'33 Benny Bengough vs. '52 Andy Pafko

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>I always thought this was kind of strange, both Benny Bengough and Andy Pafko were comparable players, both minor stars in their time and card #1 in their respective sets.<br /><br />But it seems like the Andy Pafko has always been more valuable in nr-mt, is there any particular reason for this?<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ItsOnlyGil</b><p>Peter: in what respects are Bengough and Pafko comparable (other than you do not have a clue about either of them)?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />Okay, Andy Pafko has slightly more star power, but Benny caught for some pretty good Yankee teams.<br /><br />Also, I would think that because lots of Goudeys were thrown away in WWII paper drives, that there would actually be fewer '33 Goudeys than '52 Topps cards around.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Peter, <br /><br />Bengough was a back-up catcher with 1100 career AB's and less than 300 lifetime hits. He was out of the league when his 1933 Goudey card was released. (Of course, so was Lajoie.)<br /><br />Pafko was a 5 time All-Star, at two different positions, who had almost 6300 AB's and close to 1800 hits. <br /><br /><br />What's comparable? <br /><br /><br />The only connection was that they happened to be #1 cards in important sets. Since lots of kids kept cards together, in numerical order, with rubber bands, the condition of their card suffered. <br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jim,<br /><br />In '32 Benny played with the St. Louis Browns, so I guess you would call the Bengough a last year card. And I also give weight to catcher cards because it seems like people really like catchers.<br /><br />Pafko fits the definition of being a minor star, a 5 time all-star that never got much HOF consideration.<br /><br />Then if you agree that there's a smaller supply of '33 Goudeys, the 2 cards should be selling for approximately the same price. But I don't remember that ever occurring, the Pafko has always been more valuable.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>This #1 card in Ex/Mt to Near Mint condition should command a higher price than a 52T Pafko.<br />And, the main reason for this is that the cardboard stock that Goudey printed their 1st series<br /> cards was inferior to the subsequent series in their 1933 issue. And, this poor grade cardboard<br /> has not stood the test of time too well. Therefore, compound that fact with the #1 card factor <br />and you have a card (Bengough) that is rarely seen in better than Ex condition.<br /><br />I have seen 52T Pafko cards in Nr Mt condition, but never a Bengough card.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Now that you mention it, I've never seen a Nr.Mt. Benny Bengough #1, either. But I am thankful for the nice Bengough card I got in a trade with Steve M. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Why the rude response to Peter's question? So he didn't know that Bengough was a scrub player. Big deal.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Current SMR values for '33 Goudey Bengough and '52 Topps Pafko are:<br /><br />Bengough....EX-MT 1600....NM 6000....NM-MT 15000....MT 80000<br />Pafko..........EX-MT 950......NM 7500....NM-MT 35000....MT 85000<br /><br />I have seen a few Near Mint or better examples of the #1 Bengough card for sale in the past year and a half. Here is one:<br /><br /><img src="http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r143/ebrehm1/Bengough1.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>With all due respect, the price of these cards has zero to do with the quality of the player. Peter's intiution is right in that respect. It all has to do with the cards being condition rarities in high grade. I would guess prices are a factor of populations in high grade vs. # of high grade set collectors of the respective sets.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Thanks for the scan, Eric.<br /><br />Howard, I knew Benny was a 2nd stringer for the Yankees. But the fact that he had been a Yankee and a catcher made him a minor star imo.<br /><br />Peter C.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Peter, <br /><br />I certainly didn't mean my response to be rude. Sorry if you took it that way. <br /><br /><br /><br />Howard, <br /><br />Peter started this thread with the statement that they were "comparable" players. I was merely pointing out that they were not. No rudeness was intended by me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jim VB,<br /><br />I didn't say you were rude, it was Howard that said that. Besides compared to Jeff L. you are polite. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Ted, <br /><br />True, there are far fewer Bengough cards in elite condition than Pafkos, but I bet there are many more serious collectors of 1952 Topps than there are of 1933 Goudey. This keeps the "demand" at a high level all the time, regardless of "supply." <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>JimB is correct. Pafko could be a minor league player and the price would be the same. Its all about the pop in this the most popular post-war baseball set. Speaking of the price the SMR is off by a mile on the Pafko. The Pafko is PSA 8 would likely approach $100,000.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Sorry, Peter, but like most inhabitants of our planet I have my limits. <br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> &lt;---- note smiley face

