second year cards more valuable than rookies?

[begsu1013]

52 mantle
71 munson
92 favre stadium club
76 george brett (in psa 9)
71 blue
71 buckner
62 williams (in 8)
t210 jackson
92 martinez bowman


edited to add honorable mentions:

71 bench
52 campanella
67 maury wills
86 ryne sandberg in 10
52t mays in a 9. (no recent 51b 9 sale)
73 joe morgan 9 (until recent hof rc buying group surge bubble, at least)


interesting side notes of this thread:

lou pinella has 3 two player rookie cards.
bill davis has 5 topps rookie cards.

__________________________________________________ __________


can be pre or post, but curious what other player's second year card is considered more valuable than their rookie card in the same grade.

don't mind if regional/obscure oddballs/xrc's are thrown into the mix, but really wanting to concentrate on the predominate runs....

the 52 mantle is a world unto it's own obviously, but a prime example of what i'm looking for is the 71 munson. even in a 8, it's nearly 2x's what you can pick up his 70 in a 9 for...

any other examples that you can think of?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Your examples are not good. Mantle is that high of a price ONLY because it is the first year of Topps.

To answer the question, truly depends on the player. If it's a top prospect, nothing sells more than hype in your example.

If it's an outside 100 prospect or whatever, they may have significantly more value their second year (depending on performance of course).

This is for current minor leaguers. Buxton great example. His prices will go up most likely because it's hard to do as poorly as he did (he clearly could be worse). But they may not reach his hype peak ever again, unless he starts doing what he was scouted to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

71 Bench in high grade is worth more than the rookie.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

71 Bench in high grade is worth more than the rookie.


Condition sensitivity? I totally forgot that aspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

52T Campanella probably worth more across the board than his 49B

[begsu1013]

same grade. it's up there.

i noted the mantle.

i think the munson is a fantastic example.

especially considering the 71 8 almost doubles what a 70 9 goes for!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Condition sensitivity? I totally forgot that aspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, exactly. Or in the case of the 52 high numbers (Campanella example), just plain relative scarcity.

[Peter_Spaeth]

same grade.

Yes, Bench 8 in 1971 sells for more than Bench 8 in 1968 I believe.

[1952boyntoncollector]

52T Campanella probably worth more across the board than his 49B

I think you got to go by the same card company...where the 2nd year is worth more than the rookie....its a bit unfair to compare bowman 'rookie' with Topps (pseudo rookie ie. First Topps Card')

You dont see 'first bowman card' for a reason...you only see first topps card...

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Yes, exactly. Or in the case of the 52 high numbers (Campanella example), just plain relative scarcity.



52T Campanella probably worth more across the board than his 49B


And that 49 Bowman set is so unattractive. Right, makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[begsu1013]

71 is not bench's second year, but nevertheless a good call.

and it would be nice to keep it the same company but even that's asking too much, i think

perfect world, same company, same grade and keeping it rookie year vs second year...

but it's hard to put any boundaries here, so throw out anything ya got...

even the 71 bench 8. ; )

[Peter_Spaeth]

In general I would think these could yield any other examples.
1. Where the RC is an undesirable black and white issue like 39PB (Ted) or 48B with no corresponding Leaf (Berra).
2. Where the later card is a scarce high number.
3. Where the later card is in a condition sensitive set but none comes to mind except 71T.

[begsu1013]

definitely agree.

i think any examples produced will be products of the 52t, condition sensitive sets like the 71 or simply rc's that happened to land in an unattractive set.

[1952boyntoncollector]

definitely agree.

i think any examples produced will be products of the 52t, condition sensitive sets like the 71 or simply rc's that happened to land in an unattractive set.

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

[Peter_Spaeth]

Name a player whose second year card was six years after his RC. Both Topps.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Name a player whose second year card was six years after his RC.


Second card a Goudey issue? ;) lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Second card a Goudey issue? ;) lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Topps for both.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Topps for both.


Dang!..I'm sure someone on here knows. Gotta be either a military break or a cup of coffee then didn't make it back up for a while. Maybe Adam Greenberg?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dang!..I'm sure someone on here knows. Gotta be either a military break or a cup of coffee then didn't make it back up for a while. Maybe Adam Greenberg?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oops I had the question wrong sorry!! He had a first year card, a second year card (I didn't realize he had this one damn just found out), and then his third card is not until five years later. And there is a second player with a four year gap between his first and second cards. 50s/60s era.

[begsu1013]

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

ignoring.

