For early 80s unopened Topps baseball boxes......1981, 1982, or 1983?

Constantine

What year out of 1981, 1982, or 1983 Topps baseball do you think would be the best to hold onto long term? They all seem to be in a relatively close price range. Personally, I love the design of '83 Topps and think the rookies of Gwynn, Sandberg, and Boggs are a standout. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

billwaltonsbeard

I like 82 out of those options. The best RC and the best looking design.

1980scollector

My humble opinion it 1983. I really love the rookie class and design.

However, the 1981 is really good for the PSA set builders and the 1982 has the best rookie of all three sets.

MattyC

To me, 83 and it's not even close. Three HOF RCs-- and for Gwynn, Sandberg, and Boggs, all 3 of them do not have an earlier traded issue, the way Ripken has the more desirable 82 traded. Also, all three of those 83 RCs are single player cards as opposed to multi-face. What's more: Ripken as the very popular 82F alongside the traded, whereas none of Gwynn/Boggs/Sanderg have a Donruss or Fleer that equals their Topps in terms of demand. When it comes to a box, it's as simple as one big hit versus three big hits. And the PSA 10 Ripken doesn't exactly dwarf those 83 hits in price.

grote15

1983 with the trio of HOFers would be my choice, though 1982 has higher value right now.

RyanAdmirer

<< <i>To me, 83 and it's not even close. Three HOF RCs-- and for Gwynn, Sandberg, and Boggs, all 3 of them do not have an earlier traded issue, the way Ripken has the more desirable 82 traded. Also, all three of those 83 RCs are single player cards as opposed to multi-face. What's more: Ripken as the very popular 82F alongside the traded, whereas none of Gwynn/Boggs/Sanderg have a Donruss or Fleer that equals their Topps in terms of demand. When it comes to a box, it's as simple as one big hit versus three big hits. And the PSA 10 Ripken doesn't exactly dwarf those 83 hits in price. >>




+1 and agreed that it's not even close...

Baez578

Tough call. They're all good for different reasons

81- (unless I'm misinformed) less production than 82/83 but no rookie star power
82- Ripken....that's it
83- solid rookies....but not Ripken

I'd go 81

cpamike

My vote would be 1981 by a whisker over 1983 for Topps Baseball. However, I would like everyone to take a break from the early 80's unopened stuff as I still need to stock up some more.

ThoseBackPages

83, 82 then 81

rtimmer

It's a bit against the tide here but I put 1982 over 1983. I think the Ripken is the most important 1980's rookie card and I do think Lee Smith will make the hall one of these days. 1983 is a great set too but I put it a very close second. Now I see no reason why 1981 is in this conversation it's just an off year set that maybe one of these days after years of trying barely gets 1 hall of Fame rookie and it's not like 1980 was a 1986 fleer basketball type set making the 1987 fleer set desirable by having a ton of second year hall of famers. I would put 1985 topps in the conversation though as it does have several very special rookie cards that are or will be in the Hall one of these years.

esebille

Too many PSA 10 Gems of Ripken, Gwynn, Boggs, Sandberg....none of the boxes will appreciate much.

jmmiller777

+3 for the 83, not even close. Love the design.

ldferg

I'm going against the grain here with 81s.

TheCARDKid

I'm going to go 81, by a hair.

-I remember back in the early 90's, 83 Topps never really took off like the 82 Topps Ripken. The Boggs, Sandberg and Gwynn were always $40-60 cards. Never really broke out of that range. I think Ripken got as high as $75?

The 83 cards seemed cheap even when there were far less cards to collect (i.e. before 92 or 93 with the explosion of inserts, refractors, parallel cards).

The 81 lower production is a positive factor. As 79 and 80 get more unaffordable (smith, Henderson rookies), I think people will gravitate to 81's. But 83 is still very, very solid.

ThoseBackPages

as for the '81s i feel that they produced a LOT more then they did in 1980.

Here's why (IMO): Donruss and Fleer. Also, i believe 1981 was the first year that Topps put "TOPPS" on the fronts of their baseball cards

elsnorto

<< <i>To me, 83 and it's not even close. Three HOF RCs-- and for Gwynn, Sandberg, and Boggs, all 3 of them do not have an earlier traded issue, the way Ripken has the more desirable 82 traded. Also, all three of those 83 RCs are single player cards as opposed to multi-face. What's more: Ripken as the very popular 82F alongside the traded, whereas none of Gwynn/Boggs/Sanderg have a Donruss or Fleer that equals their Topps in terms of demand. When it comes to a box, it's as simple as one big hit versus three big hits. And the PSA 10 Ripken doesn't exactly dwarf those 83 hits in price. >>



^^^
This!