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>nice card Eric!<br /><br />From a Goudey collector's perspective, it wouldn't matter if he had a .100 Batting Average or a .280....he's #1 in the set, and that's what people care about.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ralph</b><p>Howard,<br /> We have the right to be rude to anyone not up to date on obscure no name players who appeared ona piece of cardboard.<br /> <br /> <br />PS - its the nerd with the most basebal card that wins in the end

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>PS: Eric, beautiful card. It's amazing how beautiful a common card can be when you collect the set and appreciate how rare it is to see it in such a condition.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Jim, I'm sure you're intent was harmless and I guess it's not my business anyway. Besides, compared to past abuses hurled at Mr. Chao that was nuthin'.<br /><br />Ralph, you are absolutely right! : )<br /><br />Joba just got in the game! Go Yanks!<br /><br />Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Here are the PSA population figures for the two cards:<br /><br />Bengough....EX-MT 11....NM 15....NM-MT 7....MT 1....GEM-MT 0<br />Pafko..........EX-MT 68.....NM 35....NM-MT 9....MT 0....GEM-MT 1<br /><br />Pafko is more plentiful, so the price differential would likely be explained by higher demand for the 1952 Topps set in general, as others have pointed out. I think Jim C. is right that the $35K SMR value for NM-MT Pafko is unrealistically low; indeed one recently auctioned by Memory Lane went for over $95K.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"The Pafko is PSA 8 would likely approach $100,000."<br /><br />Only if it were in a Memory Lane auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Eric,<br /><br />based on the pop figures you've presented it makes one wonder just how many Pafkos were cracked and resubmitted... sounds like a recent thread...<br /><br />I would venture to guess that nobody's really collecting the Pafko or Bennie cards because of their baseball prowess as players. Heck, it could have been two complete nobody's.<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, how many 33G sets are registered and how many 52T sets are registered?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>Grader: PSA <br />Pakfo Black back<br /> <br />1:$83.00 <br />2:$141.96 <br />3:$355.00 <br />4:$393.00 <br />5:$725.00 <br />6:$2,177.52 <br />7:$14,197.20 (Sold 12/8/06"Mastro")<br />8:$95,175.00(Sold 09/15/07 "Memory Lane") <br />9:n/a <br />10:n/a<br /><br />Grader: PSA<br />Pafko (Red Back)<br /><br />Auth:$56.69 <br />1:$113.50 <br />2:$127.00 <br />3:$177.50 <br />4:$346.00 <br />5:$1,307.00 <br />6:$2,649.99 <br />7:$18,638.60(Sold 08/15/07 "MileHigh")<br />8:n/a<br />9:n/a <br />10n/a<br /><br /><br />Grader: PSA<br /><br />Benny Benbough<br /><br />1:$26.43 <br />2:$66.00 <br />3:$159.28 <br />4:$355.00 <br />5:$350.00 <br />6:$1,891.95 <br />7:$7,926.19 (Sold 06/15/06 "Memory Lane") <br />8:$14,863.80 (Sold 12/9/05"Mastro")<br />9:n/a <br />10:n/a<br /><br />These are the latest realized prices for these cards to compare.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>You will be interested to know that the PSA 10 Pafko sold for $83,870 in a 1999 auction. That Pafko had been pulled from a pack (in the 90s)<br /><br />Marc

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Bobby's data shows SMR to be in the ballpark for '33 Bengough but too low for '52 Pafko in the higher grades. Perhaps the latter card has developed a certain mystique about it that is driving up the price, even in grades where it isn't particularly scarce.<br /><br />Fred -- I didn't see the thread about cracking and resubmitting cards but I am aware that graded card population figures can be inflated by that activity. I think population reports are most useful for looking at relative, as opposed to absolute, scarcity of different cards.<br /><br />There are currently 61 1933 Goudey sets, and 84 1952 Topps sets registered at PSA. These sets of course vary widely in average condition and degree of completion.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>I have noticed that sets where the are a higher overall population in high grade will have a higher priced low-pop card than another set with a overall population in high grade.