Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Cal Ripken rookies

The 1982 Fleer card is considerably harder to find in 10 than all the other ones including the 1982 Topps Traded. Im really surprised that the traded one sells for so much more. There are about 100 less fleer 10's than the traded, over 200 less than donruss or the regular topps card.

The Fleer card appears to be the one to get by a wide margin, but apparently the collecting nation doesn't agree.

Work hard and you will succeed!!
«1

Comments

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 12, 2017 9:22AM

    Also, old fogies like myself are Topps loyalists.

  • IronmanfanIronmanfan Posts: 5,429 ✭✭✭✭

    Just a FYI that Cal told me once that the photo used for the 82 Fleer rookie was taken in West Pam Beach....

    IMF

    Successful dealings with Wcsportscards94558, EagleEyeKid, SamsGirl214, Volver, DwayneDrain, Oaksey25, Griffins, Cardfan07, Etc.
  • @miwlvrn said:
    My guess is many more people find the 1982 Topps Traded to be a more visually attractive card than the 1982 Fleer.

    Yup. The Fleer photo hurts my eyes. It's so blurry. But so is the rest of the set...

    The Clockwork Angel Collection...brought to you by Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase
    TheClockworkAngelCollection
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So many of you feel the pic of Cal influences the prices more than availability, interesting.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm not sure why less availability would make the card more desirable. More valuable for a given demand, but not necessarily more desirable.

  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is an interesting discussion.

    Ya know? Either one likes something or not.

    If memory serves, scarcity involves both supply "and" demand. So, something can be "rare" and if not much demand? No scarcity.

    Here's the two cards to compare...

    Me personally? I like the Topps cards over the Fleer.

    But neither one at 10 prices.


    Mike
  • VintagemanEdVintagemanEd Posts: 922 ✭✭✭
    edited September 12, 2017 1:03PM

    Interesting discussion. While the pop numbers are lowering on the fleer the percentage graded for 10's is lowest on the regular topps card. Another thing that I thought about is that it seems there are so many of the topps regular available for sale at any given time or over the course of a year. That makes me wonder what is the average percentage of 10's of a particular card that are offered for sale in a 12 month period? There are 454 of the regular topps ripkens and it seems maybe 300 might be offered for sale in a 12 month period maybe. Seems like a lot. Anyway, interesting

  • I thought the registry was the only reason for $$ demand to get that #1 spot or tie for it :);)
    I grew up watching Cal, always thought he was great, just like Ozzie was. Both are.
    Cal was one of the players to collect along with all the Hr doping guys.
    Who knows what his or any of the other guys cards bring in the future, like say 20-30 yrs from now.

    Collecting RC's (mostly 40-60's)
  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Who knows what his or any of the other guys cards bring in the future, like say 20-30 yrs from now.

    Can't argue with that - one never knows.

    One thing tho - all the HOF RC's from 80s on have been prodigiously produced such that they'll never be in the range of the greats of today from the 50s and perhaps to the 60s?

    And there's still loads of unopened.

    Mike
  • CakesCakes Posts: 3,462 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @olb31 said:
    So many of you feel the pic of Cal influences the prices more than availability, interesting.

    The overall look of the card is very important to me. To me everything about the Topps cards is better.

    Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.

    Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
  • GrimsterGrimster Posts: 286 ✭✭✭

    @Cakes said:

    @olb31 said:
    So many of you feel the pic of Cal influences the prices more than availability, interesting.

    The overall look of the card is very important to me. To me everything about the Topps cards is better.

    Except for that stupid light pole. Everytime I see the Topps Traded card I think for a fraction of a second that the light pole is a print line defect on the card, lol.

  • rounding3rdrounding3rd Posts: 287 ✭✭✭

    This is fun to learn everyone's preferences. I prefer the Fleer...even though a "fuzzier" image, I prefer action/candid shots over posed ones, in general.
    -Michael

    Working on Baseball HOF Autograph Set Registry
  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Was thinking about the OP's POV and the availability of the 82F card.

    Fleer, Donruss and Topps let the fur fly and produced tons of this product.

    The availability IMO of a Fleer Ripken may have more to do with popularity than supply/availability. Thus, the lower value for the card in 10.

    Tho not as nice IMO - his regular issue had 27K subs vs 8.5K Fleers - I believe a reflection of demand/popularity.

    And last, in terms of representation - the Fleer 10 represents about 2.5% of all subs vs 1.5% 10s for Topps #21 and 2.5% for the "traded" card.

    Mike
  • SOMSOM Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭

    The Post-War Rookies HOF set on the Registry requires the 1982 Topps regular issue - the ugliest card of all Ripken's 82s.

