High Condition Fan Craze cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

There was recently a group of very high condition Fan Craze cards on ebay, including PSA9's. These cards seem to turn up in high condition fairly often (when they turn up at all) because of their naturally rounded corners. I've been waiting for lower grader ones, hoping they would be cheaper.

My question is this. Will lower grade ones really be much cheaper? PSA9's usually sell for many times more than Excellent cards because they are many times rarer. But if Mint and Excellent cards are about equally rare, will I save much by buying the Excellent card?

Any thoughts you have (and any leads on the Ban Johnson in any condition) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: B. Hodes

Yes the lower grade ones will sell for much less.
Ban Johnson is tough simply because HOF collectors (like you and me) know that this is about his only card -- the definition of card can be expanded to inlude other Johnson items but the Fan Craze is universally acknowledged to ba a card.
I haven't seen a Johnson for a while but they do come up and they go for much less than Wagner & Young -- the two most expensive Fan Craze cards. I would say Johnson usually sells for more than most HOFERs but not the top tier (plus Nichols and maybe the near RCs of Bresnahan and Brown).
The seller of the big batch -- David Bryan -- maybe able to help. He's a good guy and has come up with Fan Craze sets more than once.
Best luck,
Brian H,

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

I bought 5 of the Fan Craze HOF cards last night, including the Bresnahan ROOKIE Card (come on, Brian ... the Alleghany card was never distributed and can't be counted!!). I probably overpaid, but what is new??

Heck, if it wasn't for that cursed 1903 Breisch-Williams E107 set ... then ALL of them would be rookie cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

did you decide to give "flyliner" a break?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

Apparently, the game wasn't a very popular one, so there are lot (in so far as there're any) in great shape. The HOFers sell for as much as twice what they list for, and yes, the lower grade ones are MUCH cheaper.

I bought a Ned Hanlon yestersday for $500 ($450 i guess he actually charged me). It was MINT. Mark wanted $1200 for his Wagner, and it had a white fleck in his hair.But only $160 for his Brown--a little toned, a little--something on the face.

I wouldn't want the Nichols! Same reason I wouldn't want the T3 Baker. IT AIN'T THEM!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Thank you all very much. I'll keep looking for the Johnson, Hanlon, and a few others, and know that I'm not wasting my time trying to find ones that are less than mint.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

He's going to need some serious consolation when he realizes he paid almost $800 for a common of whoever that really is on that "Nichols" card!

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Hal,

I believe that the Alleghany's are rookies. I have the Brown, and the last time I checked, TIK had the Bresnahan (and it was PSA graded).

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

For the life of me I WILL NEVER understand the position where a rookie card has to be readily availble in order to be considered a rookie card. Why production numbers are more important then issue dates is beyond me. The article in Beckett Vintage on this topic was off base in my opinion.

If only one example of a player's rookie card exists - so be it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I couldn't agree more.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I don't know exactly what are the Allegany cards, but if they were unissued proofs, I wouldn't consider them trading cards. In my judgement, a trading card has to be the final product actually or intended for commercial/public distrubution. Proofs and printing plates and orignial art are fine and often deservedly collectable items, but I wouldn't consider them trading cards.

Simularly, many 19th century cartes de visite(CDVs) and cabinet cards may or may not be trading cards-- no one knows as no one is really sure how many of them they were issued (personal versus public use).

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

<< In my judgement, a trading card has to be the final product actually or intended for commercial/public distrubution. >>


I agree.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I wish to note that Halley did not give me payment for the previous statement in order to make his life easier.

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

Thanks to David and MW !

ONE set of Alleghnay cards were produced as a prototype and NEVER made it to distribution.

To me, this is NO DIFFERENT than if I go out right now and hire a printing company to make me a card (quality doesn't matter since it is only a "prototype") of every MLB player.

Would anyone bid on them if I sold them on EBay? NO

Would they be worth anything 100 years from now?? NO

The Alleghany was a box set of cards that was made in 1904 and then stuck in a box and NEVER saw the light of day until 1991.

To me ... for a baseball card to be a "baseball card" ... IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING I COULD HAVE COLLECTED IF I HAD BEEN A KID COLLECTING AT THAT TIME!!!!

Even the most avid collector in 1904 could NOT have gotten his hands on an Alleghany ... so it isn't a card.

Call it whatever you want: "A neat one-of-a-kind baseball collector's item" ... but to me it isn't a "baseball card."

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

Dear Andy:

I certainly was NOT trying to "put down" the fact that you own the ONLY such Alleghnay card of Mordecai Brown, because I agree that it is a very rare artifact that has tremendous value. And in reality, our disagreement doen't matter one iota ... unless the Government ever decides to award $10,000 payments to every holder of a HOF "rookie" card!

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

I had my snipe program set to bid on the Willis too...

but by that time flyliner28 had learned that I was serious about these cards and he went high enough to get the Willis. My snipe was too low.

Flyliner28 is a good guy and I felt bad about beating him ... but he can go buy all the ALLEGHANY cards that I won't be bidding on!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Hey Folks,
We can debate over this all day long and will never have a definitive answer. I agree with both sides of the argument Since I am on the verge of having a completed M101-4/5 back set (yes, this could be my first collecting "set") I would agree that the cards needed to be distributed. There is a Baycus (sp?) Brewing Company sheet of uncut cards that exist as a sheet. The name is at top of the sheet and the backs are blank. IF they were cut they would be blank backed. Do I consider this a card I have to have to complete my set? No, of course not. On the other hand I do agree that the Allegheny cards are cards. Are the $50k, 1919 White Sox set cards, really cards? Is the Reccius 1899 Wagner card a card, since only one is known? These are all questions with no definitive answers.....just thought I would get into the fray a little.....I think we should just use whatever rule works for us best at the time ...regards all.....

