Options
Why i$ the 1993 $tadium Club Derek Jeter card going for big buck$?
twiley
Posts: 1,923 ✭
Hello everyone. Sorry been out of the loop for awhile. Can someone please explain to me why the 1993 STADIUM CLUB DEREK JETER MURPHY card is selling for so much on ebay?
OMG $$$$ !!!!
I picked a psa 10 up 2 years ago for under 100 bucks. Is there a reason it is selling for this much now?
OMG $$$$ !!!!
I picked a psa 10 up 2 years ago for under 100 bucks. Is there a reason it is selling for this much now?
0
Comments
<< <i>People finally realized that is his most limited true rookie card. >>
Really? Where did you hear or read this? I don't know the exact print run on the stadium club murphy set but I would think this would be his most limited true rookie card
Print run of only 5,000
Still the imo holy grail of Jeter rookies is the 1993 UD SP Foil RC
Successful dealings with: ChiSoxCardboard,
lbcoach20, ShootyBabitt, cincyredlegs, pclpads, jwgators, hoopguru33, mphilking, daverat, Hallco, corvette1340, 8irvin8, Pre72, Estil, BigDaddyBowman, al032184. 1966CUDA, gwinny, samspop
<< <i><< People finally realized that is his most limited true rookie card. >>
Really? Where did you hear or read this? I don't know the exact print run on the stadium club murphy set but I would think this would be his most limited true rookie card
Print run of only 5,000 >>
The Stadium Club is the most limited from a major card manufacturer and also the toughest to get a PSA 10 on with the exception of the SP. The cards always stick together which can result in slight paper loss or transferring of ink/gloss from the cards above and below them in the set.
<< <i>
<< <i><< People finally realized that is his most limited true rookie card. >>
Really? Where did you hear or read this? I don't know the exact print run on the stadium club murphy set but I would think this would be his most limited true rookie card
Print run of only 5,000 >>
The Stadium Club is the most limited from a major card manufacturer and also the toughest to get a PSA 10 on with the exception of the SP. The cards always stick together which can result in slight paper loss or transferring of ink/gloss from the cards above and below them in the set. >>
Do you know the exact print run on the Stadium Club set? Just curious. I agree cards from the 90s to now will stick together. not like the cards from the 80s and earlier. They don't stick after time like the new cards will and do.
5,000 of each.
I wish when people made such absolute statements on this board they knew what they were talking about.
Lee
<< <i>I wish when people made such absolute statements on this board they knew what they were talking about. >>
Why? Too many on this board make talking out their azz and art form. Why worry about the truth, when you can pretend you know it all.
If you don't know, don't make such absolute statements. It's fine to share information, but only do so if you know it is fact and not repeat it as fact because you THOUGHT it was true.
<< <i>That Little Sun card is a non-MLB issue, which makes it not a true RC. The Stadium Club Jeter RC is limited to 128,000. Making it by FAR his most limited RC.
5,000 of each.
I wish when people made such absolute statements on this board they knew what they were talking about.
Lee >>
These are not considered true rookie cards by the vast majority of collectors. Maybe to you they are, but not to the majority. Why do people have to be a-holes on here. Why not just state your point and not be a douche about it.
Must be all the contract speculation chatter or something.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
And for anyone wondering what Derek Jeter's true recognized rookie cards are, just look at the very site you are on right now.
PSA recognized Derek Jeter rookie cards
And Beckett...
Beckett recognized Derek Jeter rookie cards
Or look at basically any other hobby publication or ask anyone who has been in the hobby a long time.
Unfortunately, Beckett accepts MLB's 2006 re-definition of what a rookie card is, so if it a player got his first cards released in 2006 or later, only the ones that say "Rookie Card" on them will be recognized as "rookie cards."
I don't think the hobby has totally embraced that nonsense yet, even though Beckett has.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>I have 5 pcs available PSA9 if anyone is interested.... >>
PM sent.
https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/pdub1819/othersets/6204
<< <i>So I assume there was a write up somewhere about the stadium club recently and that is why there is a trend on the card? I mean a year ago you couldn't sell the card psa 9 for 40 bucks now all of a sudden they are over 100. I really would like to know why the card sky rocket up so fast so quick... >>
There was a write-up about Jeter's RCs in Beckett a few months back. It stated that the Stadium Club is seemingly undervalued. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it.
