1914 Cracker Jacks Undervalued?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Does anyone else think that 1914 CJs are undervalued considering they are, on average, about 3X rarer then their 1915 CJ counterparts? Granted, pop-reports are far from perfect, but those imperfections should affect all issues somewhat uniformly. Anecdotally, consider the 1914 CJ Honus Wagner - here are the combined SGC+PSA pop reports of some Wagners:<br /><b>1914 CJ: 34</b><br />1915 CJ: 90<br />E90-2: 65<br />E98: 57<br />E94: 46<br />(just for fun, T206: 35)<br /><br />yet, an exceptionally nice PSA 2 1914 Wagner sold last week for under $2000 (I was the underbidder). <br /><br />Almost all of the other 1914 CJ HOFers have combined pop reports equal to or less then the Wagner (in the 20s or 30s of each card). The pricing/value comparison is not just between the 1914 CJ and other contemporary issues, but even between the 1914 and 1915 CJs, there is little relative premium given to the 1914 issues.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>I think they should have a bit more of a premium on them. Maybe the fact there really isn't a difference in look to the cards other than the number of subjects on the back keeps them down a bit from where they should be. <br /><br />I did pick up two 1914 cj's last night in Huggins and Scott. Was glad to get them and will end up keeping one for type collection. But yes, I do think they should have a bit more of a premium on their 1915 counterparts.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Dave - of course, the major difference is the backs on the 1914s are right side up.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>andy becker</b><p>i have always thought the 1914's should have a large premium, especially in higher grade.<br />it was possible to order a "factory set" in 1915. <br />1914's all came out of boxed product. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>I have to agree on the value of the cards. I think the population report can be somewhat deceptive though, if you check it out, #93 Del Pratt has only 4, and there are 3 (should be 2) on the pop report for SGC. <br /><br />I do think that if you check out the cards that come up on eBay, there are really the same 20-30 cards that cycle through, and there are some that you NEVER see. Some high numbers, some low numbers. The PSA 2 Wagner that came up on eBay was probably an example of a card with glue residue that PSA automatically drops to a 2. I got stung by this a couple of times. My Mathewson is the one that hurt the most, I was hoping to get at least a 3, but alas, it came back a 2. The other that KILLED me was a Joe Jax '15, same thing glue residue (no paper loss).<br /><br />I think that CJ collectors will get a good look at the market when the complete sets on REA go up. You can check out the 2 cards referenced above in the pictures for lot 16 and 467.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Most CJ collectors opt for the '15's simply because it is considered more of a "complete" set due to the fact that there are 176 vs. 144 cards. Secondly, the '14 Matty is a much tougher, costlier catch. And lastly, those after the mid/upper grade collection know that due to the extreme thinness and fragility of the 1914 paper stock, the odds of completing the '14 set is quite difficult. Not nearly as many printed, not nearly as many have survived.