T206 question

[Archive]

Posted By: cn

I have a question for the board members. I am approximately 200 cards away from finishing the set including both Cobb portraits,all 3 Youngs 1 Johnson the O'Hara about half of the southern leaugers and about two thirds of the other Hall of famers and several other rarer variations. The condition of all my cards are in the SCG30-50 range. I have a limited budget and my question is do you think it is better to finish off the HOFERS, Southern Leaguers and other high priced cards first, proceed with a mixture of cards or try to finish the commons first?. Thanks Cn

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Something I've noticed as of late is prices on all pre-war cards don't seem to be leveling off. I can't think of one set right now that is "cold"... That being said, it would seem most sensible (to me at least) to try and purchase the most expensive cards needed now. If it's going to cost you $5000 to get the Cobbs and Youngs now for example - it may cost you $7000 to get the same cards in a year or two... IMO

[Archive]

Posted By: Henry Eshelman

I would say get the commons when you see em cause you will probably see less of them than the HOFers.

Thanks, Henry Eshelman

Website:www.freewebs.com/vintagebaseball

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

I usually go for the more expensive cards first as they are apt to increase in value faster than the commons.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

In a hot market like this people tend go after the big ticket cards first because they think they are saving money by buying them so they don't have to pay more later. While the raw dollar increase is greater on HOFers, the highest percent age increase is with the commons.

Example, you could have gotten a low grade Wagner for around $10k in 1982. High grade commons sold for $5-7. Today, that same Wagner would sell for $100k or so, while those same commons sell for well in excess of $100. So for the price of a Wagner, you could have bought around 2,000 commons and saw a much bigger return on your money. You can substitute any HOF and the ratios are about the same for any set

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: ethicsprof

I'm in about the same boat as you, as far as how many cards
I have left to complete the set.
I say proceed with a mixture of cards.
In a sense, this means go with whatever seems like a great
bargain or go for something you just can't live without
right now. This makes for great fun.
Right now, I'm hooked on getting the different backs but still found myself picking up a great deal on a Griffith
portrait night before last, then a handful + of Lee B.'s
great commons; then a framed AB 350 from Tom B.'s great backs----and i could go on and on.
I say don't define the parameters too much---
have fun!
best,

Barry

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Always get the expensive ones first, or at least most of them. I have collected this way for 37 years. Did it with topps, bowman, goudey and playball. It has worked well for me because you may need more in numbers but you have a good feeling with the biggies knocked out! Dan - set collector.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

When I got back into collecting T206s in 00, I had 80 cards with 10 HOFers. I started buying Cubs and HOFers. About 6 months later I decided to buy the SLers. Looking back I am very happy I proceeded this way, expecially the SLers. My suggestion is buy the spendy ones now and low ball the commons yuo need.

Good Luck

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...when putting my set together was waiting to buy the Cobb Red Portrait and all three of the Cy Young cards. They are went through the roof by the time that I narrowed my wantlist down. I could have picked up a nice Red Portrait for well under $1,000. Now, forget about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Hey there,

I was fretting about the very same thing about 8 years ago.

Do both. The guys are right about buying the more expensive stuff first. Problem with that is that your card count grows slowly.

If you focus on buying commons first, then your number of cards grows quickly, but the total cost to "complete" will be more.

What I finally did was this: First, I tried to buy potential Hall of Famers before they made the Hall. I succeeded with a couple. Then I decided to fill out southern leagers, because they seemed underpriced. With those guys knocked out, I then got the few remaining normal minor leagers I lacked. I remember talking one day with a collector who lacked a couple of the impossible cards, he asked how I was doing on T206, and I responded that I had all of the minor leagers. He asked, "What about the Southern and Texas league players?" "Got 'em all," I replied, "They're minor league too, aren't they?"

After that, I'd buy both HoF and commons. I bought backwards through the alphabet, figuring most go the other way. My thinking is that there are more sets in progress where buyers hold the first of the alphabet, than there are sellers who sell alphabetically. I'm probably overthinking that, but it seemed like bidding was less fierce.

It is kinda neat when you get "half way". And when you have ALL of the southern leagers. And ALL of the minor leaguers. Getting to 400 was a milestone. Also the 90% mark. And I've finally passed 500, which is neat. I recall years ago where Mr. Lipset was going to sell some deceased collector's T206s for his wife, and the collector, who's name I can't recall, was known to the hobby. He had 493, I believe. And that was considered pretty good. Eventually you'll get to where you can lay in bed before you fall asleep, and rattle off the cards you lack. That is when you're getting close. And probably old, too!

It seems that eBay is a fair source for T206s, the problem is that a few years ago a buyer could find bargains there, while now it seems to have become a seller's market.

Good luck. BOTH is the answer, if you don't have a Cobb, get one or two. Try to get at least one of the big 3 pitchers. But keep getting commons, for the card count is reassuring.

With kind regards,

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott T

I have 460 cards and "attacked" the set by buying commons first. I am now down to five commons and have also managed top pick up a decent amount of Southern League cards and HOFers.

Barring a winning lottery ticket, I know will never finsh the entire set.

Some collectors would rather just have a few HOF cards in mid to upper grades. Personally, I would rather have a larger assortment of lower grade common cards. (I think it adds a sense of flavor to the set.)

In the end, it will be your decision, so do what you think is best.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Frank, you are wrong in your assertation that if you get the commons first and wait on the HOFers that it will cost you more. Go back and reread my post. Historically, commons have always outstripped HOFers in percentage price increase.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Jay,

You may be right from an investment, percent increase, perspective; however, you are incorrect from a cost perspective. Using your example, the amount of cash laid out would be far greater if you bought the commons before buying the Wagner.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I don't know the exact numbers, but this should be close. Say there are 75 HOFers and 450 commons. if the HOFers average $150 each, initial cost is $11,250 and commons at $25 is $11,250 (this was pure dumb luck in that numbers matched, but great for this example). If you bought the commons and waited on the HOFers, let's say they go up 20% when you are ready to buy them all. At $180 each, they would cost you $13,500. Reverse it and see a 30% jump in commons to $32.50 and they will cost you $14,625.

Edited to add:

Didn't notice you mention of the Wagner. Honestly, if someone can afford a Wagner, they are not too worried about whether to buy commons or HOFers first.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.