barry larkin: best rookie card
lwehlers
Posts: 934 ✭✭✭✭✭
hello it looks like larkin maybe the only player that might get voted in the hall this year. not a real favorite of mine. which rookie is his best to get. 1987 donruss opening day or the base 1987 donruss rookie.
0
Comments
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
This guy was a great player but never heavily collected and is not in any rare set.
There are plenty of all of his rookies in great condition.
Barry is a super nice guy and when I was a bank teller I had the pleasure of cashing a few checks for him and running a few deposits.
I think he is going to be a another non event Hall of Famer where the cards came out during the mass produced era and you see a short term pop and then they correct to levels that were a year or two before the Hall of Fame induction. People buy up cards on a speculative basis and then they sell on the news just like stocks.
Currently collecting 1934 Butterfinger, 1969 Nabisco, 1991 Topps Desert Shield (in PSA 9 or 10), and 1990 Donruss Learning Series (in PSA 10).
<< <i> Not technically rookie cards but certainly more scarce than anything from the mainstream '87 sets. >>
I don't think you can describe anything made in 1987 as being scarce.
IMF
<< <i>can someone tell me what the population reports for psa 10 for barry larkin fleer and donruss psa 10. does psa grade fleer tougher then donruss. thanks. >>
Aren't PSA Pop reports open to the public now?
However, if you're wondering which card will be on the PSA registry, it'll be the 1987 Fleer card.
His 1987 Topps Tiffany is his most valuable 1987 card, especially graded, because slab collectors say so.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>I once argued with shagrotn77 about this, but I agee with him now. 1986 Sportflics is his rookie card (or his XRC if you want to get technical). Beckett has no excuse for not recognizing it as such.
However, if you're wondering which card will be on the PSA registry, it'll be the 1987 Fleer card.
His 1987 Topps Tiffany is his most valuable 1987 card, especially graded, because slab collectors say so. >>
Disagree with that. I don't think a nickel and dime company can come in their first year and automatically have what's considered a players rookie card. I have a box of 86 sportflics, bought them as a novelty, the cards should be completely disregarded as far as 'rookie card' status. Good for Beckett.
<< <i>
<< <i>I once argued with shagrotn77 about this, but I agee with him now. 1986 Sportflics is his rookie card (or his XRC if you want to get technical). Beckett has no excuse for not recognizing it as such.
However, if you're wondering which card will be on the PSA registry, it'll be the 1987 Fleer card.
His 1987 Topps Tiffany is his most valuable 1987 card, especially graded, because slab collectors say so. >>
Disagree with that. I don't think a nickel and dime company can come in their first year and automatically have what's considered a players rookie card. I have a box of 86 sportflics, bought them as a novelty, the cards should be completely disregarded as far as 'rookie card' status. Good for Beckett.
If they are pack released or released in an end-of-the-season box set, it should certainly be an RC or an XRC according to Beckett's own standards. In your weird scenario, the 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr. wouldn't be a RC. That's not rational.
<< <i> I don't think a nickel and dime company can come in their first year and automatically have what's considered a players rookie card. >>
A card company's popularity has nothing to do with it. They're an official sports card set, licensed by MLB and the MLBPA. It doesn't matter how much they suck or how much people hate them. They made Larkin's FIRST card. They beat everyone else to the punch by a year.
Larkin's 1987 cards are "rookie cards" the same way that the 1987 Barry Bonds cards are rookie cards.
During the 80s, Beckett recognized Sportflics. They were even "well received" by the hobby back in 1986, according to Beckett. They ended up dropping them from the price guide in 1989 or 1990 due to utter lack of demand.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
<< <i>It's official! Larkin mad it... and only Larkin. >>
Awesome! Good thing I bought a PSA 9 1987 Fleer for my HOF registry set early. I think I got it for $10. Probably will never go up in value anyways. lol
<< <i>
<< <i>It's official! Larkin mad it... and only Larkin. >>
Awesome! Good thing I bought a PSA 9 1987 Fleer for my HOF registry set early. I think I got it for $10. Probably will never go up in value anyways. lol >>
$10 is a LOT! haha
this was half that back in 2005
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
<< <i>Looks like Jack Morris gets in next year. Tim Raines got shafted again. I think he should have been at least in the high 50%'s. >>
Can't wait to see what that Larkin closes for.
I wouldnt assume that Morris gets in next year. The next couple years are going to have some major players coming up. Next year gets really intersting (Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa)!
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Can't wait to see what that Larkin closes for. >>
Same here. Now that THE Big Boys are going to need the 10 for their set.
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
I threw out recently some 87 Fleer sets and pulled all of the star cards. I need to check mine to see if they are nice.
With factory sets selling for what they do and the cards being in great condition out of the set I highly doubt his cards do much after three or four more days.
<< <i>There are plenty of Barry Larkin cards to go around and the big boys don't have to buy today and can wait for the initial pop to subside and buy them for less in a few months.
I threw out recently some 87 Fleer sets and pulled all of the star cards. I need to check mine to see if they are nice.
With factory sets selling for what they do and the cards being in great condition out of the set I highly doubt his cards do much after three or four more days. >>
While i agree with what youre saying, $100 to the Big Boys is a nickel to you and i
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
Running out the day someone gets elected to the Hall of Fame and buying their rookie card has not been a good investment strategy.
