1984 and 1985 Donruss and Fleer Baseball

Thenugent

What is the reason for Donruss kicking Fleer's butt in 1984 but then in 1985 Fleer kicks Donruss's butt ?

Dodgerfanjohn

I don't know for sure what motivates it, but it's only in the past few years that 1985 Fleer is more expensive than 85 Donruss. And I still think that 85 Donruss is one of the best looking sets of the 80's.

Stingray

I have not kept up on these proces for 85, is it that different??

Thenugent

Not to the extreme but Donruss 84 was selling at 260 when Fleer was around 160 I believe. The baseball card exchange has the 85'at 155 for Fleer 1985 and 95 bucks for Donruss. Not thinking one has a better rookie or other. Maybe supply and demand.

lseecon

Back in 1985, the perception was that Fleer was much more limited in production than Donruss for that year. That was my experience also as I recall Fleer wax was the hardest to locate and purchase in 1985 (not that it was particularly difficult but in relation to Topps and Donruss) In the years thereafter you never really saw tons of 1985 Fleer wax product in bulk being offered. Speculation was that in 1984 and 1985 Fleer cut production in relation to 1981-1983 and then ramped it back up in 1986. I think you run across more wax cases of 1985 Donruss than Fleer so price differential seems justified.

That's just my take though.

ClockworkAngel

It's kind of odd the way Donruss and Fleer took turns being on top in the 1980's. Topps dominated through 1983, then in 1984, Donruss and Fleer overtook Topps as the most popular and valuable. From there they went back and forth as #1
1984 Donruss
1985 Fleer
1986 Donruss
1987 Fleer
The 1984 Donruss set and specifically, the Mattingly, have become iconic in the hobby. Every kid that collected in that era wanted an 84D Mattingly. It was considered the best looking set anyone had come out with in a long long time. That combined with a cutback in production and a lot of desirable rookies made it hard for retailers to keep in stock. But as time has gone by, I think the unopened experts would agree that Fleer is more difficult to locate. But Donruss will likely always be more desired.

In 1985, Fleer and Donruss both put out really attractive sets. Donruss was more expensive and desirable but some time in the 1990s, 1985 Fleer became more expensive than Donruss, probably due to scarcity. It also had a very attractive design and both sets had great rookie cards. Puckett, Clemens, Gooden, Tartabull, Eric Davis, Saberhagen, and Alvin Davis were all young superstars.

In 1986, Donruss gave us the first and only rookie card by himself of Jose Canseco-otherwise known as the second coming. It was a great looking card in a great looking set. The 86 D packs took off quickly. Fleer had the Canseco/plunk RC but the Donruss was far and away more popular. What looked to be such a promising set turned into a set with very few rookie cards of anyone with staying power. McGriff being a marginal HOF player. Jose Canaeco went the opposite direction and is right there with Alex Rodriquez and Barry Bonds as the most loathed player going.

In 1987, Donruss stepped up production quite a bit. Fleer did as well but not to the extent of Donruss. And Fleer made a very attractive card that year. And in 1987, it was considered a coup to be the only set with Kevin Seitzer. Whatever happened to that guy?

ReggieCleveland

Everything I've ever read from internal reports by the big three has been that production was increased every single year in the 1980s, some much more than others. But any perception that in one year, one particular manufacturer cut production is just that... perception. My guess is that hobby demand swings the vote from year to year based on design and checklist.

bziddy

In 1985, at my LCS...

$1 would get you a pack of 84D, while 84T and 84F were in the .40 to .50 cent range. 85D was .75 while 85T and 85F were in the .35 range. This doesn't actually change or modify any of the assumptions made above -- 'tis just what I remember.

Estil

<< <i>And in 1987, it was considered a coup to be the only set with Kevin Seitzer. Whatever happened to that guy? >>



According to his Wiki article he did quite well all things considered. He finished his 11 year career with a .295 BA and has been a third base/hitting coach for the past few years. He took 2013 off but he's back with the Jays for 2014.

Cokin75

In '85, it's because Donruss made a ton of factory sets that year, Fleer didn't start them until the year after. In '84, if you factor in Donruss factory set production, I'm not sure that Fleer printed that many more of each card, but I'd guess that Donruss is more desirable because it was much harder to find in pack form than Fleer.

stevebay

<< <i>It's kind of odd the way Donruss and Fleer took turns being on top in the 1980's. Topps dominated through 1983, then in 1984, Donruss and Fleer overtook Topps as the most popular and valuable. From there they went back and forth as #1
1984 Donruss
1985 Fleer
1986 Donruss
1987 Fleer >>




Historically, 1987 Fleer was always preferred over 1987 Donruss, but I wonder if there will be a shift of Donruss taking over soon, since it has Maddux's only pack RC (+ McGwire as well)

runningman

Continuing into 1988, Donruss had the short print high number cards including Jefferies, Fleer was tougher and more popular at least in my store. 1989 it was Upper Deck of course but that Fleer was rock solid with the Billy Ripken card and the fleer Griffey rookie always sold, I couldn't give away 1989 Donruss. Upper Deck owned it for a few years after that.