Plus I always felt the 1981 design was one of Topps most uninspired of the decade. I think the only people who are chasing 1981 are those with a nostalgic tie to the set (i.e. the first year they collected).

I give the nod to 1983, but I don't think you can go wrong with 1982 either at current prices.

Snorto~

mcadams

After 1978, the next Topps set that I like is 1984. Zero interest putting together complete sets from 79 to 83.

Between the 3 you mentioned, I guess I'd hold my nose and go with 81.

DCanfield

If possible, I'd buy all three while prices are affordable. If finances allow just one, then my vote is for Michigan wrap 1983's.

Yankees001

I would go 1981. Nice rookies (Baines, Gibson, Fernando and a few others). Other great cards like Henderson (2nd year) and the other stars towards the beginning of their careers.

Also it's the best design.

Dave

Constantine

Thanks for the input everyone. I noticed that based on the PSA pops that 1981 probably is tougher to pull high grades. But I still think that the RC class of '83 is solid. Someone mentioned 1985 and I do love the design and great players but its got some of the steroids boys and that kills it for me.

Would you agree that production for 1983 remained much more limited and jumped in 1984 and then dramatically once the 1985 boom began? I see tons of 1984 available but much less than 1983 and earlier.

tmgrnzx9r

83 by far for me as well. Great rookie class, plus it's the first year I started collecting cards. Next I would go with 82, how can you argue with Ripken. Last but not least 81. I like this year but it doesn't have the rookie class as the others do. I think though out of the 3 the 81 set might be a sleeper down the road. The prices on 81 may stay lower than the other 2 years due to the class. As far as 84 goes, it sort of like the 81 class. You have Mattingly and that's about it for strong rookies. Lots of hofers though. I love 84 right now due to its price point.

MattyC

There's lots of cases out there when it comes 80s stuff, that's just unavoidable. Tough to accurately quantify the relative supply of each year, but it is kinda moot because none of it is truly rare.

MattyC

Why go in the order of toughest 10s to pull? Odds are therefore against you, if this is a rip and grade prospect. Makes just as much sense to go for the easier 10s of 1983, especially since that set has three players that in a 10 will make the box a profitable purchase. But really I'd have to say "rip and grade" is probably a money-losing proposition the vast majority of the time.

I still say go for the set with the most cards that have value in grades OTHER than 10. Because the odds are always that you will not get a 10. At least if you get Boggs/Gwynn/Sandberg there is value there for player or HOF RC collectors-- even if the cards are 9s or even 8s. Whereas with 81, let's face it, Baines/Nando/Gibson just don't compare remotely to Sandberg/Gwynn/Boggs. And again with 82 there is that one card in the Ripken, but then nada in terms of jackpot hits. And the traded is really Ripken's most desirable RC I would have to think. If a collector is going to pick just one Ripken RC to represent in a collection, he'd probably go for the traded. Just seems obvious to me at least: imagine opening the box; isn't it better to be seeking three big hits than 1 with 82 or in the case of 81, perhaps maybe 1 in the Rickey?

If this is to keep sealed, I doubt one of those boxes will really outpace the other. Though thinking about resale, by going with 83 you have the product that will appeal to the most potential buyers down the line, such as guys who will want one of those main three HOF RCs. We can't really speak accurately to supply in this situation but the demand for Gwynn/Boggs/Sandberg RCs in one box will definitely be greatest of the choices.

CubsKiller99

<< <i>I'm going against the grain here with 81s. >>



The poor quality of the cardboard, frequent miscuts and off-centers make a high-grade 1981
PSA set extremely difficult to acquire. Not sure you can say that as much about 82 or 83.

But I was under the strong impression that great rookies drive the unopened price for post-1980
sets and although the 1983 rookies will always be in demand they also seem to be found in high grade fairly easily.

1954

1981 less produced than the other two years.

corncobb

<< <i>

<< <i>To me, 83 and it's not even close. Three HOF RCs-- and for Gwynn, Sandberg, and Boggs, all 3 of them do not have an earlier traded issue, the way Ripken has the more desirable 82 traded. Also, all three of those 83 RCs are single player cards as opposed to multi-face. What's more: Ripken as the very popular 82F alongside the traded, whereas none of Gwynn/Boggs/Sanderg have a Donruss or Fleer that equals their Topps in terms of demand. When it comes to a box, it's as simple as one big hit versus three big hits. And the PSA 10 Ripken doesn't exactly dwarf those 83 hits in price. >>




+1 and agreed that it's not even close... >>




+2 and its not even close