Fun With Illogical Correlations: Part II (Kobe Chrome Refractor Rookie)
ReggieCleveland
Posts: 3,854 ✭✭✭✭✭
Kobe Bryant's 1996 Topps Chrome Refractor is the Kobe rookie. It's not even close. Like a lot of marquee cards, the Chrome Refractor saw a spike around summer last year and it's been a $15,000 card ever since. It makes sense, he's an all-time great and the Topps Chrome Refractor has a sterling history of year-in-year-out being one of, if not the, best cards to own of a player's rookie catalog. They're usually pretty condition sensitive and are usually in short supply to begin with. There's also a simplicity to the card -- it's essentially a variation of a variation of the Topps base card.
So how strong is the hobby's Chrome Refractor routine? How much do we just draw to it instinctively without examining its surroundings? Let's compare it to something strikingly similar.
Here's the Chrome Refractor in PSA 10 (not mine)
Again, a variation of a variation of the Topps base card. The Refractor PSA 10 is a pop 63 out of 387 total graded. This is a $15,000 card.
Now, look at this:
This is the parallel set Topps created to celebrate the NBA's 50th year. Unlike the base Topps from that year, it has a metallic finish, like the Chrome. It is a variation of the base card. This in a PSA 10 is a pop 51 out of 453 total graded. There are less PSA 10s than the Chrome Refractor and it has a lower PSA 10 rate than the Chrome Refractor. This card will run you $275-$350.
Same year.
Same brand.
Both variations of the same card.
Same image.
Same metallic borders.
Same player.
Same grade.
Rarer card = ~$300
Less rare card = ~$15,000
Comments
Or you could get a 1996 Topps PSA 10 Kobe for $50
Same year.
Same brand.
Both variations of the same card.
Same image.
Same metallic borders.
Same player.
Same grade.
The difference is, there's a ton of regular base PSA 10's. My point was that there are actually less NBA 50th.
Chrome is king.
Were the NBA 50th pack inserts too? I know they came in factory sets. But both sets I've ripped those cards were stuck to the other set inserts and tough to remove without a little damage. That may play into their condition sensitivity.
This is like saying: "Note the value difference between this T206 Honus Wagner and this 1988 Topps base card. Also note that they are BOTH MADE OF PAPER".
The value difference in the examples are because one is designated as THE rookie card and people who collect want the primary rookie. Not a card that looks pretty similar.
You can't assess based solely on objective attributes, like those listed.
I don't think it's anything like saying that. Your statement isn't founded at all in logic. A T206 Wagner and an '88 Topps base card? Really?
Do you believe the two Kobe cards are that different? They're both Kobe rookies. I'm by no means saying that they should be of equal value. Obviously the Chrome, as I stated pretty clearly in my original post, is the Kobe rookie. I simply found it interesting that two cards that are so similar, not just in rarity (which we debate about with other cards all the time) but actually even down to appearance, could have such drastic differences in value based solely on "Chrome is popular." Chrome is most definitely popular and, as has been mentioned earlier, Chrome is indeed King. But as collectors, we're also prone to become slaves to rarity so it's not simply a case of saying "from this day and every day to come, everybody only concern yourself with Chrome refractors."
You misinterpreted that portion of my post. I wasn't saying those objective reasons were qualitative reasons for value. We debate and discuss the values of different cards all the time based on populations. This was another example of that. What made this even more interesting were all the other attributes that, while played no role in each card's value, played a large role in eliminating potential white noise we could point to in our attempt at explanation.
Also, chill out. This is supposed to be fun. There's no need for caps lock, overdramatizations or hyperbole.
I love these posts..... gets us to thinking!
You got to love the law of supply and demand. God bless Capitalism.
My post was fun, hence the dramatic Gob Bluth paper reveal. Perhaps you were the one misinterpreting.
The rookie refractors from this set are indeed fascinating. Not only is there robust demand due to a solid crop, but if you whip out your shovel you can also excavate some extreme lunacy. To wit:
https://ebay.com/itm/PSA-10-THE-CARD-ELITE-COLLECTORS-WANT-CHROME-REFRACTOR-RAY-ALLEN-1996-CENTERED-/191860210333?hash=item2cabc27a9d:g:iZQAAOSwX99ZpNH-
To Reggie's point, earlier this year I bought a 96T Ray lot that included his ref in a nine (pop 51) and an NBA 50th dime (pop 7). The former card was the impetus behind my purchase. Conversely, the latter was -- and still is -- nothing more than a cute little throw-in.
ReggieCleveland;
), I noticed an insane amount of his rookie autos/rpa's with price ranges all over the place.
This is a good point you bring up.
I was actually thinking about this similar topic yesterday. While I was searching ebay for a Carson Wentz Rookie auto (possibly for investment purposes
It just makes you think, how the hell can one autograph be worth more than a different autograph from the same set? One company puts out 50 of his autos in one set, then will put the same auto on a different card from the same set but number it out of 20, 10, 5 or 1. If you add them all up it still comes out to be 86 autograph cards for that years set. But people continue to drink the cool aid. On second thought, I think I'll stay away from RPA's.