A Valuable/Valueless Argument
POSTED May 14, 11:36 AM
    Who was the greatest center fielder in New York in the Fifties? What is the best baseball card set ever—before the war and after? Who had the funniest name? The largest head? And how about the ugliest mug only a mother could love? There are a few topics that will be debated forever, and the one that I keep hearing about lately is the idea of value, and more specifically, the appropriateness of assigning a value to a card produced after a certain date, and whether or not it's worth buying.

    Some people might tell you that no card made after 1969 has any significant value, and that it’s a waste of time to even consider otherwise. Others believe that value in cards ends with 1989 and that the last card to have any worthwhile value is the Griffey rookie in that year’s Upper Deck set. And then there are others still who eat up what the Becketts and the Krauses feed them about inserts, low production runs, high-end product and other mid-Nineties innovations that have since become standard hobby practice: that the high pack prices they pay and their perceived or actual scarcity ensures their value. And the truth of the matter is, all three groups are right. And none of them are right. I know my conclusion is a little vague. Let me explain.

    The collectors who insist on 1972 and before have it right because it’s pretty easy to walk into a hobby store and ask for and receive boatloads of commons and star cards from the Seventies through the present. It’s much harder to walk into the same hobby store and ask to see 1953 Bowman Color and be presented with more than two or three examples. Of course that’s just an example, and I would venture to say that if you make the rounds of the major paper and ephemera shows (like Allentown, Hartford, etc.), you’d have a better shot of finding older cards than new. They also have it right because not only is it harder to find specimen (if you don’t where to look), it’s harder still to find specimen in decent condition. So this argument has a double dose of scarcity: actual, physical scarcity in terms of number of cards, and scarcity pertaining to those in decent condition within that universe.

    But vintage collectors have it wrong when they pull up their tree house ladder and alienate the rest of the hobby, especially novice collectors who don’t know where to start or what to believe. If anything, the first image a new collector sees in a book, magazine, on the internet or in a museum is invariably the 1952 Mantle or the T206 Wagner (though if it’s a lucky kid who just got a book of Dover reprints, he or she might see the 1912 Cracker Jack Shoeless Joe first). Point is, impressionable minds are confronted with the unimaginable riches of old baseball cards every day—why do we need to shoo them away from those that they can actually afford? There were plenty of cards made between 1973 and 1989 that are suitable for investment, perfect for younger novice collectors looking to get a foothold in the hobby. And with the relatively new idea of professional grading, cards from this time period are enjoying a second life.

    Yet like the first group, there are holes in this argument. Not all of the cards made between 1969 and 1989 (and really I should extend this time period to 1995 or so) are worth investing in, where as most to all of the cards made in the first hundred or so years of cards are (even if in relatively poor condition). In fact, you could say that when I said there were plenty made between 1969 and 1989 that were suitable for investment, I should have said that there were a handful made that were suitable for investment—a short stack from nearly twenty-five years of cards. Truthfully, many of the cards made in the Eighties and early Nineties (and you could write a whole book about this, and maybe someday I will) are completely worthless today. It’s a hard fact to face and it pains me to write this…tears clouding vision…Kleenex accumulating next to keyboard…but it’s true. The reason? Well, let’s just say that scarcity will never be a problem for most to all of the cards made in this time period. Of course there are other factors, and exceptions to the rule, but for the most part if a card is still readily available everywhere, nearly thirty years after it was made, it’s just not worth very much (at all).

    So that just leaves us with one last category of collectors: the new stuff guys and girls. And really, this is where the idea of ‘significant investment’ gets the trickiest to navigate. Even with the respective demises of Fleer and Pinnacle and the proverbial denial of the car keys to Donruss by Major League Baseball, there have been so many different sets made in the last ten years that it’s kind of ridiculous. Still, those companies that do still make cards (Topps and Upper Deck) have figured out a formula that seems to work for them: a fleet of sets and brand imprints aimed at different collectors (with different budgets) all offering sort of the same thing.

