I like it HH.

Mantle was also a good old country boy with natural athletic ability and a love of beer and late nights. His family had a history of bad health and early death, so he burned bright in his prime. A quote that is often attributed to Mantle is "If I knew I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself".

Fans liked him, so many things were overlooked, then and now. He is one of the "boys of summer" from a bygone age. In that regard Mantle has obtained a reputation that goes beyond even what he actually did as a player. Whether its deserved or not, he has legend status, and that's what matters to sports card collectors.

Maybe after Topps makes the first Star Wars card of The Child with his name Grogu printed on the card people will be debating “why is Grogu so valuable?” also?

So true. People often question my choices of cards to collect. I really don't have answers. My guess it is an obsession that gets focused wherever it wants.

quote:

Originally posted by Heroes For Hire:
Maybe after Topps makes the first Star Wars card of The Child with his name Grogu printed on the card people will be debating “why is Grogu so valuable?” also?

There is a debate on another board about Grogu's rookie card. . . Which I think is absurd. First Appearance, sure -- but rookie -- nah.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
There is a debate on another board about Grogu's rookie card. . . Which I think is absurd. First Appearance, sure -- but rookie -- nah.

What might be an ironic similarity to the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and an upcoming 2021 Star Wars card with the name “Grogu” printed on it would be that both would have had cards the previous years.

One of the biggest differences between collecting sports cards and non-sport cards is that the rookie card does not exist in inon-sports cards. All base cards have the same value as any other base card in the same set. All insert and parallel cards have the same value as any other insert or parallel card in the same set. Even "First Appearance" carries no long term higher value as an individual card in a set, maybe just some short term initial demand.

It's just how supply and demand works for the two categories of card subjects. Sports card demand is driven by individual performance, while non-sport card demand is driven by the popularity of the title/subject. All like cards within a non-sport product that are not premium hits have the same value, unless they are short printed within the group. In that case, the group will have the same short printed value for all those cards.

Only non-sport premium hits like autograph cards, relics and sketches are sufficiently effected by the demand for individual signers or artists or merchandise to make them in greater demand. and thus have varying values, for something other than the title. It makes sense because those hits can be associated with a real person as opposed to just a character portrayed by a person. The person goes on to other things, even as the show or movie may fade from memory and demand lessens.

Sure people want The Mandalorian cards, but Grogu's rookie card? Who is going to fall for that?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Who is going to fall for that?

The people that I see trying to label entertainment cards rookies (so far they are looking at various SW cards including the first several 1977 SW cards) seem to be sports card collectors -- no surprise there.

I saw some sales of individual GPK series 1 cards from COMC on eBay that really surprised me a few weeks ago. I think that GPK and SW may starting to break traditions of entertainment cards as in these particular genre's there are collectors who are driving up prices of individual characters.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
All base cards have the same value as any other base card in the same set.

Not really. Some counter-examples:

1957 Topps Planes #9
Red Menace #23
Horrors of War #240 and the Hitler Cards
Novelty Gum Action Cards #9
Strange True Stories #24

Any WW2 card set with a swastika.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
All base cards have the same value as any other base card in the same set.

Not really. Some counter-examples:

1957 Topps Planes #9
Red Menace #23
Horrors of War #240 and the Hitler Cards
Novelty Gum Action Cards #9
Strange True Stories #24

Any WW2 card set with a swastika.

I believe you are citing cards from all vintage sets and they of course have values that may differ from each other, as they have various condition grades and are trading as individual purchases. First number and last number in a set usually cost more. Iconic images have more value to certain people, but may not even be noticed by others. Some vintage sets had high number series or short prints that were distributed differently.

However the general statement that in non-sport card recent sets all base cards or cards in the same grouping, other than premium hits, have the same value would be true. Could you find an exception? I don't know, possibly, but that wouldn't make the rule less true.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
One of the biggest differences between collecting sports cards and non-sport cards is that the rookie card does not exist in inon-sports cards. All base cards have the same value as any other base card in the same set. All insert and parallel cards have the same value as any other insert or parallel card in the same set. Even "First Appearance" carries no long term higher value as an individual card in a set, maybe just some short term initial demand.

It's just how supply and demand works for the two categories of card subjects. Sports card demand is driven by individual performance, while non-sport card demand is driven by the popularity of the title/subject. All like cards within a non-sport product that are not premium hits have the same value, unless they are short printed within the group. In that case, the group will have the same short printed value for all those cards.