[Rookiemonster]

1969 topps Johnny bench is pretty close .

The only other card I can think of off the top of my head is in football . Brett Favre 1992 stadium club high series .

[begsu1013]

will add the 92 favre.

[Paul S]

Oops I had the question wrong sorry!! He had a first year card, a second year card (I didn't realize he had this one damn just found out), and then his third card is not until five years later. And there is a second player with a four year gap between his first and second cards. 50s/60s era.

Not sure if this falls into the realm of your intent, but Maury Wills' rookie card is a '63 Fleer, and he didn't get a Topps until about 5 years later ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[begsu1013]

that's kinda why I said hard to put any boundaries on the rules...

is the topps card more valuable than the fleer in similar grade?

if so, i'll add it to the the honorable mentions list....

[Paul S]

All things being equal, I'd say they are equally negligible in value, but the Fleer has the cool factor...so I guess I'm out (unless I get points for spelling negligible?):)

[begsu1013]

seems to certainly fit the from my brief research in a psa 8 grade.

edit: points for negligible awarded as well.

[the 'stache]

Besides being a high series card, the Favre Stadium Club card is unique, as his first Stadium Club card was issued when he was an Atlanta Falcon. The second, more valuable card, was issued when he went to Green Bay. Munson, Bench, Mantle et all stayed with the same team for their careers. The Falcons gave up a future Hall of Famer. The Packers fleeced the Falcons badly. <3 Ron Wolf.

[MR RAREBACK]

.

[MR RAREBACK]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

joe nuxhall josh hamilton gap after rookie card

No idea about Hamilton. Not Nuxhall. The ones I was thinking of are Mike Cuellar (59 60T then no card until 65T) and Lou Piniella (64T then no card until 68T). I had not thought of Wills but that is a great one.

Speaking of Piniella he must be the only player to appear on THREE of the two player rookie cards -- 64 68 and then again in 69. All with different teams.

[Mikehealer]

This isn't a great example, but in cards graded a 9, George Brett's '76 card almost doubles his '75 card. Not so much in 8's or less.

[ALR-bishop]

[QUOTE

Speaking of Piniella he must be the only player to appear on THREE of the two player rookie cards -- 64 68 and then again in 69. All with different teams.[/QUOTE]

Check out Bill Davis

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE

Speaking of Piniella he must be the only player to appear on THREE of the two player rookie cards -- 64 68 and then again in 69. All with different teams.

Check out Bill Davis[/QUOTE]

That is absolutely incredible.

[JustinD]

will add the 92 favre.

I think the 91 Wild Card 1000 Stripe would be a Rookie and far more valuable than the 92 Stadium Club.

[Touch'EmAll]

Historically, when did rookie cards become THE card of a player - most expensive? Back after WW2, in the 1950's, in the 60's or early 70's? When exactly did rookie cards become the most sought after, highest priced, even though not most rare cards of a particular player? Who made up the rookie card rules, who is most responsible for the rookie card craze? Was it one person, a small group, or did the public at large all of a sudden decide, yeah, thats it, the rookie cards - and forever more they will be over prices relative to the rarity of the other cards?

[glenv]

I don't think rookie cards really shot up in price until the 90s. There was a price guide from the 80's that had a Garvey rookie for $6, the '72 for $25, and the '73 for $4. Most cards in it cost more the older they were, but no huge premiums for rookies.

[begsu1013]

I think the 91 Wild Card 1000 Stripe would be a Rookie and far more valuable than the 92 Stadium Club.


trying not to set boundaries, but you are entering into the realm of variants which i think negate it from being removed. plus there is a 91 stadium club, so i gotta leave it at this point...

[steve B]

Historically, when did rookie cards become THE card of a player - most expensive? Back after WW2, in the 1950's, in the 60's or early 70's? When exactly did rookie cards become the most sought after, highest priced, even though not most rare cards of a particular player? Who made up the rookie card rules, who is most responsible for the rookie card craze? Was it one person, a small group, or did the public at large all of a sudden decide, yeah, thats it, the rookie cards - and forever more they will be over prices relative to the rarity of the other cards?

It actually made sense back in the late 70's when I first got into collecting. I asked the same question.

The reason was that most kids only collected for a few years, usually 2-4 maybe a bit longer. And at the time most players weren't great their first year.
So a kid collects say 51-54, gets an Aaron, along with a bunch of earlier cards.

Now in 55 he's making room for whatever his new interest is.