    On average, a set will have less than 500 base cards, at least one limited-run parallel set, a number of separate insert sets and a lot of jersey, bat, seat and other memorabilia and autograph chase cards. So where are the cards worth the time and money? Well, it’s probably not the base set—which is a total shame, and probably the first sign that the end of the hobby is near—though short-printed base cards are making a comeback (sort of like an insert set within the base set). And it’s probably not the low-end insert sets either.

    No, the real spot for investment-level cards is the memorabilia or ‘relic’ and autograph chase cards. Of course this is a no-brainer, seeing as how before the card companies chopped up the bats, gloves, bases, seats and jerseys to fit neatly onto cards they were real pieces of sports memorabilia with real scarcity and real value.

    But you’re not getting the whole bat or the whole jersey—just a little swatch of it. And because there have been so many sets, with so many different inserts and relic and autograph cards, is there really a market for all of this stuff?

    I don’t know. And I don’t think anyone will really know for sure for another ten or fifteen years. By that time I’ll be up in my tree house, yelling down to anyone who’ll listen that you shoulda got that 1983 Topps set back when it was $75—the last set with rookies of three bona fide Hall of Famers, two retiring legends and a Super Veterans card of Gene Garber. Now that’s a real investment.
0 Comments: Add
 
Caring for Your Collection
POSTED May 11, 2:29 PM
I’ve been thinking a lot about how I should display my collection: boxes in my closet, in random stacks around my apartment, or in pages in a binder? Displaying and caring for cards is one of the biggest topics in the hobby, with Ultra Pro just about cornering the market in mostly-transparent plastic sheets with holograms on them. Admit it, it’s the hologram that gets you first, then it’s the dust-free plastic, and then, late at night just before you decide to load that old 1990 Topps Brewers team set into pages, it’s the smooth, smooth plastic caress against your stubbly cheeks that convinces you Ultra Pro is good enough for your precious cardboard. I’ve been down that road many times and it’s all good: I recommend Ultra Pro. In fact, if you’re serious about showcasing your cards in a binder or you want to teach a kid how to appreciate the high art of baseball cards, I recommend buying Ultra Pro pages by the box. I don’t know how much it costs for a box of 100 pages, but the last time I did it (about 10 years ago) it was around $20 to $25. Paginating a set and running out of pages when you’re knee-deep into it sucks. Don’t be that guy. Buy pages by the box.
    For those of you who’ve never bought pages or paginated a set, the standard size (modern) baseball card fits into upright 9-pocket pages. Larger-sized cards, like those from the Topps sets 1952 to 1956, fit into horizontal 6-pocket pages. Of course, I’m sure that Ultra Pro makes about a billion different pocket configurations, so you should look at their web site (www.ultrapro.com) or visit your local hobby shop to determine what’s best for your cards.
    If you don’t want to buy a 3-ring binder and some pages, then you’re a cheapskate and your loved ones probably don’t expect much from you on their birthdays or around the holidays. That said, boxes in a closet aren’t all bad. There are specially-designed cardboard boxes that can store 300, 600, 800 or more cards like a vending box. They don’t cost very much, and they’re good for stacking (especially for those of us with collections that populate well over 150,000). Of course, if you don’t want to splurge on the 2 bucks it costs for a sportscard box, there’s always the prospect of a shoebox, or if you don’t have the cash for kicks, there’s the recipe box standby. Here’s how that works: see where your mother/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/ friend/coworker/neighbor keeps their little flip-open box of recipes. I bet it’s somewhere in the kitchen. Now, when they’re not looking, steal the box, dump out all the recipes and keep your prized cards in there. I would recommend slipping a rubber band around the stack of recipes (perhaps even the very same rubber band that kept all your cards together) and hiding the recipe box somewhere in your room. Then, methodically swipe hard, uncooked macaroni elbows from the kitchen (and a bottle of glue), and garishly adorn the recipe box with said items. When it’s completely covered (and unrecognizable…see where I’m going with this?), take it out of its secret hiding spot and use it to proudly showcase your cards. When your friends ask why you’re showing them your baseball cards in a ridiculous macaroni-covered recipe box, tell them you made it at summer camp when you were a kid. And try not to make eye contact with your mother/wife/girlfriend/ boyfriend/friend/coworker/neighbor when you say this. He/She can usually tell when you’re lying—you’re a horrible liar. My advice would be to spend the $1.95 on a stupid 800-count cardboard box.
    Pages, boxes, what am I forgetting? Toploaders! Right. Toploaders give the impression that your cards are valuable (when they are, in fact, most likely not). They are the prerequisite for dealers at card shows, so don’t be fooled: just because that Topps Archive Gaylord Perry’s in a toploader does not mean it’s valuable. It still costs less than doing a load of laundry. But toploaders are great for cards, because if you have all your cards loose in a shoebox (like me), they prevent the corners from nicking. A toploader is really two pieces of hard plastic with just enough space for a card to slip inside. It’s lightweight, good for transporting your priceless/worthless possessions to card shows and begging dealers to buy them, and it’s also great for stacking. Here’s what it’s not:

