Question for MW and others about #1 cards [Archive]

View Full Version : Question for MW and others about #1 cards

Archive

11-22-2002, 09:57 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)  I saw a thread on the SGC board that sparked something that I wanted to ask. Are the first cards in a numbered set really that much more difficult to find in high grade? Can the same be said for those sets issued in the 60s? As a kid in the 60s, I always sorted my cards by teams, usually with the team pic on top. Checklists were used to see what cards were needed and already had. Frankly everyone I knew did it this way. So card #1 was really no different than any other. I'm wondering how many of the folks on this board can say the same. I guess I can see some vintage sets, e.g. '33 Goudey being kept in numeric order, as there were no checklists, although I probably would have still sorted by team if I were alive back then. Unnumbered sets really should place no premium on the first guy in the alphabet-- I really can't see kids sorting the cards that way. Sure, some #1s are of star players who were more likely to be handled and were more desirable, but it seems like some #1s are priced extremely high by virtue of their number alone. Again, are they really that hard to find? regards................Todd

Archive

11-22-2002, 10:02 AM

Posted By: runscottI always sorted mine by team. The numbers meant nothing to me other than an i.d. on the check-list. The most beat-up ones in my collection were the "power hitters", since we played a version of card baseball where you swatted paper wads with the cards, trying to hit the wad over certain objects in the room. I used particularly disliked player cards, or cards with "large faces" as dart-board targets - Pete Rose was my favorite to destroy, after he turned down my 6-yr old little brother for an autograph.

Archive

11-22-2002, 10:27 AM

Posted By: jay behrensyears of hobby experience by many dealres has bore out the fact that the first and last cards of a set are always tought to find in high grades. Almost every collection I ever looked at and/or bought had the sorted by number. the same si true, but to a lesser extent for unnumbered cards. It ahs always been my experience that finding high grade examples of abbiticchio is tough, no matter what set he is in. Jay

Archive

11-22-2002, 10:43 AM

Posted By: Marc S.#1 cards are legitimately tough for a period of time --ending around the late 1950s. After that, there has been enough unopened and other well-preserved product to help maintain critical mass quantities of #1 cards in top condition. This is partially clouded by the fact that Topps often put a star/notable player in the #1 slot of many of its 1950 and 1960 sets. Star cards often are found more well-preserved than many commons for certain years. Additionally -- sheet placement may be somewhat of a factor. Some issues over the decades have indicated that cards that are on the perimeter of the sheet tend to be cut off-center more than middle cards. This is not true for every issue -- and it happens more on the right side than on the left side of sheets, but it is something that may be worth more investiation. MS

Archive

11-22-2002, 10:49 AM

Posted By: MWTodd – Like you, I also kept my cards in team order. Beginning in the 1950s, however, entire sets (or series) could be ordered through the mail. When these sets were collated and placed in a box, the #1 card was always at the front. Later, in the 1960s and 70s when Presentation and Factory sets were distributed, the #1 card was always packed in the front of the box or series of boxes. Also, keep in mind that the #1 card and last card in a set were typically oriented in the upper left hand corner and lower right hand corner of the sheet before it was cut. The likelihood, then, that some damage or miscut would occur, was greater.

Archive

11-22-2002, 11:01 AM

Posted By: leonhow many times have you seen rubberband marks on the first and last cards?...especially earlier ones, as most have pointed out.....regards all

Archive

11-22-2002, 11:29 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)Good info- thanks..... Leon, that's kinda my point. I can see team pics, manager cards, favorite players etc (however you sorted your cards) being rubber banded to death, but that's one monster rubber band if you kept your whole set in one bundle and in numeric order. Even by series, that's alot of cards. Jay, I hear ya. I've been told by dealers for 20 years that they encounter probs with first and last cards, and I believe them, although they pretty much agreed with me that cards were likely sorted by team or other, non-numeric means from the 60s on. As for how they were brought to you for sale,it makes sense that they were organized numerically, for you to more readily determine if any were missing. I have trouble believing, however, that the cards were originally collected that way. You want to show your buddy your latest hero- you know to look in the Twins pile (had to get that in), you don't memorize card #344. MW- I wasn't really factoring factory/send-away/presentation sets, although that makes sense. Still, how small a percentage of cards were obtained this way as opposed to the old-fashioned by the pack method? Also, I am unaware of the sheet placement for the cards. You and Marc make good points on that, although it seems that, given the short prints in many high-series sets from the 60's, at least the last card wouldn't necessarily occupy the bottom right-hand corner. Runscott- even though it probably cost me a lot of future investment potential, I too found joy in beating up Pete Rose cards- via the bike spoke method. Regards............Todd

Archive

11-22-2002, 11:48 AM

Posted By: MW<< You and Marc make good points on that, although it seems that, given the short prints in many high-series sets from the 60's, at least the last card wouldn't necessarily occupy the bottom right-hand corner. >> That's one of the reasons for printing some cards in lesser (and greater) quantities than others -- so that all the cards will fit exactly on one sheet with the last card appearing in the bottom right-hand corner.

Archive

11-22-2002, 11:42 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI seriously anyone went to the trouble to sort their cards before I looked at them. Shoe boxes and Velveeta cheese boxes seemed to be the msot popular ways to store cards. Jay

Archive

11-22-2002, 11:51 PM

Posted By: MW<edited

Archive

11-23-2002, 07:49 PM

Posted By: brian parkerGlad to know that I was not the only one who stored cards in Velveeta boxes. The cardboard bottom was nice and sturdy, but a bit of a tight fit, and the paperboard tops were a little flimsy but at least you didn't feel like you were going to ding up the corners when putting cards back into it. Here's to the makers of gelatinous cheese products! Brian