Is 1985 Fleer more desirable than 1985 Donruss?

jamesryanbell

In terms of the star cards (Clemens, Puckett, etc), and unopened racks/wax?

tennesseebanker

I dont think they are more desirable, But they were produced in less quantity, Hence making them more valuable.

mtcards

Depends on condition. 85 Donruss, IMHO, are much more difficult to get in higher grades.

rube26105

true, anything with a black border they kill ya on grading,71 topps/85 donruss/87 donruss/its so hard to find a perfect one, unless you just buy a psa 10!

EagleEyeKid

I believe the Clemens Fleer is extremely hard to find perfectly centered, and you hardly see them in PSA 10. I don't know/can't access the pop report, but this is what I've gathered.

SuperflySnuka

SuperflySnuka

85 fleer is MUCH more difficult to find in high grade than 85 donruss... donruss printed up tons of factory sets that inevitably were opened and sent to PSA. 85 fleer baseball is plagued by poor centering and the gray borders are kind of hard to keep from chipping. just check the population reports as well as ebay prices for a PSA 9. Stick with the Fleer version. MAA

pandrews

CDsNuts

PSA 10 Fleer Clemens sells for about $700 compared to $250 for the Donruss. Also, Fleer didn't have real rack packs (they just wrapped 3 wax packs in the rack cellophane) so clean Donruss cards are easier to find.

DavidPuddy

Yep, Fleer is harder to get in high grade. Centering sucks and as mentioned before, the grey borders tend to chip.

digicat

I think 85 Donruss looks WAY BETTER than 85 Fleer in terms of look and design.

1985 Donruss had historical popularity through the 80s and 90s over 1985 Fleer, so when the grading era struck, folks were more likely to have 85 Donruss cards to submit. As a result, the population of graded 1985 Fleer cards is lower.

1985 Donruss = 16,497 total graded
1985 Fleer = 8949 total graded

The Roger Clemens is the most graded card of both of those sets...
1985 Donruss Clemens: 6367 total graded (21.2% = PSA 9, 2.3% = PSA 10)
1985 Fleer Clemens: 4296 total graded (22.3% = PSA 9, 1.7% = PSA 10)

GDM67

Going on nothing but my subjective aesthetic opinion, yes.

Too many 85 D cards are blurry and dark. With apologies to all of the many 84 Donruss fans around this board, I think Fleer put out the nicest looking sets every year from 83 through 88.

ldferg

Yes, Fleer is harder to get in high grade. as mentioned earlier: centering is bad and the grey borders tend to chip.

RedHeart54

Interesting thread. This set in terms of player selection is comparing apples to oranges with the slight edge to Fleer whatwith the double player rookie cards. (Granted, this mattered more 17 years ago when Glenn Davis, Kelly Gruber, and Billy Hatcher were "hot" rookie cards.) Aesthetically I prefer Fleer: The pictures are crisper than those of Donruss and the borders are colorful (and are matched to the team's colors). I also liked how Fleer numbering order was team and alphabetically based. It gave us OCD types our "own" set of sorts.

jmbkb4

More popular/attractive = Donruss

More valuable = Fleer

all depends on your perspective, I suppose.

Estil

I personally thought 1985 Donruss was more desirable (as the black borders are reminisent of 1971 Topps), though I agree the pics weren't all that strong that year (they get MUCH better during 1986-90). 1985 Fleer was known for the poor centering issues but I didn't think gray borders chipped as easily as say, the navy blue borders from the following year.

RipublicaninMass

I think Fleer put out the nicest looking sets every year from 83 through 88.

are you kidding??

83 fleer -bland colored borders
84 fleer boring design

I give you 87 and possibly 85

GDM67

No, I'm not kidding.

Judged as a complete run, I would put them at the top. 83 Topps, all things considered, is probably a better looking set, but they slipped back to the pack in subsequent years and Donruss was hit and miss in that time frame.

I like the consistency of the Fleer sets, the solid photography and the similar but still different backs. You see boring, I see clean and sharp.

Estil

No, I think Fleer had some awesome designs in the mid 80s; here's my review:

1981: Okay design, but had a hard time cutting the cards straight that year
1982: Terrible fuzzy photos, but I like the colorful borders and the back design was the best of the decade (first ever full color back of any major set; would not show up again until 1991 Fleer and 1988 Score)
1983: Rather dull monotone front design, but I do kinda like the brown colored back
1984: Most "80s" of any card design and some of the photos were quite creative
1985: Also love the colorful borders, even if centering was a slight issue (but at least there weren't many miscuts)
1986: VERY underrated design; the navy blue borders with colorful team plates are SHARP.
1987: Second most "80s apporpriate" design, very sharp sky blue border
1988-89: Designs are just adequate; not too good, not too bad.

BobaFett72

the 1985 fleers are OK, but nothing special, 1987 is my favorite year for fleer, the early efforts were pretty atrocious. 1986 was particularly bland and ugly.

jamesryanbell

Thanks for the info guys!

royalbrett

I loved the fact that Fleer had a player's entire career stats on the back.

Estil

Not to mention they even did a second photo (mug shot) in 1983-85, long before backside photos became fashionable.

jmbkb4

One of my prized early cards was the 1986F Canseco/Plunk card.

But my #1 prized early card was the Canseco 1986D card!

jamesryanbell

<< <i>the 1985 fleers are OK, but nothing special, 1987 is my favorite year for fleer, the early efforts were pretty atrocious. 1986 was particularly bland and ugly. >>



I never cared for the bright blue. I always liked black or gray borders in the 80's

Cokin75

Count me as another vote for Fleer. They were my favorite card in the 80's every year except for 81 and 82.