1) A toploader is not the same thing as a screwdown case. Card storage products are generally named for how a card relates to them. To use a toploader, you load a card in at the top. To use a screwdown case, you put the card between the two pieces of hard plastic and, with a screwdriver, screw the two pieces together, trapping the card between. See the screwdown case example pictured.

2) A toploader is not recommended for the transport of cards to a card grading service. Professional graders generally ask for the card to arrive in a flimsier hard plastic sleeve. I’m not entirely sure why this is.

3) A toploader is not a good surface to affix Scotch tape.

4) The plastic used in cheaper quality toploaders is prone to discoloration if left in the sun.

5) They bend if under a lot of weight. The frame withstands weight but the two ‘window’ pieces of plastic do not.

6) The plastic used is not always smooth, requiring the use of a soft sleeve for the card, and lots of banging to get the card down in there.

7) And then, when you inevitably want to get the card out of there, well, it’s a hassle.

8) A toploader is not good for those who want their cards to survive with perfect corners. Corners will most likely be damaged.

9) I now understand why professional graders do not like toploaders.

    Top loaders and soft sleeves are good for beginners and seasoned collectors alike. As long as you know what you’re in for and what to expect, everything should be good.
    Collecting can be fun. Hell, it is fun. If it’s something you enjoy but you don’t know how to justify your obsession to those you care about, displaying your cards—either in binders, boxes or a stack of toploaders—is a great way to start.
0 Comments: Add
 
My Favorite Subset: 1981 Donruss Managers
POSTED May 7, 1:47 PM
I am a man of many favorites. That’s why it’s easy for me to appreciate the manager cards from 1981 Donruss: the stark simplicity of what is, in essence, a headshot or a blurry medium shot of an old man is rendered both wonderful and painfully boring. The other years when Donruss put out manager cards, the company thought it necessary to include them within the scope of ‘regular’ cards: posed shots in the dugout to simulate a game setting or else an actual in-game photo. But by doing so, the company stripped the managers subset of the very thing that made the original subset so appealing: the fact that these guys could actually pass for your grandfather, portrayed in ways not far removed from those in which you’d seen your grandfather photographed. Sure, you’re grandfather probably didn’t dress up in a Cleveland Indians uniform, but like Dave Garcia, he probably used a cane, and he did have an honest look about him (that is a cane that Garcia is resting his hands on, right?).

