Common question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I guess that a HOFer can not be a common, but aren’t there instances where some are priced as such? And I would think that rare cards can not be considered common, but equally rare cards of equivalent condition will show the better known player most often commanding a higher price, and the more “common” player, a lower price. How about rookie cards – can they ever be considered common? And what about record holders … Jack Taylor pitched 187 consecutive complete games; when will that record be broken? Is he a common? Which unique cards are commons? <br /><br />But wait, isn’t it a demand/supply thing too? It seems anytime you want a t206 Cobb, ’52 Mantle, etc., all you have to do is go on line, select the grade which you prefer, and bid appropriately. But try to find a Batter Up Medwick in any grade. So which of these three are common?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>I think it depends on a lot of factors.<br />As you have said major HOF cards can be easier to find then rare commons.<br />I think this needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. There are SO many factors that go into this. Maybe the common was a short print but the HOF not. <br />People are also more liekyl to care for and save the HOF and popular players while the commons get tossed around and forgotten about.<br />Just look at the E90-1 Mike Mitchell it sells for HUGE money even in poor conditon.<br /><br />Sometimes it takes a long time for these rare commons to differ from the common commons, I think this has a lot to do with how popular a set is. After all if a lot of people are wokring on sets and can't find the same "common" then obviously there is something special about that card.<br /><br />All sets have these types of cards especially if your looking for them in higher grades.<br /><br />You also need to factor in price and demand. The mantle's and cobb will always be worth more then a tough common in equal grade because they are in much higher overall demand by more people.<br /><br />James Gallo<br /><br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>The term common is a long standing hobby term. The term is basically used for any non-HOR or non-star player. As time goes by, it basically means any non-HOF player. There are very few non-HOF stars from the pre-WW2 era that command a premium above a common. PLyers that come to mind are the Black Sox players and Moe Berg. Jewish players tend command a premium, but most people, like myself who are not Jewish, could care less if a player is Jewish and won't pay a premium becaue of it.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>As Jay pointed out, "common" in the hobby means non-HOFer/non-star, with a few exceptions like the Black Sox players. Hal Chase and Joe Wood are good examples of non-HOF stars ... certainly not "commons". Roger Maris is a good example for more modern players.<br /><br />As such "common" has nothing to do with rarity, as there are many examples of uncommon/rare/expensive cards of "common" players.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Yes, Roger Maris is a good example of one of the points I intended to make. He is considered a "star" eventhough he is a lifetime .260 hitter, who once hit over 40 HR in a year. Well, admittedly it was way over 40. But Jack Taylor (a non-star) pitched 187 complete games, in a row, that he started. Why is one a star and the other a common? Maris' stardom is predicated on a single season's achievement while that of Taylor is a career.<br /><br />And Taylor is only one example of the fact that significant achievement does not necessarilly equate to stardom. To me, holders of noteworthy records are not "commons". Or more accurately, since they often are commons, their cards are bargains from a baseball historical perspective.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>Gil:<br /><br />Maris' achievements were not exactly "one season." He won back-to-back MVPs in '60 and '61. Maris was a legitimate power hitter. His career was pretty much done by the age of 30 because of complications from diabetes. He is another one of those "what he could of been if not for..." stories. Kirby Puckett was elected into the HOF, in my belief because of what may have been if he had not had macular degeneration. He had zero MVP awards. His numbers, by themselves, don't appear to be HOF worthy. I don't have a problem with Kirby getting in because of his fate, but Maris deserves the same "circumstances" consideration.<br /><br />He would get one of my votes...if I had one.