<< <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... >>
I've collected Larkin for a while now, and my pick in a PSA 10 would be 1987 Kahn's Reds #15 -- except a Gem Mint copy might not exist. PSA has yet to grade a copy in any condition.
Yes, it's an oddball issue, but definitely the scarcest of his rookie-era cards. Here's a pic:
<< <i>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. >>
The definition of "Insert set" has pretty much undergone a massive revision. Back in the day, an "insert" set was some sort of theme, like "All Stars", "Award Winners," or "Team MVPs." Guys who had cards in the insert set always had cards in the base set. The insert was designed to draw them out for further distinction.
From 2006 on, the normal sub-set of "blue" Bowman Chrome rookies was given it's own "insert" set due to MLB's insane intervention in the hobby.
MLB's intention was to stop the card companies from printing up loads of cards of guys who had never reached the majors.
In responce Bowman Chrome just moved their minor leaguers into their own "insert" set. Donruss cranked out cards of draft picks in their college uniforms. UD printed up Team USA cards (until Topps won it away from them).
What did MLB accomplish? Nothing. They just threw a bucket of confusion into the hobby by introducing new definitions for commonly used hobby phrases and words.
<< <i>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. >>
The definition of "Insert set" has pretty much undergone a massive revision. Back in the day, an "insert" set was some sort of theme, like "All Stars", "Award Winners," or "Team MVPs." Guys who had cards in the insert set always had cards in the base set. The insert was designed to draw them out for further distinction.
From 2006 on, the normal sub-set of "blue" Bowman Chrome rookies was given it's own "insert" set due to MLB's insane intervention in the hobby.
MLB's intention was to stop the card companies from printing up loads of cards of guys who had never reached the majors.
In responce Bowman Chrome just moved their minor leaguers into their own "insert" set. Donruss cranked out cards of draft picks in their college uniforms. UD printed up Team USA cards (until Topps won it away from them).
What did MLB accomplish? Nothing. They just threw a bucket of confusion into the hobby by introducing new definitions for commonly used hobby phrases and words. >>
I used to hate the RC rules implemented in 2006, now they have grown on me. It makes sense for MLB to want rookie cards produced after a player has played in a ML game. It really makes little sense to have ML cards of players who haven't or may never play in the Majors. Now they have their own sub-genre for prospectors with the "real" RCs made after they make it to the Majors. I'm okay with that.
As expected the 1987 Topps Tiffany is taking the lead on EBAY. This is the only Larkin card that is some what rare and if you must own one this is the best one long term for sure.
When you see lots of 32 Fleer raw cards at a time this tells you all you need to know. There is no market long term.
So do you consider Alex Gordons 2006 Topps card his rookie card? I have three of them now (the full versions). About to send one in for grading. Does Beckett recognize it as Gordon's rookie card.
<< <i>The 1987 Fleer is on fire on EBAY!!! The top card is at $53 with 4 bidders battling it out. >>
<< <i>This is the only Larkin card that is some what rare and if you must own one this is the best one long term for sure. >>
Have you seen the population reports for 1987 Fleer? It's just HOF madness right now. His Topps Tiffany is the card to own BUT only to get it autographed. The POP reports on that set a rather high also.
<< <i>So do you consider Alex Gordons 2006 Topps card his rookie card? I have three of them now (the full versions). About to send one in for grading. Does Beckett recognize it as Gordon's rookie card. >>
Beckett calls it an error and doesn't consider it to be a rookie card.
Personally, I'd rather have a 2006 Bowman Chrome Prospects AU Alex Gordon. I prefer ink when I can get it.
Toro I don't know if you read the other pages to this thread. I think they are all garbage and have no long term value but if you must own one it is the 87 Tiffany. That post was a joke with 4 bidders going after the card.
The Fleer cosmetically is a great looking card but there are a ton and you can pull 10's all day out of factory sets.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <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... >>
I've collected Larkin for a while now, and my pick in a PSA 10 would be 1987 Kahn's Reds #15 -- except a Gem Mint copy might not exist. PSA has yet to grade a copy in any condition.
Yes, it's an oddball issue, but definitely the scarcest of his rookie-era cards. Here's a pic:
<< <i>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. >>
The definition of "Insert set" has pretty much undergone a massive revision. Back in the day, an "insert" set was some sort of theme, like "All Stars", "Award Winners," or "Team MVPs." Guys who had cards in the insert set always had cards in the base set. The insert was designed to draw them out for further distinction.
From 2006 on, the normal sub-set of "blue" Bowman Chrome rookies was given it's own "insert" set due to MLB's insane intervention in the hobby.
MLB's intention was to stop the card companies from printing up loads of cards of guys who had never reached the majors.
In responce Bowman Chrome just moved their minor leaguers into their own "insert" set. Donruss cranked out cards of draft picks in their college uniforms. UD printed up Team USA cards (until Topps won it away from them).
What did MLB accomplish? Nothing. They just threw a bucket of confusion into the hobby by introducing new definitions for commonly used hobby phrases and words.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
The definition of "Insert set" has pretty much undergone a massive revision. Back in the day, an "insert" set was some sort of theme, like "All Stars", "Award Winners," or "Team MVPs." Guys who had cards in the insert set always had cards in the base set. The insert was designed to draw them out for further distinction.
From 2006 on, the normal sub-set of "blue" Bowman Chrome rookies was given it's own "insert" set due to MLB's insane intervention in the hobby.
MLB's intention was to stop the card companies from printing up loads of cards of guys who had never reached the majors.
In responce Bowman Chrome just moved their minor leaguers into their own "insert" set. Donruss cranked out cards of draft picks in their college uniforms. UD printed up Team USA cards (until Topps won it away from them).
What did MLB accomplish? Nothing. They just threw a bucket of confusion into the hobby by introducing new definitions for commonly used hobby phrases and words. >>
I used to hate the RC rules implemented in 2006, now they have grown on me. It makes sense for MLB to want rookie cards produced after a player has played in a ML game. It really makes little sense to have ML cards of players who haven't or may never play in the Majors. Now they have their own sub-genre for prospectors with the "real" RCs made after they make it to the Majors. I'm okay with that.
When you see lots of 32 Fleer raw cards at a time this tells you all you need to know. There is no market long term.
Does Beckett recognize it as Gordon's rookie card.
1987 FLEER BARRY LARKIN
and there you have it.
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
<< <i>The 1987 Fleer is on fire on EBAY!!! The top card is at $53 with 4 bidders battling it out. >>
<< <i>This is the only Larkin card that is some what rare and if you must own one this is the best one long term for sure. >>
Have you seen the population reports for 1987 Fleer? It's just HOF madness right now. His Topps Tiffany is the card to own BUT only to get it autographed. The POP reports on that set a rather high also.
<< <i>So do you consider Alex Gordons 2006 Topps card his rookie card? I have three of them now (the full versions). About to send one in for grading.
Does Beckett recognize it as Gordon's rookie card.
>>
Beckett calls it an error and doesn't consider it to be a rookie card.
Personally, I'd rather have a 2006 Bowman Chrome Prospects AU Alex Gordon. I prefer ink when I can get it.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
The Fleer cosmetically is a great looking card but there are a ton and you can pull 10's all day out of factory sets.