Most Valuable / Desirable Non-Contemporary Cards

[scotgreb]

As a HOF collector I'm pretty biased toward contemporary or "playing-years" cards. I try to avoid non-contemporary issues whenever possible but sometimes use them as placeholders until I'm able to add a suitable replacement -- or where a contemporary issue is simply not possible.

A 1948 Leaf Ruth in PSA 9 just sold for $91,000 at Memory Lane. The Babe was long removed from his playing days by 1948. I just don't understand the appeal of this card.

Two other quite valuable such cards are the 1934 Goudey Lajoie and the 1950-51 Toleteros Josh Gibson. These two make a little more sense to me, especially the Gibson, as he has essentially no contemporary issues.

What are your thoughts on the desirability of non-contemporary cards and what other valuable examples are present in the hobby?

Scott

[Snapolit1]

I generally agree that I want contemporaneous, and the market puts a premium on it, but that Ruth card is pretty iconic. Guy who bought it might have no idea Ruth was dead by the time it issued.

[ullmandds]

to me...these cards are not at all desirable.

[nat]

Yeah, I have no interest at all in non-contemporary cards. In fact, I find myself looking down at sets that include lots of them. (1940 Playball, I'm looking at you.)

But whatever. People buy reprints as well. If you like them I'm not going to complain. I don't really mind bids going to cards that I'm not going to bid on.

[pokerplyr80]

I am also not a fan and was surprised by the price of the Ruth sale. The 1940 Playball set was mentioned and the Joe Jackson card comes to mind as another expensive card that doesn't interest me at all.

[packs]

I like the Ruth card because it's a really nice design and it looks better than a lot of his career contemporary cards. But I still don't think the price is in line for what it is, just like the Joe Jackson Play Ball.