And either he gives the cards to a younger brother or another kid, or he or mom throw them out. But maybe he keeps a handful of cards of favorite players.

It's unlikely the new kid in Milwaukee who hit 13 homers and batted .280 is in that group.
So the rookie card becomes a bit less common than say the 55 where a kid may have collected from say 55 to 59 and might be more apt to save the established star.


That being said, card survival was an iffy thing. My own Reggie Jackson rookie survived a move and 6 years in the toybox. I also checked out a good friends card "collection" before he gave it to his nephew. 5 early 70's cards total not all the same year. All commons except the 73 Schmidt.
And when my moms coworker brought in her kids collections for me to buy she kept maybe 10 cards. Her kids favorite - Mantle of course.

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not sure if still true but there was a time when 92 Bowman Chipper Jones cost more than 91 Bowman.

[begsu1013]

This isn't a great example, but in cards graded a 9, George Brett's '76 card almost doubles his '75 card. Not so much in 8's or less.

i would like to thank mikehealer for point out my complete idiocy. i am a huge collector of the 76 brett card. even snagged that recent psa 8.

the 76 brett is almost impossible to find w/o a tilt, a severe pd and it's almost always completely oc. to find one otherwise is a true needle.

you are completely right and im an idiot.

the 76 in a 9 most certainly trumps a 75 in a 9.

this fits the criteria of exactly what i'm looking for.

so great example and good work!

[tschock]

As in Ghostbusters, crossing the streams is bad (comparing Bowmans to Topps, for example), and it makes it difficult to reasonably compare '48-'51 Bowmans to '51-'52 Topps. So if we shouldn't compare inter-company cards (and I basically agree with that), then we are left comparing intra-company cards. Which then also means that we will at times be comparing second cards to first cards and maybe not true 'rookie' cards. With that in mind, I think most if not all First/RC from the '51 Topps set would be less than those from the '52 set in similar condition.

[Peter_Spaeth]

i would like to thank mikehealer for point out my complete idiocy. i am a huge collector of the 76 brett card. even snagged that recent psa 8.

the 76 brett is almost impossible to find w/o a tilt, a severe pd and it's almost always completely oc. to find one otherwise is a true needle.

you are completely right and im an idiot.

the 76 in a 9 most certainly trumps a 75 in a 9.

good work!

A 1975 PSA 9 just sold for 2765 in PWCC, whereas the prior ones mostly seem to go in the high 1s. I wonder what was so special about this one.

[begsu1013]

[QUOTE]Check out Bill Davis

al,

might not fit the criteria...(hadn't researched all 4 cards yet on pricing yet)

BUT

that is incredible and making a note on the original post.

and thanks for teaching me something today!

[Peter_Spaeth]

At least in PSA 8, 1971 Topps Vida Blue outsells 1970 Topps RC. Same with 71 Buckner.

[Rookiemonster]

If we are getting grades involved then willie Mays fits . 1951 bowman to 1952 topps is the same for the most part in the mid range . The 1952 is cheaper in poorer conditions . But in high grade the 52 goes for more .

There are a lot more 52 out there then 51s .

[Peter_Spaeth]

Whenever I see your smiling face, I have to smile myself...

[brianp-beme]

Whenever I see your smiling face, I have to smile myself...

Did this poor guy ever end up getting a card all by himself? Talk about the perpetual rookie.

Brian

[ALR-bishop]

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.M1e965e43489ccd3f8c510ab63583c921o0&w=212&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

[ullmandds]

Whenever I see your smiling face, I have to smile myself...

how does this even happen?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Did this poor guy ever end up getting a card all by himself? Talk about the perpetual rookie.

Brian

That's the other funny part of it. No, at least in the next several years which I checked.

Oops see below.

[ALR-bishop]

See post 48. Courtesy of Bob Lemke maybe ?

[Peter_Spaeth]

See post 48. Courtesy of Bob Lemke maybe ?

That'll learn me for relying on ebay. :D

[begsu1013]

so lemme get this straight...

poor ol bill davis had 5 multiplayer rookie cards...

and if that wasn't enough, never had a card all to his lonesome?

[brianp-beme]

Check out post # 48...Mr. Smiley finally had a card to smile about. Wait a minute! Is that a fantasy card?

Brian

[mrmopar]

72 Garvey was almost always "worth more" in the books than the 71 RC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Check out post # 48...Mr. Smiley finally had a card to smile about. Wait a minute! Is that a fantasy card?