And if not your grandfather, then at least one of your no-good good ole boy uncles, like John Goryl. He looks like he just got bailed out of jail, or at least like he just got slapped across the face. And if not a good ole boy uncle, then definitely an unpleasant guy who makes your life unpleasant in some way, whether he’s a traffic cop, a boss or a high school principal. And really, all that’s missing from Dave Bristol’s forehead is ‘Dork’ spelled out in suntan lotion (much like Captain Harris’ misguided day in the sun from the immortal Police Academy 5: Mission Miami Beach). Seriously, where does Bristol’s Giants jersey end and his face begin?

And how can we forget Jim Frey? I bet the Donruss photographer found this photo after rummaging through the trash at Frey’s local post office, because it’s obviously an unused passport photo—the background gives it away.

Overall, the uniform colors are great, the skin tones horrible, and many if not all of the managers are photographed up against some kind of wall. The only exception I can think of is Joe Amalfitano’s card where it looks as though he was photographed leaving the Cubs’ team bus on the highway to pee.
1 Comments: Add | Read
 
One Man's Trash is the Same Man's Treasure
POSTED May 5, 9:47 AM
    I’ve decided that I’m going to try to complete the 1981 Topps set. No big deal, I have most of the commons; all in all it will probably take me $10 to buy the star cards I need. But that’s not what I want to talk about. The reason I’m telling you this is because as I was sorting through a stack of cards last night, this card of Kevin McReynolds fell out. I—being the practical guy that I am—promptly threw it in the trash. Now, you may ask, “If you’re a baseball card collector like you say you are, why are going around throwing cards in the trash? Isn’t that the very antithesis of collecting?” And of course you’d be right. Sort of.
    You see, there are two different kinds of collector: the discerning collector who only buys what will fit within the rest of his collection and the guy who buys everything he sees. One collects, the other amasses. See the difference? It’s very faint, but there nonetheless. The funny thing is, oftentimes collectors fit into both categories. We follow whims.
    So back to that card of Kevin McReynolds. My act of throwing it in the trash proves to myself that I can be someone with standards; that I am a collector and not one who merely amasses. It’s a big deal to someone whose entire contents of his closet—and bookshelves, and boxes under the bed, and on the dresser—would prove otherwise.
    Really, what am I going to do with one more 1990 Upper Deck card of Kevin McReynolds? Especially one where he looks like a balding Michael Eisner with a mustache?
    He does kind of look like Eisner, doesn’t he. Hmmm…. That’s kind of funny. I should maybe post something on The Baseball Card Blog about that. You know, maybe I’ll just take this out of the trashcan. 1990 Upper Deck isn’t so bad. I’m sure I have room for one more card on my desk.
    Sure, I reached back into a full trashcan and fished out a card I deliberately tossed, but I still have standards, I swear. I mean, it’s not like we’re talking about 1988 Donruss.
0 Comments: Add
 
A Few Fantastic Cards to Start the Day
POSTED May 2, 9:13 AM

Poor Rusty. Who’s idea was it to take his photo in front of a chainlink fence by the parking lot? Or did he have a bus to catch back to the minors? By the way, why does it look like he was cut in half by a magician and then poorly reconnected? You want to talk about old man pants; he’s got ’em hitched up close to the elbows. I would bet five dollars that his belly button is below his belt.

Also, I bet you another five that he was frightened by the flash for this photo and reached over and ripped that light tower out of the ground...



...Either Fred Gladding had a medical condition (is that hair growing under his eyes?) or he got to Spring Training late from a double shift down the mines. Whatever the case, the man should’ve taken a bath before he had his card photo taken...


...Vicente Romo had a brother Enrique who was generally considered an oddball (The Mysterious Enrique Romo). But how’s this for weird: who poses like this by choice? And on more than one card? He was a pitcher, for crying out loud. Show him in his windup. Or was this his windup? Did he crouch, start bobbing up and down while singing Minnie the Moocher and then flick the ball at home plate?...


...Oh, and Willie?


The camera’s down here, buddy.
0 Comments: Add
 

More Entries (2)


Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
     1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
 

(page generated in 0.19 seconds)