Cracker Jack Cards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>I have recently picked up a few of these from both the 1914 and 1915 sets and am thinking about working towards completion. Anybody know which cards are more difficult than others? Besides the obvious stars. There always seem to be some commons that are more difficult to find. I was also curious as to why SCD has the '15 Cicotte so much more than the '14. $750 to $375. Seems odd since there were more '15's produced.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>You'll see that MANY 1915 cards list for more than 1914 cards. Espcially the Black Sox. But others, too. SOMEBODY told me: The 1914 set is much harder to collect in great shape, because all the cards were distributed in boxes of crackerjack (naked, I presume). With the '15 set (I know you know all this already), you could also send in to the company and get an entire set, so there are many more CJs 1915 in great shape than there are 1914s. SO: Collectors are easing up on the '14s,because the set is so hjard to complete in great shape, and putting their dough into the '15s, which drives the demand up, making the '15s (but only some of them--explain THAT!) cost more.<BR><BR>I had originally thought--assuming I can--that the Black Sox cost more in '15 because it was closer to 1919. Then I noticed that the Jackson did NOT cost more in 1915. Which is why someone told me the above story. I didn't say it was true; I said I listened to it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J.S. ELKINS</b><p>14's are encountered less frequently. So, the MOST RECENT prices from sales are of 15's - and are higher than the 14's which SCD might not have any info. on sales for a few years of particular cards. In reality, in the same condition, 14's are worth FAR GREATER!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>My unscientific observation is that 1914's are much harder to find in any condition. It is certainly the case in high grade because of the possibility of getting factory sets as Julie mentioned, but my experience is that you simply see 1914's much less frequently in general.<BR>Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>VintageChris,<BR><BR>Drop me an email and let me know what CJ's you are looking for, I recently bought a good group.<BR><BR>delsass2000@yahoo.com<BR><BR>Thanks, Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>Many high-end collectors eschew the 1914 set simply because it is generally unobtainable in high grade. Often - a set's value and popularity will <i>increase</i> somewhat when it is more readily obtainable. There are numerous baseball card collecting instances where this is the case, it seems. It is no real coincidence that some of the most popular set and most valuable sets ever are also those that are generally available throughout collecting circles. (e.g. so many T206s, 1933 Goudeys, 1952 Topps, etc.)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>The top three most difficult 1914 Cracker Jacks in order are:<BR> <font class=caTerm>1 Roger Brenahan no </font><BR>#2 Frank Chance<BR>#3 Christy Mathewson<BR><BR>ALL are difficult, but these three are VERY rare.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>That should be Roger Bresnahan no # on back.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Julie hit it right on the nose...... The 1915s are in more demand because it is an easier set to complete. The 144 card 1914 set is very tough because they were only obtained one at a time in the boxes. While the 1915s you could buy the complete set of 176 cards for 25 cents or find them one at a time in boxes. Far more 1915s out there. Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Pcelli60</b><p>You will need a boat load of money to collect these sets. And if recent eBay prices are indicators- even "off-conditioned" cards have become more expensive. I missed the boat on these babies...Good Luck...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julian Fernandez</b><p>My only 1914 Cracker Jack, it's virtually impossible to find them in higher grades, or centered. About two or three private collector's have all of the good ones.<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1090132218.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>But if I HAD to buy a graded card, it'd have to be a lower grade, since I just crack them out anyway.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Does anyone REALLY agree with the "ST" qualifier (stain) on this card?? <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR><img src="http://www.lewisbaseballcards.com/classes/baseBallCard/images/563Lg.jpg"><BR><BR>I have seen MANY of these Cracker Jack cards with more caramel stains that did NOT get a qualifier. Just my luck.<BR><BR>Stupid PSA. GRrrrrrrrrrrr

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Well, it does have stians. I am sure it comes back preferential grades that certain submitters submitters gets from PSA. Now you just need to figure out who they are and get them to resubmit the card for you <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>Yeah, slight stain noticable at the top. Was going to post my Cicotte that got a whole coffee-pot (or chaw) spilled over the top of the card, but have to wait till tomorrow. Does anyone but me run out of space in their temporary files?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I never run out of space because I host my own pictures.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Pcelli60</b><p>The Maranville does not deserve a qualifier ! Some staining should be tolerated in a set that was distributed in Cracker Jacks boxes..

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>This would be a good time for me to ask about condition of certain sets again since nobody replied to my post a couple of weeks ago. How much do you think stains on cracker Jack card brings the condition down. I know you are disappointed in the qualifier but if the card did not have a qualifier it should not be an 8. would it be a 5, 6, or 7? If you had to grade this card without qualifiers, what would it be? I am interested in hearing what the board has to say about this. Also curious to know how much you take off for grading T207's with those funny cuts. Were these cards cut by hand? Does anyone know?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Personally, I think the stains on Cracker Jack cards are actually cool, provided that they don't affect the image. The cards were distributed with caramel, so the stains add character to the cards. I know I'm in the minority here, but it's just my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I especially think that your thought is correct in respect to the 1915 cards ... because the stains would prove that the card came in a BOX (much cooler) and not as part of the "mail order" set.<BR><BR>The fact that a card was in a box of cracker jack and is STILL worthy of a PSA 8 grade is a miracle in itself.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>The fact that so many CJs have stains is precisely why a legitimate nm/mt example is so amazing. I think the Maranville deserves the "st" qualifier. Assuming one were to buy such a card blind (obviously you wouldn't, but just go with me on this), who would not be upset with receiving it and finding those stains if it did not have the qualifier. People would complain that it was overgraded or that the stains were not indicated. I don't think it would need a qualifier as an ex/mt 6 or possibly even a nm 7, but an 8 is an extremely high grade and I don't think slack should be cut for CJs because they came packaged the way they did. It just means they are harder to find in high grade, at least the 1914s. If we don't do this, then we can end up having different grading criteria for a whole assortment of sets. Speaking of which, I think all the grading companies overgrade Old Judges on a regular basis. Just my opinion.<BR>Jim<BR>P.S. I think the Maranville is a beautiful card and I would love to own it. I think it is a shame that the qualifiers seem to lessen the resale value so much - out of proportion to the problems the indicate quite often.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The card does have stains.<BR><BR>I guess the way I would look at it is that a "ST" qualifier on a caramel card like this is MUCH LESS de-valuing to the card that it would be on a card that should NEVER have any stains on it (like a Topps card, etc.)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>A card is worth what anybody would legitimately pay for the item. It's true worth comes about when the person that owns it will not part with it for any legitimate offer in cash or trade.<BR><BR>From a collecting sense wouldn't a CJ card with stains on it in a high grade be worth more to a collector than the same card without the stain? This is purely from a collectors point of view. Something that was widely distributed individually rather than sold in a complete set offering is tougher to find in nice condition. Receiving a complete set would remove all the fun of putting the set together. I always figured a set put togther card by card would have more sentimental value than a set purchased in whole.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brad Freeman</b><p>I am with Andy on this. There is something neat about some staining on these cards.To me it makes them seem more real, as if I had taken them out of the box myself.