I find it hard to believe that just now, the entire hobby is collectively waking up to the "rarity" of this card. This card has had a bunch of jumps in interest and it's been mentioned in hobby articles as a "sleeper" several times over the years. None quite like this though.
On the subject of Jeter's true RC's, parallels don't count. Should they? Maybe, but they have never received the little RC tag in any of the books. And on that note, I'm willing to bet that Jeter's 1993 Upper Deck Gold parallel is his rarest, licensed rookie year issue.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>i would also rather own a Topps brand Jeter RC than Upper Deck... >>
I'm happy with my 1993 SP Jeter. With the exception of his 93 SC, all his other RC's look like crap.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>So I assume there was a write up somewhere about the stadium club recently and that is why there is a trend on the card? I mean a year ago you couldn't sell the card psa 9 for 40 bucks now all of a sudden they are over 100. I really would like to know why the card sky rocket up so fast so quick... >>
There was a write-up about Jeter's RCs in Beckett a few months back. It stated that the Stadium Club is seemingly undervalued. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it. >>
Well that answers my question! Thanks! Beckett writes that then the card price spikes... Just like the 2007 topps Mantle-Bush card. When it was talked about on espn the card all of a sudden became insanely high priced.
<< <i>On the subject of Jeter's true RC's, parallels don't count. Should they? Maybe, but they have never received the little RC tag in any of the books. And on that note, I'm willing to bet that Jeter's 1993 Upper Deck Gold parallel is his rarest, licensed rookie year issue. >>
Sometimes "most valuable", "rarest", and "rookie card" don't go together. But, I don't think it should matter, someone should collect what they want. I chose to put a 2007 Bowman Chrome Prospects Tim Lincecum AU card in my core collection of Giants rookie cards. It doesn't really matter to me that Beckett doesn't call it a RC card.
<< <i>This almost feels like 1991 Bowman Chipper Jones all over again. >>
I think I missed that conversation, fill me in?
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>On the subject of Jeter's true RC's, parallels don't count. Should they? Maybe, but they have never received the little RC tag in any of the books. And on that note, I'm willing to bet that Jeter's 1993 Upper Deck Gold parallel is his rarest, licensed rookie year issue. >>
Sometimes "most valuable", "rarest", and "rookie card" don't go together. But, I don't think it should matter, someone should collect what they want. I chose to put a 2007 Bowman Chrome Prospects Tim Lincecum AU card in my core collection of Giants rookie cards. It doesn't really matter to me that Beckett doesn't call it a RC card.
<< <i>This almost feels like 1991 Bowman Chipper Jones all over again. >>
I think I missed that conversation, fill me in? >>
In 1998 or 1999, someone(s) started buying up all the 1991 Bowman Chipper RCs (then all of the 1991 Bowman boxes, IIRC) that showed up online. I'm almost certain that this involved a ring of people listing them and shilling them until an artificial demand was created. Then Beckett started adding up arrows to all of the key RCs in the set. This went on for a few months and I think the Chipper went to a high of $25. Even Mondesi, Javy Lopez etc were $5+ cards. I think that later on, maybe a year or two after, the guys who did this admitted so, citing it was to prove a point about Beckett and the market.
Anyone else remember all of this hobby drama?
Granted, 1991 Bowman is probably the least-produced RC of Chipper but not in significantly less numbers than the other 3.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
They were all boxed sets .
If Chipper was in the 91 OPC set( I think he was but can confirme that because my SCD doesn't
list the Canadian issue) I would put that in as his most limited rookie but there is the Desert Storm
that was pack issued and the Tiffany that was a box set. So I dont think the Bowman is even close to his most limited
rookie card.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
These are not considered true rookie cards by the vast majority of collectors. Maybe to you they are, but not to the majority.
WHAT?!?
