On The "Weight" Of A Card

psychump

In the midst of upgrading my 1963 Topps Baseball set I have noticed that the prices of some commons in PSA 8 that have little weight are being offered or sold at ridiculous prices. Why would a buyer pay so much for a card that adds so little weight to their set. I can see adding a Hall Of Famer as that will raise your weight maybe even quite considerably depending on the star. But paying hundreds of dollars for a common that does little or nothing to help your set I believe is questionable. Buy the greats in NM or Mint and add the low weight cards in lesser condition should be the way to go but as I look at the set registry and eBay it is not so (example;$127.50 for a 1963 Topps #100 Joe Cunningham PSA 8). It has a weight of 1.00. I would not pay more than$18-20 and I would look at a lower (but nice) grade. Obviously there are hundreds of examples of this in all years and sets and we all are probably guilty(?) of this. I just wanted to put this out there and see what you collectors think.

seebelow

I think thats a great point that I can't recall being brought up here.

JoeBanzai

Has nothing to do with weight.

Buyers don't all believe in your theory of lesser players in lesser grade when set collecting. Some want ALL their cards to be in high grade and spend accordingly.

With no 10's and only three 9's the Cunningham card in an 8 is about the best you can expect to get. The 7 went for $20.00.

I look for the highest possible grade for my collection and don't like to buy anything under an 8. I don't pay much attention to weight, seems like the weights assigned have little rhyme or reason.

DanBessette

<< <i>Has nothing to do with weight.

Buyers don't all believe in your theory of lesser players in lesser grade when set collecting. Some want ALL their cards to be in high grade and spend accordingly. >>



This.