  • @olb31 said:
    So many of you feel the pic of Cal influences the prices more than availability, interesting.

    I think it's definitely a big factor.

    From 1981-1983, Topps cards have always been in much higher demand than Fleer or Donruss, despite the consensus that Topps is easier to find then the other 2. Fleer and Donruss really had some boring looking sets with poor quality control the first 3 years.

    That changed with the 1984 sets. Fleer and especially Donruss really stepped up their design. 1984 Donruss was always considered one of the most attractive sets of the 1980's, and led to a huge spike on the Mattingly. From 1984-1987, Topps was a distant 3rd, and I believe it had a lot to do with the design. 1984-1986 Donruss are 3 of my favorite looking sets. The Fleer sets looked much better than the Topps as well. The scarcity factor really didn't change, so it came down to the eye appeal

    The Clockwork Angel Collection...brought to you by Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase
    TheClockworkAngelCollection
  • vintagefunvintagefun Posts: 1,975 ✭✭✭

    @SOM said:
    The Post-War Rookies HOF set on the Registry requires the 1982 Topps regular issue - the ugliest card of all Ripken's 82s.

    Which is odd because the 1st Ballot set uses the Traded card...or maybe more odd that the 1st Ballot doesn't also use the regular issue.

    52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
  • DeutscherGeistDeutscherGeist Posts: 2,990 ✭✭✭✭

    I have been following the 1982 Topps Traded card and have noticed its declining value. A few years ago, it would fetch $175 in PSA 9, I just saw some sold recently for below the $140 mark. I never would have thought this could happen given that this Ripken rookie is one of the premier cards of the 1980s. Are more Ripkens being graded or is this a correction in pricing?

    "So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve

    BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't keep track of pops on that card, but IIRC there were a couple cases of the 82TT sets that came to market a year or so ago. I'm still surprised what the Ripken goes for (especially in 10) given the quantity available.

  • BLUEJAYWAYBLUEJAYWAY Posts: 8,014 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just a natural occurrence within the market. Once the HOF process is over for a player,like Ripken, the cards tend to diminish in demand/price. Then they get a bump when that player (unfortunately) passes away. Plus there is only so much money in the "market pool" to support/prop up the market for all the cards that one can purchase. Of course Mantle being the prime example where this "rule" does not apply.

    Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you go by my original post, the fleer card should be at least as expensive if not more so. Also,The Traded card came out last of the rookie ripkens produced.

    traded 338 psa 10's
    topps 467 psa 10's
    fleer 232 psa 10's
    donruss 529 psa 10's

    Fleer looks like the best based on population. I think eventually, as the pop report grows, the fleer card will be the one to have.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Pop report update

    Traded 365 +27
    Topps 500 +33
    Fleer 259 +27
    Donruss 565 + 36

    All these increases seem really high. PSA has been grading since 1991. So in the fleer ripken was getting about 9 10's per year and in 10 months it increased by 27. All were getting less than 20 per year, not any more.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Since Feb 18, 2018

    Traded +41
    Fleer +31
    Donruss +47
    Topps +57

    So in a year and a half here are the % changes
    Traded +11%
    Fleer +12%
    Donruss +10%
    Topps +12.5%

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,208 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is a fantastic post.

    I remember looking at the Topps Ripken and the Topps Traded Ripken at a card shop when they were both the same price ($50.00 if memory serves, should have bought them both) and thought that the Traded card was so much more attractive than the Topps BUT the Topps was considered the "true" rookie, so I didn't buy either. Soon the Traded card went through the roof. At that time Fleer and Donrus were not really even considered as a good buy. No one wanted them at all!

    Since you seem to be stuck on the theory that a cards scarcity should always make it worth more (when this is clearly not the case) you should invest in cards like the Fleer Ripken. In 25 years you just might have a fantastic investment!

    I bet you will hit some home runs if you do!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’m a good example of Joe’s point. I have no interest in any Fleer or Donruss card, even if it were free, and I never will. Same goes for OPC versions of vintage Topps cards.

  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PaulMaul said:
    I’m a good example of Joe’s point. I have no interest in any Fleer or Donruss card, even if it were free, and I never will. Same goes for OPC versions of vintage Topps cards.

    why so much hate? opc, fleer and donruss need love too.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @olb31 said:

    @PaulMaul said:
    I’m a good example of Joe’s point. I have no interest in any Fleer or Donruss card, even if it were free, and I never will. Same goes for OPC versions of vintage Topps cards.

    why so much hate? opc, fleer and donruss need love too.

