Hobby Newsflash! Re: Top 250 Cards In Hobby

[MattyC]

Just wanted my fellow collectors to know that, apparently, two of the "Top 250 Sportscards In The Hobby" are:

1. 1987 Fleer Barry Bonds
2. 1994 SP Alex Rodriguez

But not...

1. Just So Cy Young
2. Frederick foto Ruth
3. E90-2 Wagner

To name a few.

Apparently the 1986 Fleer Michael Jordan card also outranks the Ruth Balt News.

Just sayin'.

So in case you own any of the latter listed above, I might be persuaded to trade you for the former two-- but you'd also have to throw in some serious cash

Cheers,

Matt

[Blackie]

[Leon]

Probably should have been labeled "Best Known 250 Sportscards"......I would guess most collectors not in our space haven't heard of some of the absolute best cards on our side of the hobby (and to me, best cards in the hobby).

[glynparson]

outside Mantle 1952 Topps and T206 Wagner for non Collectors or even very casual collectors. Whenever anyone finds out I collect cards I am almost always first asked do I have a Jordan rookie, when they find out I mostly collect vintage I get asked about Mantle and Wagner. Hard to argue when the book/list was made, if you are referring to the Joe Orlando book/PSA set registry list, including the ARod card and Bonds they both were at one time the hot cards. The list wasn't strictly to be a most valuable and the just So young, I wouldn't put it on the list, too rare, though i would for 250 most valuable, but thats just me. I don't think any 2 people educated in the hobby would make the same list. Personal preference and hype always impacts these lists wether they are cards, albums, movies,or entertainers. Personally I don't remember thinking it was a terrible list when it came out but I of course did not agree 100%.

[MattyC]

Just to be clear, I'm not dissing the Jordan Fleer by any means (though I'd take the Star given a choice of only one). I love that Jordan Fleer card.

Just sayin' that I cannot see how a well-reasoned Top 20 Card list, such as the one in that book, includes the Fleer Jordan but not say the Babe Ruth Balt News. Or the Top 200 list on their site includes a Fleer Bonds but not a Joe Jackson RC.

I completely agree that any two collectors' lists will differ, and the highly subjective nature of such things makes them ripe for debate-- but a few of the choices made there are major head-scratchers for me.

I couldn't eliminate a card like the Just So Young due to it being too rare; rarity is something most collectors value, if not covet. So extreme rarity of such a big HOFer should not penalize the card, in my opinion. For this reason the Frederick Foto Ruth would be high in my own list. Definitely above a 1987 Donruss Maddux

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by glynparson

outside Mantle 1952 Topps and T206 Wagner for non Collectors or even very casual collectors. Whenever anyone finds out I collect cards I am almost always first asked do I have a Jordan rookie, when they find out I mostly collect vintage I get asked about Mantle and Wagner. Hard to argue when the book/list was made, if you are referring to the Joe Orlando book/PSA set registry list, including the ARod card and Bonds they both were at one time the hot cards. The list wasn't strictly to be a most valuable and the just So young, I wouldn't put it on the list, too rare, though i would for 250 most valuable, but thats just me. I don't think any 2 people educated in the hobby would make the same list. Personal preference and hype always impacts these lists wether they are cards, albums, movies,or entertainers. Personally I don't remember thinking it was a terrible list when it came out but I of course did not agree 100%.

+1...I think for a group like Net54 the list would be a great deal different, but the cards listed in the OP are probably spot on. I'm sure the '89 UD Griffey Jr. #1 is pretty high on the list as it's very popular and recognizable to people inside and outside the hobby...as well as the '86-87 Fleer Jordan. It is what it is. If it wasn't for this board, I wouldn't have even heard of the Just So Young. Another thing to think about is that the people that watched and could appreciate Johnson, Cobb, Mathewson, Young, etc., are long gone...just something that could play a part in the making of the list.

As with any created list, it's always up for debate.

[danmckee]

Doesn't the idiot Joe Orlando have a say in what is a top card in the hobby? His pre-war experience is NILL!

A Joke!

[MattyC]

That's kind of the thing; sure, popularity as it stands is a factor, but with position and the publishing of a book on the topic (that will no doubt be influential, especially to those who collect based purely on PSA's Registry), there comes some responsibility as well.

Thus, I think there was some (unfulfilled) responsibility on the part of the author to illuminate the masses as opposed to pandering. I mean, sure, many people eat McDonald's. But that does not mean that in a Top Restaurant list, I have to list McDonald's-- or fail to point out what Peter Luger's is (even though there is only one Lugers).

I think the author had something of a responsibility to the hobby when undertaking the book, and intimating through the list and the subsequently related Registry Sets that a 1987 Fleer Bonds is a superior card to an e90-2 Wagner is just a major whiff-- at least in my book. I understand the desire to touch all bases, in terms of eras and sports, but the execution of that sentiment resulted in a deeply flawed list, IMO.

I mean, you have sets "competing" on that Registry, and a 1987 Donruss Maddux counts more in their competition than an M101-6 Ruth. That, to me, is a travesty and would keep me from taking that whole endeavor seriously.

[tschock]

These kinds of lists always need qualifiers. So at my age, I always take these kinds of lists with more salt than I put in my jar of Kimchee. Even the "Top x most expensive cards" in the hobby would probably need some kind of qualifiers as well.

Shoot, even something like "most sought after" card in the hobby needs qualification. I do not "seek" a T206 Honus Wagner (since I could never afford it), but given the opportunity to "pick" one from a box load of cards, I would definitely "seek" it.

That said, this list is still way off base, IMO....

[MattyC]

Yeah, it seems anytime people give into the urge to rank things-- as it seems so many publications especially tend to do these days-- some qualifiers and rationale behind the criteria would go a long way.

Instead, so many of these ubiquitous lists are put forth as definitive, with not nearly enough upfront defining of terms and criteria, and that in turn leads to a lot of debate.

Then again, I imagine what many "Top X of Y" lists are out to do is generate debate centered around them, and so in that way they may be successful according to their true aim?

There is definitely a deeper philosophical discussion lurking around this topic, in terms of the need to rank and then compete.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I couldn't eliminate a card like the Just So Young due to it being too rare; rarity is something most collectors value, if not covet. So extreme rarity of such a big HOFer should not penalize the card, in my opinion. For this reason the Frederick Foto Ruth would be high in my own list. Definitely above a 1987 Donruss Maddux

While I'm not necessarily one to knock a card because of rarity(especially given that the Just So Young would top my list), I can understand it not being included. It's NOT REALLY completely a part of the hobby. Given that it's a lone example, and it's place in a collection, the card has been essentially been removed from the hobby. It simply doesn't exist physically beyond THAT guy..

I also think a similar effect holds for other "high end" vintage cards. They(the Jax and the Balt News Ruth as example) just aren't realistic for 95%+ of the collecting population to ever even consider owning, not to mention simply holding one, essentially removing it as part of the hobby for them...

The lesser, modern cards that are being knocked here, are part of any collection that basically wants one, or are a reasonably achievable goal for many to eventually shoot for..

Now I'm not completely justifying their disclusion from the list, but I can completely understand it.