![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
In looking through both the active and completed listings for these two cards on ebay, for some reason these two cards both seem to command premiums(in most cases) over similar cards. Neither of these cards are low population counts on the PSA registry and there appears to be an ample supply of both cards, so why are collectors willing to shell out more for these two cards?
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't have a specific answer to your question, but I will say this. A lot of times collectors have the 'rare' cards they own graded, while leaving the common/less 'valuable' cards alone. This might be the case here, or maybe it's an insight into the actual reason. Just because similar amounts of these cards have been graded as compared to other cards in the set doesn't preclude them from being something of a rarity.
For instance, the 1952 Andy Pafko is always talked about for it's rarity and/or value, but if you look it up, I believe close to 900 of them have been graded. Many/most of the other cards in the set hover around the 200-300's graded mark. Same goes for the 1967 Brooks Robinson high number. A ton of those have been graded--exponentially greater than the totals of other cards--so it makes you wonder how rare it actually is. Dunno, might be something here.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
was always one of the most famous examples of this as for whatever reason that card is almost impossible fo find in high grade. Don't be surprised is a real nice raw nm/mt or better card has a premium
Rich |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I just did not put either the 61 242/64 103 cards into the same group as these tougher 62s. Reason being, is while these tougher 62s command premiums at higher grade levels but not typically as lower grade cards, the 61 242/64 103 command a premium as both higher and lower grade cards. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you think the 1964 Topps Flood is tough, try the 1964 Venezuelan:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I browsed the completed listings for the Smith, and you can see from the examples shown that most are off-center. Still, good examples seem available at a decent price. Here is a PSA 7 that sold for $9.99:
__________________
"You start a conversation, you can't even finish it You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed Say something once, why say it again?" If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.- Ulysses S. Grant, 18th US President. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1958 Topps Curt Flood EX ($11) | mintacular | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 01-24-2013 10:12 PM |
Question regarding 1964 Topps #103 Curt Flood | NewEnglandBaseBallist | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 2 | 11-20-2012 09:16 PM |
F/S ====== 1968 Topps 3D Curt Flood PSA 7 | frankhardy | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 06-22-2012 09:33 AM |
1968 Topps 3-d Curt Flood PSA 4 | murcerfan | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 01-22-2012 07:01 AM |
1964 Curt Flood - Cornering the Market? | Collectorsince62 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 4 | 02-28-2011 08:59 AM |