80’s Unopened cello box question
JimMeant
Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
If you had a choice between purchasing a 1981 Topps baseball unopened cello box vs. a 1982 unopened cello box...which would you choose for modest future appreciation and why?
-Collecting anything vintage
0
Comments
1982 - Ripken Rookie
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I don't know if I can come up with a credible response as to which of the 2 would have any noticeable advantage for future appreciation in value. I believe the inherent values are already baked in after 37+ years, so any spike would be from factors most likely independent of player selection in those sets. 81s were the first cards that I ever bought, and I've also always liked the 81 design much better than the 82s, going back to my early collecting days, so would probably opt to buy those, personally, just for nostalgia's sake (although the 82s have grown on me over the years and the gap has narrowed between my preferences).
One thing I've always heard, sort of an urban legend, was that the print run for 81s was much less than the surrounding years, due to the upstart Donruss and Fleer issues taking a chunk of pre-order market share. Then, with the strike in the summer of 81, sales were further depressed, and there were a lot of retailers returning product at the end of the year. Strangely, I'm not sure I've ever seen an X-out box of 81s. The perpetrators of this legend never seem to explain the effect the competition and the 81 strike had on the production of 82s, although I have seen many X-outs of 82 baseball. Also, Topps famously reused the leftover stock of 81 and 82 wax boxes to package some of their 85 wax packs, so there's that...
But you're talking cellos, and honestly I have no idea what advice to give. If they were guaranteed unsearched FASC, I go back to my personal preference of 81s, as there's just a better selection of "personally desirable hits" that could be showing on the packs.
I'm quite certain if you forced me to make a case for the 82s over the 81s, I could probably talk myself into those, too. For now, though, my answer is the 81s.
If you watch ebay, the Facebook groups, or any of the other available markets for unopened product, I feel like the 1981s are available in lower quantities than the 1982s. 82 has Ripken, but that's the only significant difference between 81 and 82. If supply is decently lower on the 81s, I would tend that direction. But pricing and recent history has shown that people seem to like the 82 design more than the 81, and thus 82 boxes and packs of all sorts have carried a premium over 81. I don't think you can go wrong with either, quite frankly.
kevin
Both are comparable in value and appeal so you can't really go wrong with either one. 82 does have the Ripken RC which is primarily why its worth the same as 81 even though it's a year later.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I think both will have a slow and steady future appreciation. It is all about supply vs demand.
1982 gets my vote
1981
Seems like flipping a coin is the way to determine this.
I would go ‘81 - two HOF rookies (Baines and Raines) - (spelling them both out makes me wonder if the veterans were misreading Baines as Raines when they voted him in) vs. just one in ‘82. Also have the allure of the no PSA 10 Valenzuela.
Don't forget Lee Smith.
Doesn’t matter between these two choices. just your personal preference. 81, 82 and 83 Topps have been the same price for the five years I’ve been back in the hobby.
Not sure I agree with that. I was thinking that unopened 1981 Topps especially has seen a slow, steady rise in value in the recent years that I’ve been collecting. Probably due to the set registry, collectors chasing certain cards in high grade, and Raines/Baines making the HOF.
I don't think any unopened pre 1986 is at the same price point as it was 5 years ago.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
If you're willing to put down a few hundred for a cello box, perhaps think about putting down a couple hundred more for a rack box of 1981 Topps. Harder to come by and more appealing, at least in my eyes. I was lucky enough to get one a couple years ago at around $300.
I'm very much attached to my '81 cello box.
But I'm even more in love with my '81 rack box. And, yes, the Valenzuela was in the box when I got it.
Andy
Holy cow, that’s nice! Were the 81 cellos showing on top when you purchased? Or did you re-arrange them a bit to show off some star power? Either way, pretty sweet!
Thanks. The only one in the box that is not original to the box is the the Raines cello. Only the Valenzuela and Schmidt cards were showing when I purchased.
Andy
You could probably buy a 1981 AND 1982 vending box for the same cost as one cello box from either year.
Vending is too problematic. Not comparable to the big 3 in my eyes. Plus it takes a back seat in the display category as well. It has its place. Just not on stage with rack, wax, or cello.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
True but vending doesn't carry same appeal to unopened collectors retail packs do.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Everyone keeps saying 82 has the Ripken rookie but the set registry says his rookie didn’t come out until the traded set?
plus 1 for the 81s.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
It was a shared rookie card in the ‘82 reg set. Maybe you are talking about his 1st solo
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
It was sarcasm. The HoF rookie registry includes the 82T for reasons that are beyond me.
82 for me
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
81s have been growing in price faster than the 82s and 83s, but in my opinion that's because they have been undervalued for a while. You could get an 81 wax box for 100 when 82s and 83s were 200. Now 81s are starting to catch up. The 81 rack boxes are starting to be more of a beast. Try to find one of those for under 500 now.
kevin
Guess that invalidates my main reason. I did forget Lee Smith!