If "Junk Era Wax" wasn't "Junk", would more people collect it??

Rudedawg

As we know, most any baseball set from about 1985-1993 is not highly collected because of mass production. Just wondering, if production numbers were that of, say, 1970's sets, would more people collect Junk Era?? My main point is to focus on design, photo quality and overall appeal of sets from that time period and not production numbers. While I think 1988 Fleer would probably never appeal to many, 1985 Donruss is a really solid set, imo.

I feel a lot of collectors dismiss this time period completely because anyone can buy it and that somehow takes away from appreciating the actual sets for what they are. Opinions??

totallyradd

I like the appeal of 87-89, and 92 Topps. 91 and 92 Fleer along with 90 and 91 Donruss are just awful in my opinion.

I think that there would be some more sets that came out in that era that people would look into if A) There wasn't a billion sets out there, and there wasn't 700+ cards to collect.

I'd espeically be into the 87 set since that's when I really got into baseball and collecting as an 8 year old. By 1993 I was completely out of the hobby for the same reason as everyone in my age. (Too expensive, too many varieties, being a teenager, etc).

digicat

I think a lot of people own cards from the junk era. I know I do. I've got plenty of cards and sets from that era (maybe because I started collecting in 1989). It's not difficult to obtain cards from that era, and if you wanted to do a set, you'd be done in no time due to the fact that it's easy to find and cheap.

PSA set registry player collectors have helped drive up the prices of some "low pop" PSA 10s for the players they collect. Heck, I netted several hundred dollars in grading and selling key players from 1988 Donruss back before 4SC jumped on it and flooded the pop report.

itzagoner

you might be surprised.

some guys enjoy bragging about their junk and showing it off to others.

of course, if you wanna look at some dude's junk, that's cool, maybe you're not entirely satisfied with your own junk, so you need more stimulation.

junk envy, as it were.

take good care of your junk. you never know when it might come in handy.

Rudedawg

Always can count on ya for a laugh

Jkramer

<< <i>While I think 1988 Fleer would probably never appeal to many >>



This is actually my favorite design. I started collecting at the end of 87 and the 1988 Fleer cards was cool looking to me. Still to this day I'll pick some up

Rudedawg

I figured I would put my foot in my mouth with that one, lol. I guess I've seen a few collectors comment that they like 1988 Fleer. In fairness, it DOES carry the legendary Gregg Jefferies RC (I'm 33 years old), so it will always have a certain place in my heart.

digicat

<< <i>Gregg Jefferies RC (I'm 33 years old), so it will always have a certain place in my heart. >>



I was only a few years ago when I went ahead and reduced my Jefferies hoard to 1 of each, except for the Fleer card. I had to have 2.

digicat

However, I do still have a large hoard of Will Clark rookie cards.

mygotta

I have come to appreciate the junk wax era in a new way. Besides 1985, which is not a cheap year right now if you are calling it junk (its more expensive than 84 actually), I like 86 and 87 a lot. 88 and 92 are my least favorite years. Despite my appreciation, I will not pay alot for this stuff. $10 a box for 88-93 is about the most Id go (with some exceptions).

ThoseBackPages

1985 sports wax is not cheap

HeadsUp38

1985 Topps was the first set I collected as a kid and it remains one of my favorites. I don't consider it part of the junk wax era as they are more expensive and less common then the cards from 1987-93. Some of the sets from that era have very nice designs. Some of the sets are unappealing. I'm no fan of '88 Donruss, '90 Fleer, '90 Topps and '91 Fleer.

The size of some of the sets in the early '90s are ridiculous. I like the photo selection of 1991 Score and the design is clean and attractive, but at 900 cards, it is a turnoff to collect it. 1993 Upper Deck is one of my favorites from that era as well, but they went 840 that year. If you try to build the set by buying packs, you'll end with lots of duplicates and huge sections of missing numbers as the collation is terrible.

Nonetheless, I believe there are collectors that still need cards from that era to complete their sets. One shop dealer told me he gets 2-3 guys that come in his shop a month looking for singles from that era.

NVbaseball

I'm pretty confident there are far more people with boxes of cards from 1990 sitting in their shelves or closets than people with cards from 1973

sportscardtheory

<< <i>I'm pretty confident there are far more people with boxes of cards from 1990 sitting in their shelves or closets than people with cards from 1973 >>



Did anyone say or imply otherwise.