Only non-sport premium hits like autograph cards, relics and sketches are sufficiently effected by the demand for individual signers or artists or merchandise to make them in greater demand. and thus have varying values, for something other than the title. It makes sense because those hits can be associated with a real person as opposed to just a character portrayed by a person. The person goes on to other things, even as the show or movie may fade from memory and demand lessens.

Sure people want The Mandalorian cards, but Grogu's rookie card? Who is going to fall for that?

Going to have to disagree with this. If you look at the sold prices from Game of Thrones Daenerys cards sell for more than other characters. Same thing in Marvel Spider-Man, Wolverine or Deadpool almost always sell for more than other characters.

quote:

Originally posted by ifish73:
Going to have to disagree with this. If you look at the sold prices from Game of Thrones Daenerys cards sell for more than other characters. Same thing in Marvel Spider-Man, Wolverine or Deadpool almost always sell for more than other characters.

Yes, you are right, but again we are getting into a "comparing apples and oranges" kind of thing. On the secondary market it is true that base cards showing certain characters or main characters are likely to have more demand. Do you see how they value base cards in the NSU guide? They have a complete set range listing and also a common base card range listing. A typical example since you bring up Daenerys might be GoT Complete where the set value is $8 - $20 and common card 1 - 73 is $.25 - $.60.

Since each box of Complete contained a full set and about half more of another one in duplicates, you could argue right there that at least the box price makes all base cards equal. Or you could say that any main character shown would make that card closer to the $.60 value ones. Or you could say, rightfully, that if base cards of Daenerys are selling for $3 each on eBay, then that's what they are worth regardless of their being no harder to find then any other base card in the set. Any one card is worth what it sells for, but the average book value may be very different from random eBay sales.

There are single character card collectors. There are single actor card collectors. There are different ways that different card collectors rank what is a common card and what is not to them. And where in a price range a particular card falls. Demand brings out the exceptions, but there is still a general rule or there can be no exceptions.

When everyone agrees that base set value is usually below where it should be for most modern non-sport products, its hard to believe that the value of main character cards is significantly higher enough to be more than an academic discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by ifish73:

Going to have to disagree with this. If you look at the sold prices from Game of Thrones Daenerys cards sell for more than other characters. Same thing in Marvel Spider-Man, Wolverine or Deadpool almost always sell for more than other characters.

Good point about Marvel.

Entertainment cards have been collected by the set for so long it can be difficult to think about individual cards being valuable. The earliest I remember seeing that was Dawn and Beyond -- there are 2 risque Disney cards that I'd see sell on eBay for $15 each when you could buy the whole set for $10. It was just odd to me. I didn't want to break up the sets that I had, which was kind of dumb since I could have made twice as much money or more selling the two individual cards than the set was worth.

I think that same sort of phenomenon is starting to happen -- new collectors in the hobby don't necessarily want a complete set. They want multiple copies of their favorite cards. This really isn't different than autograph or sketch collectors, but now we are starting to see it with base cards and low end inserts.

The reality is I think it is good for the hobby. As odd as a concept as it may seem it is starting to seem like in some cases the individual parts (base cards) may be worth more than the whole (set).

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

Good point about Marvel.

Entertainment cards have been collected by the set for so long it can be difficult to think about individual cards being valuable. The earliest I remember seeing that was Dawn and Beyond -- there are 2 risque Disney cards that I'd see sell on eBay for $15 each when you could buy the whole set for $10. It was just odd to me. I didn't want to break up the sets that I had, which was kind of dumb since I could have made twice as much money or more selling the two individual cards than the set was worth.

Back before short prints and tier base cards, that’s what some dealers used to do - buy complete sets take out the popular cards to sell for a profit. The rest of the cards just become filler that could be sold at a later date.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
I think that same sort of phenomenon is starting to happen -- new collectors in the hobby don't necessarily want a complete set. They want multiple copies of their favorite cards. This really isn't different than autograph or sketch collectors, but now we are starting to see it with base cards and low end inserts.

In some cases, space is an issue. Complete sets take up too much space. There are collectors that would rather just have a few of their favorite cards.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
The reality is I think it is good for the hobby. As odd as a concept as it may seem it is starting to seem like in some cases the individual parts (base cards) may be worth more than the whole (set).

For years in sports cards, complete sets have been valued less than the individual cards added up together. If selling, it was almost as if you had to included the bench warmers for free to sell the set since most collectors/dealers were only interested in a select few of the players.
Of course, that could work the opposite way for dealers or some patient collectors also. Buy the complete set, sell off the stars and rookies to recoup the cost and make a little profit and then slowly sell the rest of the “commons” to those collectors that were building sets.