Like I said I think this pop is like Roberto Alomar's and lasts a few days at most. He at least had a few fairly rare cards but Larkin has none.
<< <i>It may be a pittance to them but they did not become big boys by being stupid. >>
I don't think the "big boys" are interested in getting a monetary return on their investment. For them, the "ROI" is scratching it off their want list.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Most can live without a 1987 Fleer Barry Larkin for a few days. I would hardly consider this a major hole in anyone's collection.
<< <i>You are missing the point. If I think I can pay $80 this week and $40 next week there is no rush. People with a lot of money in mnay cases are smart and don't like to waste money when they don't need to.
Most can live without a 1987 Fleer Barry Larkin for a few days. I would hardly consider this a major whole in anyone's collection. >>
I sold a 1986 Donruss Will Clark PSA 10 a few years ago to the legendary Don Spence (owner of the many "Lonestar Collection" registry sets) for over $150. The card usually goes for less than $30. It just happened that mine was the only one on Ebay at the moment, and Spence plus some other guy wanted it right then and there. Some guys don't like to wait: they see, they buy.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>87 classic green would be my pick in a psa 10. >>
agreed. the Classic green set has a low print run and is highly condition sensitive...
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
the 80's were littered with XRC (update and rookie sets)
XRC are NOT TRUE rookies
I bet psa chooses 87 Fleer for the HOF rookie set....
<< <i>Well then put your Barry Larkin up at $200 and see if lighting strikes twice. >>
It was an auction. Started it at $19.99. Spence and some other guy bid it up past $150.
That wasn't even a "merit" bump.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>XRC are NOT TRUE rookies >>
Who says? Beckett? LOL!
Beckett doesn't even give the Sportflics an XRC designation. They use it's unpopularity to banish Sportflics into the land of odd-ball sets, regionals, and food issues.
PSA will pick the 1987 Fleer Larkin for the Registry set, because they follow Beckett's lead.
Not to mention that XRCs only exist from 1982 - 1988. From 1989 on, they did away with the term and stuck with "RC".
So:
1988 Fleer Update Craig Biggio = XRC
1989 Fleer Update Albert Belle = RC
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Why should sportflics be recognized by Beckett? They're some kind of nightmarish holographic catastrophe. They're a novelty, like the Kelloggs 3D cards I used to get in my Corn Flakes. I found my box of sportflics and it describes the cards as "Magic Motion" cards. Anything that says that on it should not be recognized as a real card.
Regarding the 89 upper deck Griffey, thats completely different. Upper Deck is still around, and the Griffey rookie is a normal card, not 3D or holographic or whatever sportflics are.
<< <i>Why should sportflics be recognized by Beckett? They're some kind of nightmarish holographic catastrophe. >>
Sportflics came back in the mid 90s, Beckett recognized their cards as "rookies" when appropriate. They still list the 1994 Sportflics Rookie/Traded Alex Rodriguez as a "rookie card."
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Well, I still don't think a 3D type card like that should be recognized the same as a regular looking card like the 89 upper deck griffey. >>
The deuce was already taken. No way to un-take it.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Well, I still don't think a 3D type card like that should be recognized the same as a regular looking card like the 89 upper deck griffey. >>
No offense, but basing whether or not a card should be considered an RC on it's design is pretty ludicrous. I follow three simple qualifiers for a rookie card; it must be pack-released or released in an end-of-the-year traded/update box set, it must be part of the base set or an end-of-the-year traded/update box set and must be a product licensed by Major League Baseball. Sportflics cards fit into all these qualifiers and there is no reason to treat them any differently than any other pack-released MLB licensed set. You can disown them from existence all you want, but they are RCs to me because there is nothing that proves they aren't.
<< <i>If I remember correctly, back in the late 1980's, Mike Greenwell was a hot star, and Beckett labeled the 1986 Sportflics as his true and only Rookie, and all his 87's were considered 2nd year cards. Then a few years after that, Beckett made a change and allowed all 1987's to be considered Rookies. >>
Knowing how Beckett works/worked, I would bet that they did this based solely on this instance. They decided one player needed more rookie cards so excluded Sportflics from being RCs because of it.
<< <i>I follow three simple qualifiers for a rookie card;
it must be pack-released or released in an end-of-the-year traded/update box set,
it must be part of the base set or an end-of-the-year traded/update box set and
must be a product licensed by Major League Baseball. >>
So, how do you feel about the Bowman Chrome Prospect "insert set", which came about because MLB told Topps that they couldn't include those cards in the base set anymore? In most cases, the Prospect "insert" set is larger than the "base" set.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>I follow three simple qualifiers for a rookie card;
it must be pack-released or released in an end-of-the-year traded/update box set,
it must be part of the base set or an end-of-the-year traded/update box set and
must be a product licensed by Major League Baseball. >>
So, how do you feel about the Bowman Chrome Prospect "insert set", which came about because MLB told Topps that they couldn't include those cards in the base set anymore? In most cases, the Prospect "insert" set is larger than the "base" set. >>
Technically, they include a base set and the prospect cards are "insert" sets. I don't consider the prospect cards from 2006 and on TRUE rookie cards, but I have absolutely no problem with others believing they are. The tricky part will come when those players start making the Hall of Fame and the set registry has some tough decisions to make.