    No hate, I just have no interest in them.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,208 ✭✭✭✭✭

    olb31 loves the rarity, he doesn't understand that everyone should realize that the hardest to find is the BEST!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Some other interesting scenarios ($$$):

    Bonds OPC #1, 1986 Tiffany #2
    Mattingly Tiffany #1 (by a mile), #2 Donruss, #3 OPC
    Nolan Ryan #1 OPC, #2 Topps
    Yount, Brett - #1 Topps, #2 OPC
    Gwynn, Sandberg - #1 OPC, #2 Topps
    Rice - #1 OPC - #2 Topps

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • VagabondVagabond Posts: 551 ✭✭✭✭

    Out of all the Ripken rookies, I have always preferred the 82 Topps Traded. Its really a beautiful card design and only shows Cal by himself and not with two other faces as in the regular 82 set. The Fleer along with the Donruss were never big hits with collectors in either 1981 nor 82. Donruss imo didn't even strike gold till its 1984 release which I easily would pick over Topps design that year.

    The Ripken 82 traded certainly has gone done in value and it's a shame because Cal is very loved in the baseball community from players to even collectors. I remember when that card was selling well over the 2K mark for a good solid years during that buyers group spike but it seems prices have dropped again to 2014/15 prices. I may try and pick up a 10 soon. I cant see that card going any lower than the $1300-1400 price tag which its at now which I still believe is a great price.

  • saucywombatsaucywombat Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭

    It doesn't help that the Orioles stink. If they were winning there'd be a lot more people in DC, Northern VA and MD feeling nostalgic about Cal Ripken. Right now they probably want to punch a wall thinking about the O's.

    Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors.
    saucywombat@hotmail.com
  • NGS428NGS428 Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 1982 Topps #21 is the true rookie card, but the Traded #98T just has a better design (and only Cal's face), so it is the most popular, but not a true true rookie card. Correct?

    Wading how rookie cards are determined in the 80's is interesting.

  • PatsGuy5000PatsGuy5000 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭

    @NGS428 said:
    The 1982 Topps #21 is the true rookie card, but the Traded #98T just has a better design (and only Cal's face), so it is the most popular, but not a true true rookie card. Correct?

    Wading how rookie cards are determined in the 80's is interesting.

    I’ve always felt it’s the 1st card, so the regular issued cards from Donruss, Fleer, and Topps (#21) would be considered his Rookie cards.

  • NGS428NGS428 Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 15, 2019 5:10AM

    @PatsGuy5000 said:

    @NGS428 said:
    The 1982 Topps #21 is the true rookie card, but the Traded #98T just has a better design (and only Cal's face), so it is the most popular, but not a true true rookie card. Correct?

    Wading how rookie cards are determined in the 80's is interesting.

    I’ve always felt it’s the 1st card, so the regular issued cards from Donruss, Fleer, and Topps (#21) would be considered his Rookie cards.

    I do agree with that. PSA chose Topps #21 as the single rookie card for Cal in the HOF rookie set. So that does make sense.

    For Bonds I am leaning toward the 1986 traded/rookie/update cards as the rookie cards. I know there was the whole XRC designation during those years for the rookie/traded sets. I just can’t see why an 87 fleer card is considered a rookies when he played in 1986 and already had a Fleer update card in 1986.

    If I used the above reasoning on Griffey cards then I should consider his 1990 Topps card a rookie card. That card has never been considered a true RC. All must have to do with Beckett designation of the XRC and dropping that after 1988.

  • DBesse27DBesse27 Posts: 3,025 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PatsGuy5000 said:

    @NGS428 said:
    The 1982 Topps #21 is the true rookie card, but the Traded #98T just has a better design (and only Cal's face), so it is the most popular, but not a true true rookie card. Correct?

    Wading how rookie cards are determined in the 80's is interesting.

    I’ve always felt it’s the 1st card, so the regular issued cards from Donruss, Fleer, and Topps (#21) would be considered his Rookie cards.

    I agree with this as well.

    Yaz Master Set
    #1 Gino Cappelletti master set
    #1 John Hannah master set

    Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox

  • steel75steel75 Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭✭

    Agree with a lot of other posts here. This is a popularity contest. Mantle cards over Mays cards for example.
    A lot of vintage sets are popular over others because of the design as well.

    1970's Steelers, Vintage Indians
  • @NGS428 said:

    For Bonds I am leaning toward the 1986 traded/rookie/update cards as the rookie cards. I know there was the whole XRC designation during those years for the rookie/traded sets. I just can’t see why an 87 fleer card is considered a rookies when he played in 1986 and already had a Fleer update card in 1986.