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>On the subject of Jeter's true RC's, parallels don't count. >>
I'm not sure I would classify the Topps Marlins and Rockies cards as parallels. Maybe it's not accurate but I consider a parallel a slightly different card that can be pulled from the same packs as the base card. Weren't the Marlins and Rockies cards distributed as full sets? And I'm 99.99999% sure that they weren't inserted into regular Topps packs.
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
<< <i>The Marlins and Rockies cards were only distro'd as full sets to attendees at the new stadiums. You could not buy these at a local stores like Kmart or Wal-mart. They distro'd them at Marlin and Rockies stadium's attendees making these sets very limited and hard to obtain. That is why they are not considered a 'Base' card far as his rookies go. I asked this very question and I forget who (Cossetta or Gayle) explain this to me. >>
Distribution is key when it comes to determining what are true rookie cards. Most people don't know this. It's certainly not an exact science, but no matter what anyone says, majority opinion rules.
<< <i>No one here has mentioned the 1993 Upper Deck Gold. Im not a big Upper Deck fan but I do have one in PSA 9 and know the gold sets were pretty limited. If you consider the 93 UD Gold a RC, then certainly the Rockies and Marlins are in the same exact category cuz they were distributed only in set form. >>
The UD Gold was mentioned earlier in the thread but I agree. My understanding of the PSA registry was that any rookie only included in set form was not to be included in base rookie or player sets.
<< <i>
<< <i>No one here has mentioned the 1993 Upper Deck Gold. Im not a big Upper Deck fan but I do have one in PSA 9 and know the gold sets were pretty limited. If you consider the 93 UD Gold a RC, then certainly the Rockies and Marlins are in the same exact category cuz they were distributed only in set form. >>
The UD Gold was mentioned earlier in the thread but I agree. My understanding of the PSA registry was that any rookie only included in set form was not to be included in base rookie or player sets. >>
LOL! 2 years ago I was arguing on the phone with Cossetta about the 2007 Topps #40 Jeter card. The Basic topps Jeter set at the time only included the NON Mantle/Bush card which only came from factory sealed sets not Series 1 boxes. I tried to explain but I guess I couldn't explain it well enough I don't know. It since has changed (Thank you to who ever got them to fix it!) now the basic topps Jeter set is optional you can add either Mantle/Bush or Non Mantle/Bush cards to the set. I assume it all depends on the circumstance far as base cards on basic sets. To this day I still don't understand why those pain in the arse eTopps cards are considered basic cards in a base set. You can't buy them at any local Sports Card dealer or a Kmart or Wal-Mart. You only can buy them from eTopps or win them on feebay auction or someone on feebay who has one in hand.
<< <i>I'm not sure I would classify the Topps Marlins and Rockies cards as parallels. Maybe it's not accurate but I consider a parallel a slightly different card that can be pulled from the same packs as the base card. >>
The Topps Tiffany sets from the 80s were distributed in factory sets only, but are generally considered "parallel" sets.
Distribution has nothing to do with a card being a "parallel". All it needs to be is an intended variation of the base card.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
1993 BOWMAN DEREK JETER
1993 PINNACLE DEREK JETER
1993 SCORE DEREK JETER DRAFT PICK
1993 SELECT DEREK JETER
1993 SP DEREK JETER FOIL
1993 STADIUM CLUB DEREK JETER MURPHY
1993 TOPPS DEREK JETER
1993 UPPER DECK DEREK JETER
There is no master rookie set on the registry. I would assume that if someone wanted to add that to the registry it would help clarify.
https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/pdub1819/othersets/6204
<< <i>Why are the Rockies and Marlins Jeter not considered rookies and the 93 Stadium Club Murphy is?
They were all boxed sets .
If Chipper was in the 91 OPC set( I think he was but can confirme that because my SCD doesn't
list the Canadian issue) I would put that in as his most limited rookie but there is the Desert Storm
that was pack issued and the Tiffany that was a box set. So I dont think the Bowman is even close to his most limited
rookie card. >>
This has already been covered.
