Quote:
Originally Posted by drc
As a non-T206 collector just an observer, the attention to back details seems excessive to me. However, it's not a recent phenomenon. People have focused the minutia double prints, red inks etc for some time now.
Now if you are talking about the basic brands like Drum versus Sweet Caporal versus Toilsoi, that's definitely no fad. Drum, for example, has had a value premium for years now. That's no craze.
One thing I find interesting about T206s, and this is a testimony to its popularity, is something that would be considered a defect on a 1975 Topps (printing error, ghost) is considered valuable on a T206.
|
I think some of it is that there are backs and combinations that are less common than collectors used to think. If the mid range backs like tolstoi, cycle, and a couple others were taken as an individual set they'd be considered to be somewhat tough.
And I think that at least some people are looking at them that way.
The bit about printing oddities being sought in T206 but not in modern cards is true, bit I think it has a lot to do with the people that collect the cards. With modern cards Beckett has had a huge influence, and in my opinion was in turn influenced by dealers and licensing people. The way they determine "value" is skewed towards hype rather than any actual rarity or realistic ideas.
Before the 80's rookie cards were actually a bit tougher than established stars because fewer were saved. (If you were rescuing some 54 topps from mom in 55, did you save Mantle, or that kid Aaron who only hit 13hrs for Milwaukee) Since about the early 80's the rookie cards were saved in ever increasing proportions.
Beckett also sort of defined what was valuable with some odd reasoning.
Misprints were not valuable. Unless you found a player collector who wanted them. Most of them still aren't at all common, but since Beckett says they're worthless.........
Cards from certain sets can't be "rookie" cards because Beckett says those sets aren't major nationally released sets. Even though those sets are sometimes larger and more common than some sets that are major nationally issued sets. (84 Fleer update is just as large as 86 Fleer basketball, and probably about as common. The Clemens isn't an official rookie, the Jordan is?!)
I think both reasons are senseless unless you view it from the perspective of what cards can a dealer get a good supply of and profit from the hype. Printing errors aren't usually common, and most dealers missed out on 84Fleer update. But 86 fleer basketball was readily available from wholesalers.
The unlicensed cards are supposedly worthless because "The people responsible can just reprint them" ..........Like Upper Deck has been caught at at least twice
But they're ok
(Ok, they probably had to cave to the licensing departments on that one.)
Since modern collectors largely follow Beckett, those things have become the rule.
Prewar collectors generally seem to follow their own path.
I think that's a good thing.
It may be because Beckett didn't cover the old stuff well or usually at all. It may go back farther to when there were few checklists and finding them wasn't easy.
Either way you can see the result in some of the discussions here. Did Burdick get it right having T213-1 as its own set? Are T205 and T80 actually closely related?
In maybe 1980 I heard a discussion about a T213. The guy had found a T206 that seemed normal except for the blue caption. He wasn't sure it was real. Nobody else seemed real sure about it either.
Things have really changed.
Steve B