#1 cards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Hi,<br />New to the forum, but have been collecting and dealing on and off for 30 years. What is everyone's feeling on premium prices for # 1 cards in sets, i.e, 1952 Topps Pafko, 1933 Goudey Bengough, etc. When I was a kid, we did keep cards in rubber bands, but not necessarily the number one card on top. By series, team, etc., were also ways to keep them. In my 30 years of dealing, I have only seen a card advertised with rubber band marks a handful for times, and they were not even the number one cards in the set.<br /><br />How did this start, and is there any legitimacy to it?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>1 card was alomost NEVER on top(1979-83 were his collecting years). However, I paid a healthy premium for my #1 Diamond Star vg-ex/ex Grove. I especially associate the #1 card phenomenon with the thirties--[perhaps people were particularly numerically-organized then). The '33 Goudey Matthews (another LAST card.)But then--when I was finishing my '56 Topps set and got the last card (not the checklists--those are pristine) from Mark Macrae, he said "I only got you a vg-ex one, becuase it's so hard to find in near mint condition." I believe the first Crcaker Jack (in both sets) has a premium. Have no IDEA what the first T206 even IS. Or Colgans--though I once had a plentiful supply of them.<br /><br />The first T202 had NO premium attached--there's a minor HOFer (Wallace) on one end; I don't think people even know how Scrapps were organized (but probably into two teams, at least), and I don't know where, in the set, the 8 baseball players are in the N162. The first Old Judge probably hasn't been discovered yet. I'm equally ignorant of the first Mayo--hey, did they HAVE rubber bands in the late 1800s? Lots of boxes, and trimming cards to fit in them, etc. Also those terrible albums with cards stuck in with wood glue, the imperishable...<br /><br />I'm sure what you want is FACTs, not random experience...<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Thanks Julie,<br />Our shared experiences becomes fact. My feeling is the # 1 phenomenon is mostly myth. I can understand premiums on certain cards due to position on the sheet (my experience is mostly with post-war) so I will mention 1967 Topps Tony Perez, and 1952 Bowman Football Large Jim Landsford.<br /><br />The premium on all # 1 cards, and to a lesser degree, the last card in the set I do not understand. In the case where a set had 500+ cards, I don't think I had a rubber band that big when I was a kid.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>The question of #1 cards usually being in the poorest condition is not a myth. That is a fact. I was the most active baseball card collector of anyone else I knew as a kid growing up in the 60s. Many of my friends also collected. During the summer, we didn't always have that #1 card on top of the stack. But I kept all of my sixties cards and some of my friends did also. Everyone of us, after the baseball season was over, would always place the cards in numerical order with the #1 card on top. We didn't think at all about &quot;proper&quot; storage techniques, so depending on the size of the stack, the cards were placed in a rubber band or just stored loose in a shoebox. But in general, the #1 card usually took the hardest hit as far as wear.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gary B.</b><p>In the comic book world, the #1 edition of almost any comic commands a premium, often very significantly higher than any other issues, with often the #1 being the only one of any real value at all. Since for the most part baseball card sets all come out at once (except in the high number phenomena), technically there should be no reason for a premium on a #1. If there is, it's due to as Steve described, kids putting cards in numerical order (I honestly can't remember if I ever did that as a kid - probably) and therefore the #1 getting the biggest hit, but otherwise I see no good reason why any #1 would be worth more than a #427, unless of course #1 was Mark McGwire and #427 was Marty Barrett.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>edited as it was already explained well enough.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>When is the last time you saw an ad for a card with rubber band marks?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>The further back you go (say, pre-thirties, or even moreso, pre-20s, and even moreso JUST TOBACCO)) the fewer kids collected. A Man of cigarette or cigar or pipe smoking age was much less likely to put a rubber band around his cards than a kid. Of course it HAPPENED that grown men would buy the product, and give the card to a boy; but compare the number of times this was likely to happen to the number of BOYS who bought PACKS of cards with bubble gum, or boxes of Cracker Jacks, or other candy and gum products that came with cards. And even if Dad was buying, son would likely take over the box (still full!)<br /><br />What made me think of this was the premium on Cracker Jacks, and the no=premium on T206s, T207s, T202s, T204s, T3s, etc.<br /><br />And of course it was in the '30s that gum came into its own with cards...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Spencer, John</b><p>I tend to agree that the rubber band theory is a bit of an urban myth, although I did once have a #1 '34 Goudey Foxx with a clear paper clip impression. What I don't understand is why certain #1 cards carry such a hefty premium, e.g. '33 Goudey Bengough and others, such as US Caramel, certainly far fewer in quanity than the Goudey's, #1 Eddie Collins, a HOF'er, commands no premium that I can determine. Very confusing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I know that most collections I looked at had their cards sorted numerically. Some were in rubber bands, some not, but all were in shoe boxes or velvetta cheese boxes.<br /><br />The most impression collection I ever saw was a group of 1952-54 Topps cards. When I looked at he 52s I didn't see a Pafko on top and when I started looking at them, they were in order, so I thought he didn't have the card. About half way through the stack, I ran across the Pafko. The finest one I've ever seen. SAdly, the gentleman passed away before I could complete the deal to purchase the collection. He also had 49-52 Bowman and some 55 Topps All-Americans and those little college football cards with team pennants on the back that were about the size of a postage stamp along with the wrappers.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Jay,<br />Sorry you couldn't complete that deal. I had several of the 1950 Topps football wrappers and got over $100 for each. Also had 2 Joe Paternos in good condition and got $1,300 for both.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>The guy dave me a couple of wrappers for nothing. He had a small grocery bag full of them, Well over 100, still unbroken. I sold one in an auction I held in 1990 and it went for over $300 and sold the other for $250 at show. He had 5 or 6 Joe Pa's and just as many or more Leo Nomalini's.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett</b><p>It seems to me that with a little research one could easily figure out about the whole #1 card being in worse condition idea. All one would have to do is do some research of the grading companies pop reports. One would have to keep in mind that they should compare #1 cards of the set to the star players in the respective sets. Compare the quantity that have been graded along with the average conditions of those that have been graded. If for example 100 1961 Topps Ron Santo RC's have been graded by PSA and roughly an equal # of Dick Groat's have been graded, find the average condition of those that have been graded (one should probably throw out an equal # of cards from each extreme to normalize the results) and see if there is a significant variance. One would have to do this for multiple sets and years, and from such a study one could determine if this is indeed an actual trend, or merely a myth. Obviously this wouldn't be an exact study but it would be informative, if someone has the time and desire to do so. (I personally don't). But I would be interested in any info somebody finds by doing so.<br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Many #1 cards are damaged by being at the corners of the printing sheet. That would hold true for other corner cards too. Be interesting to contrast the high grade populations with known sheet corner cards.