The Marlins and Rockies sets were limited issues at their respective stadiums. The Murphy set was massively distributed and most hobby stores had them available. I agree that this sets it apart from the Bowman, Pinnacle, Score, Select, SP and Topps issues in terms of distribution, but how the collector is able to obtain a set/card and it's degree of ease in doing so, has always determined what gets an RC tag or not (parallel or xrc) in the price guides.
It's just another outdated way of thinking in the hobby that remains unchanged because altering this "rule" would cause too much confusion. In my experience, collectors tend to pursue which ever card they like best, be it due to rarity, design, photo or a combination of things.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
I dunno, a decade ago this set shot from obscurity to major heat due to the Jeter and the Nomar cards once Beckett deigned to acknowledge their existence and relative scarcity. Then things settled down. Now, the hobby's contracted and turned over so much, what's old is new again. Sometimes things just catch on as the "It" card to have, and prices go crazy for a while. It's likely a temporary thing, so strike while the iron's hot if you want to cash in.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
<< <i>As to the question of why, it's obvious. Derek Jeter is the greatest player in the history of baseball. He has 4 World Series championships, the Yankees team lead in hits, lots of incredible Sportscenter highlights, he's handsome and never cheated or taken PEDs. Basically, he's the greatest human being ever to live, and like Jesus or the Madonna, future generations will one day find his likeness in mold spots or toast, and blessed shall they be.
I dunno, a decade ago this set shot from obscurity to major heat due to the Jeter and the Nomar cards once Beckett deigned to acknowledge their existence and relative scarcity. Then things settled down. Now, the hobby's contracted and turned over so much, what's old is new again. Sometimes things just catch on as the "It" card to have, and prices go crazy for a while. It's likely a temporary thing, so strike while the iron's hot if you want to cash in. >>
Cough ( he has 5 World Series Rings) cough
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
This card has already existed for a long time, so I understand its unusual to see a spike. I think its a combination of Jeter's continued success on the field, his contract being up and his his all around good guy reputation in the midst of many falling stars (Tiger, for example).
This is a down economy, so anything taking off like that is impressive. The card has aged and Jeter is well established, so I believe its a nice collectible item to have that will sustain its value more or less. However, it is priced high right now and I have a feeling now is the best time to sell for a profit. If you like the card, buy it back in a year when the hype goes down. By that time, you will likely pay half the price.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>It's just another outdated way of thinking in the hobby that remains unchanged because altering this "rule" would cause too much confusion. In my experience, collectors tend to pursue which ever card they like best, be it due to rarity, design, photo or a combination of things. >>
The "rule" has been altered a few times in the last 21 years.
A player's first card, if issued in an update type set from 1981 to 1988 got branded with the XRC (e.g. 1986 Fleer Update Bonds = XRC, 1987 Fleer Bonds = RC*, with the "*" signifying that the player had an XRC in the previous year).
Beckett stopped identifying cards released between 1989 and 2000 as XRCs at some point in the 90s, so it was either an RC or not. Thus, Greg Vaughn only has one Rookie Card, 1989 Fleer Update, even though in 1990, folks "thought" that his 1989 Fleer Update card was an XRC, and his 1990 base set cards were his RC*.
For an unknown reason, Beckett decided to bring back the XRC with the Upper Deck Prospect Premiers sets (even though they were sold in packs). So, according to Beckett, the 2001 UD Prospect Premiers card of Ryan Howard is an XRC, while his 2003 cards are his RCs.
Now, with the new MLB "Rookie Card" policy, Beckett decided to not identify any card past 2006 as a RC, unless it has the offical MLB Rookie Card logo. Thus, Evan Longoria's 2006 Bowman Chrome rookie is not a rookie card (it's not noted as being anything) while his 2008 Bowman Chrome IS a rookie card.
So, the confusion is alive and well. I use Beckett as a guide, not a Bible, so when it comes to my collection, I'll see what Beckett has to say, then make my own decision. In my house, Dustin Pedroia's 2002 SP Authentic USA Future Watch card is his rookie card, not his 2004 SP Prospects or his 2006 "official MLB Rookie Card" cards.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>It's just another outdated way of thinking in the hobby that remains unchanged because altering this "rule" would cause too much confusion. In my experience, collectors tend to pursue which ever card they like best, be it due to rarity, design, photo or a combination of things. >>
The "rule" has been altered a few times in the last 21 years.
