneer's, regardless of how he wants to spin it. Re-read this thread and you will see he's the only one to have a negative context. Everyone else supports and made positive comments regarding Estil's collection.

Unless I missed something...

pandrews · March 16, 2007 6:21AM

<< Look at my response to Lothar when he put the cost of the cards in his Registry - I told him it was inapproriate to do that publically. >>

what makes it inappropriate, and better yet, what makes you the authority on it?

the point is, you insinuated Estils collection was worth $2.68.. thats a snooty comments, and makes you look like an ass, and it's a put-down to the collector who is obviously proud of his run of sets..

RipublicaninMass · March 16, 2007 6:28AM

<< Estil

Congratulations!

I don't know whether I'm bragging, complaining or apologizing...

I've got around 200K...give or take a few.

>>

..and those are just t3's!

But Stone, you had a head start....being able to collect them when they came out

Stone193 · March 16, 2007 6:28AM

I never talk about book value or purchase price!

Hell - my wife might find out! And then she'ld kick my ass!!!!

softparade · March 16, 2007 6:34AM

<< Besides, wasn't it you that mentioned a while back that you would have to sell your set because of home improvement priorities?

>>

Sure, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic. EVERYBODY would sell if they really had to .... what this is about , Steve, is the comment you made in this (and other) threads about your disgust with modern cards. And why? becuase you can find enough change in your couch to buy a boatload?

Perry nailed something, who are you to tell ANYBODY that putting how much they paid for cards in the registry is inappropriate? Just WHO is that going to hurt Steve?

Stone193 · March 16, 2007 6:38AM

<< But Stone, you had a head start....being able to collect them when they came out >>

RipublicaninMass · March 16, 2007 6:41AM

not sure if you could smoke by then though

pandrews · March 16, 2007 6:48AM

<< 

<< But Stone, you had a head start....being able to collect them when they came out >>

that made me laugh..

TNP777 · March 16, 2007 6:54AM

<< that made me laugh.. >>

<< No, I be concubinin' >>

So did this

Buccaneer · March 16, 2007 7:28AM

<< 

<< Look at my response to Lothar when he put the cost of the cards in his Registry - I told him it was inapproriate to do that publically. >>

what makes it inappropriate, and better yet, what makes you the authority on it?

the point is, you insinuated Estils collection was worth $2.68.. thats a snooty comments, and makes you look like an ass, and it's a put-down to the collector who is obviously proud of his run of sets.. >>

I think you're right, I apologize to all. I've got to learn not to insinuate on a Friday afternoon.

Softy, still my opinion, right or wrong.

softparade · March 16, 2007 7:56AM

<< Softy, still my opinion, right or wrong.

>>

Cheers to THAT Steve .... ya know, I bet you are just pi$$ed that you threw away all of those awesome 87 Topps Bonds cards. Probably pretty mad that you don't have a world class looking raw 88 Donruss set in a binder

Hey Estil ..... your collection ROCKS brother

theczar · March 16, 2007 8:11AM

To the average JOE on the street, all baseball cards, from a 1991 Topps set to a T206 Wagner are complete and utter wastes of time that are being collected by fat, lazy, and immature idiots.

That may be so, but I dare anyone to match me in a sniping contest...

packman · March 16, 2007 8:59AM

Estil

I notice you do not have a basketball set. If you are interested in adding a basketball set to your collection, send me your address via PM. I have an extra 1978-79 set that I put together from several wax boxes and vending boxes I opened last year.

David

Estil · March 17, 2007 1:53AM

<< Estil

I notice you do not have a basketball set. If you are interested in adding a basketball set to your collection, send me your address via PM. I have an extra 1978-79 set that I put together from several wax boxes and vending boxes I opened last year.

David >>

Well, I have thought about doing a Fleer b-ball run, but even the 1988 Fleer set (Jordan's second year) is $300 at BBCE. And they don't call the 1987 Fleer set the "1952 Topps of basketball" for nothing. If I do eventually decide to go into another sport, Topps football would be my best bet. Although those "Kentucky's Finest" college b-ball cards from 1989-1990 or so look kinda interesting!

jmbkb4 · March 17, 2007 2:01AM

Estil,

I think it is great, your collection. IF I had the space, I'd be collecting similar sets. Maybe someday in the future!

Best,

Josh

Estil · March 17, 2007 2:28AM

<< 

<< if you don't count 1991 Ultra Gold. >>

Why not count the 91 ultra gold, you don't like em? >>

They just don't seem like a true insert set. Of course I like 'em though, I did order some with my regular set. Okay, if you insist, I just need all 111 1986-95 Fleer/Ultra/Flair insert sets to be the number 1 Fleer insert collector; how's that sound?

Estil · March 17, 2007 2:37AM

<< Estil

Congratulations!

I don't know whether I'm bragging, complaining or apologizing...

I've got around 200K...give or take a few.

>>

Wow, 200K? I'd love to see your list. Lots of nice complete sets I hope

I just inventoried my card collection; can you believe I have over 55,000 cards in my PERMANENT coll

Comments