<br /><br />In the 33 Goudey vs 52 Topps comparison, here are SMR prices for the lowest priced commons:<br /><br />33 Goudey<br />PSA 7: 165<br />PSA 8: 425<br /><br />52 Topps<br />PSA 7: 70<br />PSA 8: 200<br /><br />The pop for the 52 Topps is much higher in general<br /><br />33 Goudey<br />PSA 7: about 19 per card<br />PSA 8: about 14 per card<br /><br />52 Topps<br />PSA 7: about 49 per card<br />PSA 8: about 30 per card<br /><br />So it makes sense that 1952 Topps commons would be cheaper, they are more plentiful. But because they are more plentiful, I theorize that more people are willing to start collecting PSA 7/8 grade in the 1952 Topps set than the 1933 Goudey set. ...and that leads to more people interested in getting a Pafko in PSA 7/8 than a Bengough in PSA 7/8 since the Pafko 7/8 fits into more 1952 Topps collections than a Bengough 7/8 fits into 1933 Goudey collections. Just a thing I've noticed in other sets as well. A pop 1 PSA 9 1950s card can sell more than a PSA 9 pre-war card because there are more PSA 8 collectors of teh 1950 set than PSA 8 collectors of the pre-war set.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>King -- I think your observations are probably correct. I suspect that set collectors go after not only what they can afford, but what they can reasonably expect to find.<br /><br />Actually your data shows that population is a pretty good predictor of price in this case:<br /><br />PSA 7:<br />avg pop ..... 49/19 = 2.4 ......... '52 Topps commons are 2.4 times more plentiful<br />avg price ... $165/$70 = 2.6 .... '33 Goudey commons are 2.6 times more expensive<br /><br />PSA 8:<br />avg pop ..... 30/14 = 2.13 ........... '52 Topps commons are 2.13 times more plentiful<br />avg price ... $425/$200 = 2.14 .... '33 Goudey commons are 2.14 times more expensive<br /><br />Granted there is a lot of data being averaged here, but I think it is striking how closely the relative scarcity of cards from the two sets matches the price differential between them in each grade. It suggests that the relationship between scarcity and price is roughly linear.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>Peter, a Yankee and a catcher does not make him a star.<br /><br />Joe<br><br>Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>KING<br /><br />This comment of yours intrigued me......<br /><br />"I theorize that more people are willing to start collecting PSA 7/8 grade in the 1952 Topps set than the 1933 Goudey set."<br /><br />Back in the "Paleolithic age" when I started assembling sets, most collectors chose sets to collect that appealed to them....<br />playerwise, popularity, aesthetic appeal, availability, etc., etc. Do you really think collectors, nowadays refer to POP reports<br /> in order to decide what set to collect ?<br /><br />I put together two 1933 Goudey sets (239 cards each)....I started with a Vg-Ex set, and eventually in the course of upgrading,<br />I also attained a really nice Ex-Mt one. This is typically how these vintage sets were assembled. I guess I am just out of touch<br /> with the current trends.<br /><br /><br />1950 Bowman Mel Parnell.....a tough post-war #1 card in &gt; ExMt condition.<br /><br />KING<br /><br />What are the POP #'s on this card ? Do they compare with the 52T Pafko ?<br /><br />I'm curious, because as a kid collecting 50B and 52T cards, we treated both these #1 cards similarly.<br /><br />T-Rex TED <br /><br /> <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />I will let King answer your question but as far as the pops are concerned Parnell is a pop 9 with none higher in psa 8 and a pop 11 in psa 7. Two 8s have sold at auction in last 12-18 months--one at $10K plus and the other over $13K. I think the current value is $15-20K and I still need the card for my PSA 8 set and would be willing to pay in this area. In psa 7 the last one sold at a bit over $2,000. Obviously the demand for 1950 Bowmans is orders of magnitude less than the 1952 Topps with far fewer people trying to build a PSA 7/8 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>King, I wish I would have read your post before I started collecting the 33 Goudeys....halfway through...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Thanks....I never hear much regarding Parnell; and, I feel he is just as tough as the Pafko in really fine shape.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Thanks for the useful information. Joe, you're right it's probably even a stretch to call Benny a minor star.<br /><br />However, as brought out above, it is the demand for high grade Pafkos for graded sets that is the real factor here. <br /><br />This becomes clear when you realize that the Pafko is also more expensive than '34 Goudey #1 Jimmy Foxx and '34 Diamond Stars Lefty Grove. Surely, people would consider both Foxx and Grove more desireable stars than Andy Pafko.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p><i>Surely, people would consider both Foxx and Grove more desireable stars than Andy Pafko.</i><br /><br />Peter, maybe re-reading JimB's post, ninth from the top, will help. In part:<br /><br /><i>With all due respect, the price of these cards has zero to do with the quality of the player.</i>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Pafko's card is also more expensive than Nolan Ryan's rookie card and he certainly can't hold a candle to Ryan.