Cards some collectors think are rare, but are not.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

I have found that certain "common" cards are still extremely difficult to find with desirable attributes. That can make the hunt fun and frustrating at the same time.

Not prewar, but I see about 20 ugly Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver rookie cards for every nice one. I think it's about the same with Bill Russell.

[ClementeFanOh]

Just checking Fleabay and one of the first T206 to pop up was Bill Bradley
with Bat PSA 2.5. The header for the card, which isn't an auction at all but
a Buy It Now, states "rare Polar Bear backing". Nice card? Looks like it. Rare?
Not even close, only Piedmonts and SCaps (most versions) are more common.
I've got plenty of those and love the cards, but "rare" doesn't apply.

Trent King

[yomass]

I thought we were going to talk about the T207 Lowdermilk or the E90-1 Mitchell...

[Leon]

1933 Goudey Lajoie isn't that rare. I have seen this card labeled as rare too...

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I think everybody should picture or name a card they think is truly rare and let us take shots at it one way or another. Here's one: WaJo Washington Times. I'd like to see somebody argue with that.

I like this idea above. No one will argue with that Washington Times WAJO....

or this one (I know it's one of your fave poses...) The proof is nicer looking but this is a widely collected format, a postcard. I am sure there have to be others but so far it's the only baseball player I have seen from the set, in a postcard. I guess something happended and they never got marketed much.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I think everybody should picture or name a card they think is truly rare and let us take shots at it one way or another. Here's one: WaJo Washington Times. I'd like to see somebody argue with that.

I'd say this one is truly rare.

[Fred]

I think this is post 3K for me.

Here's the PSA pop report results for the 1952 Topps Mantle

Grade Pop
10 -- 3
9 -- 6
8 -- 35
7 -- 77
6 -- 123
5 -- 178
4 -- 208
3 -- 196
2 -- 219
1.5 -- 84
1 -- 344
A -- 191

Total 1664

I'm going to guess that most would agree that's not rare. It would be interesting to see if someone did a deep dive on the 1952 Topps population report as a whole. My guess is that the Mantle will have a pretty high population in relationship to other 1952 Topps because more people will have the Mantle slabbed than Joe Schmuck.

The PSA pop of Mantles doesn't account for other TPGs pop numbers or raw cards. I'm going to go out on limb and guess that PSA has graded a majority of the 52T cards that have slabbed.

For another card listed as scarce is the T201 with Dougherty/Lord. That seems to be a mistake because there are plenty of them available. Another that is listed as scarce (but doesn't seem to exist) is the N162 Dunlop with a Pittsburgh team designation.

[bigfanNY]

Rare dose not equal valuable. And that is fine by me, I cannot afford to collect valuable Baseball cards so I am happy to collect some rare ones.

[robw1959]

Two that instantly come to mind are the Ted Williams 1954 Bowman and card #58 (Ted Signs) in the '59 Fleer set. They have been considered rare for decades, but really aren't. Heck, even the T206 green portrait Ty Cobb card isn't much scarcer than its "Bat-On" variation counterpart, but there sure is a ton of demand for that one compared to the red portrait.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by jingram058

… If you don't have the cash, it's pretty darned rare.

Great line.

My contribution. There’s exactly one in PSGCA combined. There’s at least one other in existence, but this is the only graded example.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Snowman]

Also worth considering is that there are different flavors of rarity and scarcity. In addition to print runs or pop report grades, there's also eye appeal, which is something I focus on. Some cards are nearly impossible to find centered and when those surface at auction, they can fetch prices that have people who aren't in the know calling them "obviously shilled" despite the sales being very much legitimate.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Leon

1933 Goudey Lajoie isn't that rare. I have seen this card labeled as rare too...I like this idea above. No one will argue with that Washington Times WAJO....or this one (I know it's one of your fave poses...) The proof is nicer looking but this is a widely collected format, a postcard. I am sure there have to be others but so far it's the only baseball player I have seen from the set, in a postcard. I guess something happended and they never got marketed much.

Two questions, Leon: What's with the 1.5 on your Cobb, and is that Barr-Farnham WaJo the only P/C version you've seen? I know you have the booklet of proof photos--have or seen any other P/Cs from that set?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Two questions, Leon: What's with the 1.5 on your Cobb, and is that Barr-Farnham WaJo the only P/C version you've seen? I know you have the booklet of proof photos--have or seen any other P/Cs from that set?

Hi Hank
I have had that 1.5 for a while and shown it many times. You probably just don't remember ... My memory is getting so poor it's not funny ...(another story for another day) It has spider wrinkling on the front, next to both sides of his face. That's it. Funny quick story, told before also. I made a deal with an ebayer for that card as a BIN, from an already being sold card. He put the BIN up and someone else bought it in less than a freaking minute (it seemed). He said he had to sell to them but they sounded flaky. The next morning he told me the buyer reneged and I got it for my $2150 offer.

That is the only Farr-Barnham baseball postcard I have seen. It was listed in an auction without that acknolwedgment. Then it was pulled and run again with the additional info. I reckon that cost me about $1000 dollars extra, but still well worth it to me.

There are other Farr Barnham postcards...but not baseball. My guess is more baseball ones will be found though (or I just haven't seen them and they are out here already).