    If I used the above reasoning on Griffey cards then I should consider his 1990 Topps card a rookie card. That card has never been considered a true RC. All must have to do with Beckett designation of the XRC and dropping that after 1988.

    The consensus during most of the 80's was that if you couldn't pull it from a pack, it wasn't a true RC. Beckett solved this problem with the XRC designation for factory-only sets. 1990 Topps would not have been considered an RC even if Beckett hadn't killed the XRC designation by then, as he had numerous pack-pulled cards in the other 1989 sets.

  • steel75steel75 Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 15, 2019 7:56PM

    It's just in this case Topps is king and the 3 picture RC is just not appealing to a lot of collector's as his 1st Topps "solo" card.

    1970's Steelers, Vintage Indians
  • NGS428NGS428 Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Donyoguy said:

    @NGS428 said:

    For Bonds I am leaning toward the 1986 traded/rookie/update cards as the rookie cards. I know there was the whole XRC designation during those years for the rookie/traded sets. I just can’t see why an 87 fleer card is considered a rookies when he played in 1986 and already had a Fleer update card in 1986.

    If I used the above reasoning on Griffey cards then I should consider his 1990 Topps card a rookie card. That card has never been considered a true RC. All must have to do with Beckett designation of the XRC and dropping that after 1988.

    The consensus during most of the 80's was that if you couldn't pull it from a pack, it wasn't a true RC. Beckett solved this problem with the XRC designation for factory-only sets. 1990 Topps would not have been considered an RC even if Beckett hadn't killed the XRC designation by then, as he had numerous pack-pulled cards in the other 1989 sets.

    Gotcha. I was looking within brands only, not considering if other brands had already released a regular issue.

  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    On December 12, not one Fleer PSA 10 listed. Only 1 has sold in last 3 months. Many Traded, Regular Topps and Donruss available and have sold in the last three months. They are drying up.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like the Fleer Ripken is or has caught up to the Topps price wise. The last several fleer psa 10's sold for $100 - $200 more. POP might matter.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,274 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is my Fleer I self subbed. Thought it had a shot. Going to leave it in its 9 holder and be happy with it. I had been trying to find a deal on a 1982 Topps Traded PSA 10 for a while but I did not get one before prices started jumping. Now I just have to wait to see if there is an ebb to the current flow.

    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Donruss PSa 9 - 2700; PSA 10 - 659
    Fleer PSA 9 - 2545; PSA 10 - 301
    TTraded PSA 9 - 3900; PSA 10 - 396
    Topps PSA 9 - 6465; PSA 10 - 542

    Here is the current pop of the 1982 Cal RIpkens. At every turn, it's not close. PSA 9 and PSA 10. Blow outs. 25% less Fleer 10's than TTraded, that is very significant.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • jeffcbayjeffcbay Posts: 8,948 ✭✭✭✭

    I've been watching the Topps #21 in PSA 10 for about a year now since I sold mine back in 2016 when my son was born (needed some cash #NoRegerts). I'd like to buy another one. The covid boom had this card selling for over $4k but has since leveled back out at just under $2k. What sucks about the price leveling out is, they are seldom ever listed for auction on ebay. NONE sold from November 18th ($1825) to January 14th ($1925) and then a BIN on January 19th for $2095. There are several currently listed, but all for covid boom prices. I'm just waiting patiently..

  • bighurt2000bighurt2000 Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭

    Are there any numbers on how many 1982 Topps Traded Sets were produced?
    James

  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bighurt2000 said:
    Are there any numbers on how many 1982 Topps Traded Sets were produced?
    James

    Not that i know, but apparently is was pretty abundant. More of those have been graded than the Fleer card.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • ndleondleo Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Another factor is how much unopened product is left. I think there are fewer unopened 1982 Topps Traded sets left compared to a full season product like 1982 Fleer.

    I picked up my 1982 Topps Traded Ripken PSA 10 when 4SC listed a bunch a few years ago. If I recall prices for the Traded fell significantly once 4SC exploded the pop. I wasn't in the market for one but the price was so attractive I couldn't pass it up.

    Mike
  • GoDodgersFanGoDodgersFan Posts: 1,391 ✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2022 10:36AM

    Collected the Ripken RCs in Junior High and still one of my favorites. The long term hold of the 1982 Topps Traded PSA 10 is fantastic. Iconic card and also a great guy.

  • Fleer had three printings of their cards in 1982. To call them common as dirt would be an understatement! But they were also poorly printed and cut, so that helps the value a little bit.

Sign In or Register to comment.