NVbaseball

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm pretty confident there are far more people with boxes of cards from 1990 sitting in their shelves or closets than people with cards from 1973 >>



Did anyone say or imply otherwise. >>



Saying fewer people collect 1985 to 1993 compared to the 1970s is a definite implication

No one collects those cards because too many people collect those cards. Or something like that

byronscott4ever

It's easier to make your money back on a $5/10 box than a pack of the same.

Rudedawg

Some good points here. It may not be fair to throw in 85 as a "junk" year. Unopened wax boxes for all three companies runs from $60-100. Sets are still reasonable, but certainly don't go for $5.00. I guess a better starting year would be 1987.

If I had an implication, I guess it would be that if you put down a set of 1971 Topps next to a set of 1987 Donruss, the Donruss set would be considered inferior just because of the production difference. The quality of the card design, colors, photos, etc. aren't taken into consideration. Maybe I'm way off here, but that is the impression I get from most baseball card collectors. I'm a huge fan of black border cards and like the overall look of 71 Topps. But, I think 87 Donruss is just as appealing.

As said, there are likely many collectors that already have these sets from when they were kids and have no interest is going an farther.

I'll throw out some of my favorites:

1987 Topps (good design and the 1st I collected)
1987 Donruss
1987 Fleer
1988 Topps (probably one of the most poked at for production)
1989 Donruss
1989 Bowman (classic design)
1991 Topps
1991 Score

These aren't usually thrown into the "junk" mix, but are good looking sets:

1991,92, 93 Stadium Club
1992 Leaf Black
1992 Fleer Ultra

mygotta

If 86 Topps had a better rookie selection, it might have been saved, but it remains on the cusp of the junk wax and I think this is because it was an undesireable set at the time. Fairly unattractive design coupled with poor rookie selection makes for less interest. All the focus that year was Jose Canseco and he did not make the Topps set. Maybe Topps wanted to save him for the Traded set because the 85 Traded set is so awful.

Generally speaking, however, 86, even Donruss and Fleer are not very expensive. I see some people wanted $30+ for Topps which I think is high for the set.

1987 I think is the beginning of the true "Junk Wax Era". Which is a shame considering the talent that came out of those sets. Topps clearly is leader in mass production that year. Of all, though, I do see Fleer being sold as a premium. I went to a store last week and the guy had a box of 87 Fleer for $90!!! That was outrageous. Oddly, for twice that amount, I grabbed a box of 83 Topps in Michigan style packs instead. But 87 Fleer seems to cast an illusion it is more rare than Topps or Donruss, but I am not sure thats the case. I do like 87 Donruss and even the Leaf counterpart is a nice pick up.

After that, my interest wanes. 88, 89, and 90 i think are all ugly sets. 91 Topps is not too bad. 92 are ugly. 93 is decent, but not great.

I dont think the Junk Wax era really ended, I think it just got altered and obliterated into high end rarities inserted into high volume base card sets. 2013 topps series 1 is out. People are paying $80 bucks a box. For what? Not because they want the next Miguel Cabrera card for their collection. Because they want the Bryce Harper 1/1 Super Sonic Gold Auto with the Trace amounts of leather from his glove that was used during fielding practice on a random Tuesday. Quite honestly, I dont know what a better investment is. $20 for a box of Donruss from 1987 which you will get Bonds, Maddux, Larkin, McGwire rookies in addition to Clemens and Puckett 3rd year, plus solid HOF'ers like Ryan, Rose, Yount, among others. Or spend $80 for possibly a great card, but more than likely a patch of some common dude that is worth as much as any base star card?

Dodgerfanjohn

I have all the junk sets, mostly because thats the era when I was still in high school and still collecting.

Theres nothing really wrong with the cards though I agree many of the sets are plain ugly. The Topps set each year is still a classic looking set and by the time UD/Stadium Club started getting released...those are really nice looking sets IMO even if they are like finding hay in a hay stack.

And despite the subsequent steroid era, theres still a ton of untainted HOF'er and soon to be HOF rookie cards....Greg Maddux, Roberto Alomar, Craig Biggio, etc....