Brian

If it is, it sure fooled me. :eek:

http://ratingtherookies.blogspot.com/2015/04/1967-topps-indians-rookie-stars-bill.html

[begsu1013]

72 Garvey was almost always "worth more" in the books than the 71 RC.

what? seriously?

[Peter_Spaeth]

what? seriously?

Yes in Beckett days for sure. High number.

[begsu1013]

complete fantasy card, so never had his own card! d@mn.

not only that, the guy was 6'7 and had to fit in on a card w/ someone else or 3 other dudes.

so you know when he flies, he always gets the middle seat too. poor guy.


Yes in Beckett days for sure. High number.



whopwhop.

[begsu1013]

so thanks to this thread, i found out about ol bill davis.

had to put his rookie, err i mean player set together!

here she is:

http://caimages.collectors.com/psaimages/26029/24937999/65davis10.jpg

http://caimages.collectors.com/psaimages/26029/22409528/66davis9oc.jpg

http://caimages.collectors.com/psaimages/26029/05468021/67davis9.jpg

http://caimages.collectors.com/psaimages/26029/07222152/68davis9.jpg

http://caimages.collectors.com/psaimages/26029/12318856/69davis8.jpg

[pokerplyr80]

It's not a second year, but an 86 Topps Sandberg PSA 10 is worth much more than his rookie, the 83.

[pokerplyr80]

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

This is mostly correct. With the importance and value of RCS a card would have to be condition sensitive or part of a rare series, short print, etc to be worth more. That's why there are such few examples. Second year cards that just look better like a 69 Ryan or 64 Rose aren't worth more for their appearance alone.

[begsu1013]

that works. good example and will definitely add that to the list.

[pokerplyr80]

It's an 11 year gap but the 52 topps Reese sells for more than his 41 playball RC in most grades.

[quitcrab]

Kind if strenching it here ...1967 and 1971 Brooks Robinson sell for as much as his 57 rookie ...especially the 71

[quitcrab]

Kind of strenching it here ...1967 and 1971 Brooks Robinson sell for as much as his 57 rookie ...especially the 71

[glynparson]

A 1965 fritz ankley is worth more than a 1964 and a 1973 Ron cry is worth more than a 1972.

[Rich Klein]

Way Back in the day:

1990 Leaf Steve Avery > 1989 Topps Avery

1992 Stadium Club Brett Favre: 1991 Stadium Club Favre

Don't know prices of today

Rich

[ls7plus]

Getting back to the original question, I would assume that Gabby Hartnett's second year card, from the very tough '23-24 Exhibits issue, would be worth more than his rookie 1922 W-strip card. I have the former. Anyone actually aware of a sale of the latter? Great, underrated catcher, by the way.

Best to all,

Larry

[clydepepper]

That was some fun trivia Peter - thanks for posting!
.
.

[clydepepper]

Kind of strenching it here ...1967 and 1971 Brooks Robinson sell for as much as his 57 rookie ...especially the 71


1967 was the last year that the different series were released separately, and the last or high series had shorter production runs.

1971 is possibly the most condition sensitive Post WWII set but it still shouldn't be more than the underappreciated 1957 set which was a landmark as the first set of what has become the standard 2.5 x 3.5 size.
.
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In high grade at least 57 Brooks go for much more than 71.

[Peter_Spaeth]

A 1965 fritz ankley is worth more than a 1964 and a 1973 Ron cry is worth more than a 1972.

lol

[clydepepper]

Not his second-year card, but I bet the 1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese card is noticeably more valuable than his RC (1948 Leaf?). - and that's probably just based on the cards' appearances.
.
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not his second-year card, but I bet the 1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese card is noticeably more valuable than his RC (1948 Leaf?). - and that's probably just based on the cards' appearances.
.
.

I would think his 52T high number is more expensive than the 53B. In any case his RC is 1941 Play Ball (and Double Play).

[Snapolit1]

No Pee Wee Reese in the 49 Leafs.

[CW]

Haha nice Davis run, Bob! That's actually pretty cool to see them back to back. The '66 doesn't look bad at all for being qualified as OC.

[The Nasty Nati]

1957 Topps Frank Robinson...I'm cheating as he never got a card for his rookie year in '56. IMO for an outstanding HoFer it's a very undervalued card.

[clydepepper]

I would think his 52T high number is more expensive than the 53B. In any case his RC is 1941 Play Ball (and Double Play).


Obviously, after I got my 53 Bowman, I just forgot about the rest...very embarrassing. :eek:
.
.
.