A player's first card, if issued in an update type set from 1981 to 1988 got branded with the XRC (e.g. 1986 Fleer Update Bonds = XRC, 1987 Fleer Bonds = RC*, with the "*" signifying that the player had an XRC in the previous year).
Beckett stopped identifying cards released between 1989 and 2000 as XRCs at some point in the 90s, so it was either an RC or not. Thus, Greg Vaughn only has one Rookie Card, 1989 Fleer Update, even though in 1990, folks "thought" that his 1989 Fleer Update card was an XRC, and his 1990 base set cards were his RC*.
For an unknown reason, Beckett decided to bring back the XRC with the Upper Deck Prospect Premiers sets (even though they were sold in packs). So, according to Beckett, the 2001 UD Prospect Premiers card of Ryan Howard is an XRC, while his 2003 cards are his RCs.
Now, with the new MLB "Rookie Card" policy, Beckett decided to not identify any card past 2006 as a RC, unless it has the offical MLB Rookie Card logo. Thus, Evan Longoria's 2006 Bowman Chrome rookie is not a rookie card (it's not noted as being anything) while his 2008 Bowman Chrome IS a rookie card.
So, the confusion is alive and well. I use Beckett as a guide, not a Bible, so when it comes to my collection, I'll see what Beckett has to say, then make my own decision. In my house, Dustin Pedroia's 2002 SP Authentic USA Future Watch card is his rookie card, not his 2004 SP Prospects or his 2006 "official MLB Rookie Card" cards. >>
I agree with this line of thinking.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>I don't know how anyone can say, this is the "rule" on rookie cards. I have been in this hobby a long time and there has never been a complete agreeance on what a rookie card was. Or at least not since the days of traded sets. In the past we had, "this is his first card" or "Beckett calls this a XRC" or we added adjectives to the rookie card. This is his "minor league" or this is his "NFL" rookie card. But I can never recall one time when everyone agreed on all cases on what a rookie card and what a rookie isn't. Well, the isn't part can be simple (usually). Instead, or at least since Beckett, there has been, what individuals consider a RC and what "Beckett says.." Now, we have what Beckett, the Major League or what we think.
Clear Skies,
Mark >>
That's why all uses of the word within this thread have been in quotes.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
DEREK JETER 1993 STADIUM CLUB MURPHY ROOKIE PSA 9 MINT
LINK
I am half tempted to sell my PSA 10 for BIN for 350 but my luck the card won't mellow out in 6 months and I will pay even more to get one back. Stadium Cub Murphy's law
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't know how anyone can say, this is the "rule" on rookie cards. I have been in this hobby a long time and there has never been a complete agreeance on what a rookie card was. Or at least not since the days of traded sets. In the past we had, "this is his first card" or "Beckett calls this a XRC" or we added adjectives to the rookie card. This is his "minor league" or this is his "NFL" rookie card. But I can never recall one time when everyone agreed on all cases on what a rookie card and what a rookie isn't. Well, the isn't part can be simple (usually). Instead, or at least since Beckett, there has been, what individuals consider a RC and what "Beckett says.." Now, we have what Beckett, the Major League or what we think.
Clear Skies,
Mark >>
That's why all uses of the word within this thread have been in quotes. >>
I can read pretty well. Many in this thread have said, this is and that is not. I am just giving my thoughts as well.
The problem would be simple to solve if this was just about any other hobby or field. The problem with sport cards is there are no clear and recognized leaders in the hobby. All other fields I have been in, have some board or group of people that can get together and vote on such and others usually respect such decisions. You never know what the future will bring or how use will change with words in general, but it is important for us to use terms in the same manner.
On more the subject at hand. I am surprized the early Stadium Club issues are not very collected graded. When they came out they were so popular and clearly several steps above what was then the norm.
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.