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kenneth A. Cohen</b><p>I would question the supposition that the quality of the player is not a key factor in the worth of the cards being discussed. Yes, these cards are extremely high worth in spite of the less than hall of fame careers of the players. But wouldn't their worth be substantially greater if - for example - the Goudey #1 was one of the Ruths or Gehrigs, or if '52 Topps #1 was Mays? Wouldn't there be a compounding effect of several price multiples given the combination of interest in the set, card #1, AND star quality of the player?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>The interesting question regarding the relavence of the quality of the player on these condition rarities would be the '52 Topps Mathews #407. I have not looked at the pop report on these in years, but I imagine it is still pretty low since I hardly ever seem them publically offered in nm/mt 8 or higherer. This is a card that is almost always seen off-centered for some reason. Anyway, it is the rookie card of one of the great star HOFs of the 50's and 60's; it is in the premier post-War set; and is a condition rarity. If the player were the primary factor in pricing, this card should go for 10x what a Pafko goes for. Jim C. could probably let us know the numbers and approximate value of this card in high grade, but I doubt it goes for a lot more than a Pafko. I know it does in lower grades, but I am talking about PSA 8s now. Maybe it sells for a little more, but I don't think it goes for much more. Maybe someone could let us know the relative pops of the Mathews and Pafko. <br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Ted wrote:<br />-----------<br />Back in the "Paleolithic age" when I started assembling sets, most collectors chose sets to collect that appealed to them....<br />playerwise, popularity, aesthetic appeal, availability, etc., etc. Do you really think collectors, nowadays refer to POP reports<br />in order to decide what set to collect ?<br />-----------<br /><br />I think they look to collect based on price. If they can afford a $300,000 set, then they'll look for PSA 8s. If they can afford a $40,000 set, then they'll look for PSA 5s. If they have $10,000, then maybe a raw or PSA 3/4 set would fit better. If people like the way the Goudeys look (and everyone should! greatest set ever IMO), then they have to seriously ask themselves, how much money do I want to put into it...and then focus on grades that fit their budget.<br /><br />So my answer for you is: no, I don't think they refer to pop reports in order to decidw what set to collect, but they do refer to pop reports (indirectly really - they refer to prices) when they decide what grade to collect. <br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>I think the 1934 Goudey #1 Jimmy Foxx card is definitely priced higher because he's an elited HOFer. But one problem is that the image isn't unique, its the same image as his two 1933 Goudey cards. Thus collectors interested in Jimmy Foxx cards, but not set collectors, can opt for the 33 Goudey #29 or #154 card instead and save a few bucks.<br /><br /><br />These pop numbers are a bit old, they come from my spreadsheet, so they may be off a bit from current numbers...but comparing 33 Goudey Bengough vs 34 Goudey Foxx:<br /><br />Bengough / Foxx <br />PSA 6: 10 / 20<br />PSA 7: 15 / 13<br />PSA 8: 7 / 15<br /><br />The big difference in PSA 6 and PSA 8 pops and the fact that Foxx's image is the same as the two 1933 Goudey cards, is probably the reason why the two cards are about the same price for the given grade.<br /><br />From a personal perspective, I'm a PSA/SGC 6/7 collector when it comes to the commons in the 1933 and 1934 Goudey sets...and a PSA/SGC 7/8 collector when it comes to the HOFers in the two sets. But for the Foxx 1934 Goudey, I don't mind having a PSA/SGC 6 especially since I have a 7 and a 8 for his two cards in my 1933 set. On the other hand, there is only one Bengough, so its a bit more important for me to get that card in a 7 (which I do have <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> )<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Cmoking,<br /><br />I agree with you in part, affordability is an important part of the equation. You are not going to try and compete with the registry people unless you have the bucks.<br /><br />But it's more than that, people are naturally competitive, so there needs to be enough cards in the hobby for a real contest. In other words, if you have only one of two cards in existence I doubt if the price of that card would continue escalating. The reason is other potential collectors wouldn't be interested in competing because it's unlikely that they would complete the set and/or find the card (because the cards may never be sold).<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>JimB,<br /><br />The pop of Mathews in psa 8 is 14 with 2 higher. There are 26 7s. This compares with Pafko pop 9 in psa 8 with 1 higher.<br /><br />The last 3 Mathews have all been at Mastro's auctions.and have sold for between $22,800 and 32,500. I would put the value at about $25,000 and its a card I need in 8 to complete the set. The last psa 7 for sale went for about $10,000.