[pokerplyr80]

The T210 jackson is a second year worth a lot more than his e90-1 rookie.

[begsu1013]

adding the 62 Williams in an 8 and t210 Jackson back to the original post.


thanks peter and jesse




edit: and i think we have a clear case w/ the most recent 71 munson sale @ $30K

[jason.1969]

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc
Here is a same-company example--Monte Irvin 1951 Topps Red Back vs 1952 Topps.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[xplainer]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1976-TOPPS-19-GEORGE-BRETT-PSA-8-ROYALS-25036367-/231895247481?hash=item35fe08aa79%3Ag%3AqP8AAOSwQjN W-rRs&nma=true&si=xPF3qTm1a6UwVcAOlTn%252BDWQuPZU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Some one explain this. I'm missing something.

[begsu1013]

error in the listing.

it's properly back....

$350 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1976-TOPPS-19-GEORGE-BRETT-PSA-8-ROYALS-25036367-/371598522640?)

[kevinlenane]

I always thought the 41 Play Ball Ted Williams should be the leader card for him over the 39 Play Ball true rookie. The 41 card is a gorgeously colored portrait and the 39 is such a blah black and white card with absolutely nothing on the front. The 41 is definitely diproportionately valued for what it is in sequence - but I hope in the future that card actually surpasses the rookie based on the love that clearly went into it. Ditto for the 48 lead. Unlikely though...

Disclosure - I have both and my 39 is in a higher grade.

[thenextlevel]

I always thought the 41 Play Ball Ted Williams should be the leader card for him over the 39 Play Ball true rookie. The 41 card is a gorgeously colored portrait and the 39 is such a blah black and white card with absolutely nothing on the front. The 41 is definitely diproportionately valued for what it is in sequence - but I hope in the future that card actually surpasses the rookie based on the love that clearly went into it. Ditto for the 48 lead. Unlikely though...

Disclosure - I have both and my 39 is in a higher grade.

Agreed on the 41 Williams. I purchased a few of his other cards before I bought his 39.

[Matt]

In an attempt to bring this thread in the pre-war forum around to, you know, pre-war: Bill Terry.

[packs]

Tris Speaker's E-90 Caramel is always going to outsell his T206

[Baseball Rarities]

The 1903-04 E107 Breisch Williams cards of virtually any player who was also issued in the 1902 W600 Sporting Life set.

[MVSNYC]

Those Sporting Life cabinets are amazing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's modern but at least in PSA 10 and presumably elsewhere there are a couple of 1992 Pedros worth more than his 1991 Upper Deck Final edition.

[begsu1013]

lemme know the verbage on the pre war cards you guys are referencing and i'd like to add them to cover the full spectrum...

if not, no worries.


and pete, got specifics?

if so, will add those to the top as well.

[pokerplyr80]

With that 52 Mays PSA 9 sale of 480k it may be worth more than the 51 Bowman in a 9. Although I haven't heard of any recent 51 sales in a comparable grade.

[Peter_Spaeth]

lemme know the verbage on the pre war cards you guys are referencing and i'd like to add them to cover the full spectrum...

if not, no worries.


and pete, got specifics?

if so, will add those to the top as well.

92 Bowman for sure.

[xplainer]

92 Bowman for sure.

Yeah, the 92 Bowman for sure.

[begsu1013]

.

[BeanTown]

The T210 jackson is a second year worth a lot more than his e90-1 rookie.

Plus, this pre rookie of Joe Jackson shown below. I might add Cy Young to the list to. He Has an 1891/2 JA Rogers cabinet card in street clothes and his Just So 1893 card would be greater.

[Harliduck]

As a set collector these popped into my head...after McClain and Stanley the others may be a bit lame, but certainly fall into the criteria...:D I do think the first two though are significant...especially if your looking to buy those two in NM for your sets...




1965 Topps Denny McClain RC #236
1966 Topps Denny McClain #540

(66 High Number)


1966 Topps Mickey Stanley RC #198
1967 Topps Mickey Stanley #607

(67 High Number)


1965 Topps Gary Kroll RC #449
1966 Topps Gary Kroll #548

(66 High Number)

1965 Topps George Smith RC #483
1966 Topps George Smith #542

(66 High Number)

1962 Topps Tom Tresh RC #31
1963 Topps Tom Tresh #470

(63 SP)

1962 Topps Don Clendenon RC #86
1963 Topps Don Clendenon #477

(63 SP)