[Archive]

Posted By: sscott (runscott)

...

--------------------------------------------
no disclaimer - temporarily taking responsibility for my actions

[Archive]

Posted By: scott (runscott)

The Alleghenys were a high-quality product (in my opinion) that IS worth something 100 years later because of this and the fact that they were the earliest known attempt to put many of these players on a "card".

If you did the same thing today - even if you did it well - your set probably wouldn't be worth anything 100 years from now because today's players are well-represented in card form. In 1904 they were not.

--------------------------------------------
no disclaimer - temporarily taking responsibility for my actions

[Archive]

Posted By: scott (runscott)

but rather - are they "Rookie Cards"? I think that if you want it to be a rookie, then it is. If you don't want it to be, then it isn't - it's a matter of perspective and personal choice. I called my Alleghenys "rookies" when I owned them, but if I was creating a "rookie collection", I would cut myself a little slack and not go after the Alleghenys.

--------------------------------------------
no disclaimer - temporarily taking responsibility for my actions

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

No one really knows how many Alleghany sets were produced, and if they were ever distributed or not. The only thing that we know for sure is that at least one set survived, and that they were produced in 1904, which makes them legitimate cards to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I agree with Andy how 'bout them apples? ...and yes Scott, I was meaning to say that the rookies were included in the sets not that they weren't cards.... but then too "card" is a relative term........can we just have world peace and have love for each other again ? regards all

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I specialize in photographs and often dislike it when an old CDV or cabinet card is fashionably (if accurately) categorized as a 'trading card' because the price zooms up as the trading card hoard joins the bidding. Ironially, in my personal aesthetic view, the desirability of a photograph is lowered if it was used for mass/commercial distribution. The 1869 Peck & Snyder Reds is deservedly historic and rare as a trading card, but is plentiful and and often of iffy (light image) quality for a period photograph. I do note, that I have seen Andy's Peck & Snyder Reds, and it is one of the best looking ones ... This is not a criticism of card collectors, just noting that photographs and trading cards are often two different worlds.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Certainly cabinets and cdvs are not baseball cards, but again, if it's your personal preference to include a cabinet photo of a player as a "rookie" in your collection, I don't see what the problem is with doing so. Also, more than one copy was produced of some (most?) cabinets and cdvs, so it could be argued that cabinets and cdvs are more legitimate "rookies" than an Allegheny. But, of course, I'm just being the devil's advocate on that one. If I collected pre-wwI HOF rookies (which I might some day), I would have considered the 1892 Bingo cabinet as my Keeler "rookie" - only because Democracy allows me to do so.

Hi Leon - I don't think anyone's endangering world peace here. This seems like a pretty calm and worthwhile discussion thread.

--------------------------------------------
no disclaimer - temporarily taking responsibility for my actions

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As an owner of a pretty nice Peck and Snyder (probably the only graded one) I think there would be other cdv type cards to pick as not so good of photo's....this one looks pretty good to me...although I know some of the real cabinets are magnificant looking....take care and say hi to your puppy dog for me.....bestest regards

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Both you and Andy own one? Man, they must be growing on trees.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

It's just a personal prejudice of mine. I had the devil of a time getting Dennis King to take back the T3 "Baker," when I found out the picture was Barry. Such cards usually sell for the price of the HOFer, even if the picture is of someone else. The Fan Craze Nichols also sells at HOF prices (I guess there are those weho think it IS Nichols, growing old).

Coupla auctions ago, Lipset had a Tango Eggs "Weaver"--=who's Tinker. He mentioned the fact, but added that the card says "Weaver, " and "as such, is collectible as a Blacksox."

It makes me feel ripped off, but this feeling is far from being shared by everyone.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

An Allegheny is the only Kid Gleason I own. To me, it's a card. No "proof" marks. However, they were cut by hand--look at the non-HOFers. You can tell. I should say, the less popular players of the time.

But then, I don't have the '48=49 Leaf Robinson, or the '49 Bowman Robinson. I have 5 1947 Homoginized Bond Bread Robinsons, and they're a lot nicer.

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

ALL OF US are proud as peacocks of the cards that we have ...

yet ALL OF US would also LOVE to own some of the cards that the "other folks" own!!!

I don't know of ANYBODY who thinks their cards stink (since they would dump them if they did)... so it's a NO-LOSE situation!!

PS - Are there ANY 1903 E107's that are not wrinkled and torn, etc.?? These are clearly "rookie cards" for many HOF's ... but finding them in gradable condition appears near impossible (hence my trip to National in search of the impossible!!)

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

They would just come back a PSA 1 for sure

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I don't think anyone wants any of my cards, since most of them are Indian Chiefs :-p

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: mark johnson

I may have come into possession of a like new possibly PSA 9 or or better complete set of the national league cards..I have no immediate plans to sell but was wondering if you could give me a rough idea of what a complete set like new would be worth..??thanks
my email is majohnson72@aol.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

but also know that Fan Craze, unlike some of the other game cards, have become quite popular--the pictures are so nice, and the brilliant backs as well.

For some reason, I can't find many American league cards. OH YEAH, the Standard Catalogue has them WAY underpriced, and also has the National league cards higher than American league...such hogwash. At least, I paid $450 for a mint Hanlon, and $400 for an ex Lajoie.

The guy who auctioned his off on EBay did quite well--that might be the way to go.

All grading companies grade them; I can't say whether that's good or bad==I don't collect graded cards.

Hope this winds up next to your question!