Value is set by what people perceive it to be, and most people believe you need to pay more for a better known person or character.

If the cards are low numbered (1/1, 1/5, 1/10,..), a card of Poggle the Lesser or Yaddle, or countless other bit characters will sell for a lot less than a low numbered card of a Main Character. Even though there are the same number of cards for all, supply and demand will raise the price on the bigger stars as there are a lot more people looking for a Han Solo Auto then a auto from any characters from The Clone Wars.

The interesting thing is that does seem to hold true for base cards as well where there are literally thousands of base cards of both Han Solo and Yaddle. There is enough so that anybody who wants one should be able to get one and not need to bid up the price. But still if I were a seller, I would list a Han Solo Base Card much higher than a Yaddle Base Card and probably get somebody to buy it.

Interesting to see if TOPPS or other companies going forward start to put markers on card like TOPPS does for Rookie Cards for baseball. They could even make a symbol for each new show, so you would have a so called rookie card of somebody from the Mandalorian even though they have appeared in other sets. This would up the value of a common card, because there are those out there who would want just the Bobba Fett or other Mandalorian Rookie cards (With a M-1 marker on it) then invest in the whole set.

I am sure there is a site out there somewhere that can tall you the set and 1st time any character appeared on a card. If not, if I were a Card Company, I would try to get this information out there. This would be another way help increase the value of old common base cards - Cant you see sellers adding to their description that you need this Yaddle Rookie Card from AOTC and upping the value.

I don’t agree that all non-sport cards are priced the same within the set. They might fit in the same price range to not warrant an individual price listing though. An example that I can recall from around the turn of the century is when I was putting together the Love Bites insert set from Buffy Season 2.

1. Buffy & Angel
2. Xander & Cordelia
3. Willow & Oz
4. Giles & Jenny
5. Joyce & Ted
6. Drusilla & Spike

Not all the cards were priced the same. The Buffy & Angel card was usually in the $10 and over pile and the Giles & Jenny card was usually in the $5 and under pile. For a general price listing, the $5-$10 range would encompass those cards without needing them individually priced. But to actually sell all of the cards though some would need to be priced lower than others.

Looking up the set, it was priced in the guide $12.50-$30 with individual cards priced $3-$8 range.

Doing a quick look at completed auctions, a complete set with shipping sold for just under $10 and another just over $20 in December. But a Spike & Drusilla card sold for $12.50 by itself (almost $19 with shipping) in November.

I wonder if people are buying sets with good single and/or dual character cards and then breaking them up to sell individually like I used to see in sports cards?

We are starting to lose the forest for the trees now.

I went wrong in saying ALL non-sport base cards are equal in the set. I thought it was understood that I was talking about common base sets in modern non-sport products that can be easily found in the $10 - $20 for the complete set.

Not about vintage cards with condition and quantity considerations. Not about character specific card collectors that don't even want the whole base set. Not about super premium non-sport products that give you 2 base cards in a box. Or base cards that sell for $10 each as a minimum. Or any other exceptions to what would be called your basic, standard, 20 - 60 cent base cards.

Just your average 72 card non-sport base set that came complete out of every box, plus duplicates. And for that, MOST base cards in the set are considered of equal value to MOST card collectors. Which does differ from the way sports card collectors approach individual base cards, especially for rookie base cards. I hope that's better on my part.

As records continue to be broken, when will Non Sports Cards join in on the fun

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/t...cards-130140720.html

I'm starting to see a lot of people refer to sports cards as 'investments' again -- the last time I saw that was before the crash in the 90s.

Is this different than the 90s?

It's no different. COVID has kept everyone at home. Once immunizations are widespread and cases and deaths drop far below the level they were holding at across last year, people are going to go back to bouncing around town and traveling out of the region. People are going to sell their cards because values have bumped up and they want to go on a trip. Values are going to slide as people get out and the longtime collectors and dealers are going to wait for someone who'll sell cheap.

It reminds me of the time I was in a comic book store and a guy was bragging that he had a nest egg in comic books. I don't care if you have the first Superman issue. During a Depression, or whenever your personal Depression happens, who are you going to be able to call who will buy at the price you want. Comics, cards, and Pez dispensers are no match for ounces of gold and three months worth of food and water.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
I'm starting to see a lot of people refer to sports cards as 'investments' again -- the last time I saw that was before the crash in the 90s.

Is this different than the 90s?

My father often said, with regard to old comic books, it's one thing for someone to say that their collection is worth ________, but until you actually find someone willing to pay you that amount, what you claim it is worth means very little...