When commons are not commons - the end

[gonefishin]

Just wanted to know everyone's thoughts on commons. With today's market and where it is headed (nobody really knows). When will a "common" not become a common any more. Collectors and investors seem to be buying up the vintage market. Does that mean that common cards that currently are relatively affordable, become less common and scarce? Could this be a new investment strategy? A $5 common today could become a $10 common within a year - not a bad return. Thoughts?

[Rhotchkiss]

I don’t know. Except for a few discrete sets that have always had cache (t206, 1914 CJ, 33 Goudey), I think commons are a bad investment generally, and I think that will remain the case, if not worsen, as set collectors get fewer and farther between.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I don’t know. Except for a few discrete sets that have always had cache (t206, 1914 CJ, 33 Goudey), I think commons are a bad investment generally, and I think that will remain the case, if not worsen, as set collectors get fewer and farther between.

I would agree. Are people less likely to collect sets as the key cards are unobtainable for a collector (not an investor)? If even a beater Goudey Ruth is over $2000, maybe less people will attempt the set.

[RCMcKenzie]

When I use the term "common", I mean the player. For example, a T205 Fred Olmstead, instead of a T205 Cy Young.
A 1956 Topps Hank Aaron is commonly found, but it's not considered a common.
If you want all your money back in the future, you should buy the best players, in the most popular sets, that you can afford. I should follow my own advice, but I don't.

[JimC]

My only rebuttal to this would be that I think high grade pre war commons can do very well. The level of grade varies based on the set, but if less than 10-15% of a set can be found in a particular grade or higher then the demand for those cards is likely to be there. Just my two cents.

[Vintage Vern]

I think over time rarity will have value, and no name commons will have a place especially ones that are few, and far between. All it will take is change of thinking from a different generation of collectors.

I'll give an analogy between my Dad. myself, and my son. All have a passion in cars. My dad was all about street rods 20s to 40s and try five Chevrolets. While I enjoyed them, and had a few I wouldn't mind having my heart was into 60s- the early 70 muscle cars, and I also love the pro street rage. My son may feel the same as me but he's totally into 90s Camaros and Japanese tuners. Values of some cars will be there, but others die with different generations. As time passes popularity changes to the next in thing, and when things get too expensive people start to get attracted to other things. It's a strange thing for every hobby to watch things you thought would always hold value that don't, and something else takes over. Hell, old cards may be used for noise makers again that once had 6 digit value at one point. While the Verne Clemons of the world may not ever have the value of Ruth it sure is harder to find. I like that challenge. I just hope I can get them before they're the next big thing. At some point the obscure rare common may have more value if the new breed of collectors shift their focus.

[Republicaninmass]

I see more people collecting signed cards and signed sets. Commons are just boring

My 2 cents is due diligence of a player that is considered to be a common, but the information and or background of that player tends to be be a part of the team history and name and not being a common

[JLange]

Commons definitely have their place in the hobby. Having too many is bonkers but having the right ones could make all the sense in the world . There still could be premiums to be made in the following situations:

-Player collectors and family members. Not necessarily predictable in terms of which ones, but player collectors and family members might pay up for that common card of a favorite or loved one. Maybe focus on semi stars or known family collectors. I don’t know from personal experience but I would imagine buying a card of grandpa has to still be a thrill for the family.

-Team collectors. It doesn’t have to be all Yankees and Red Sox. Plenty of Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc collectors out there that would pay up for a common of their favorite team. Especially vintage.

-Type collectors. Sure it seems everyone wants a HOFer or star card for a type card collection. But there are plenty of sets where having any example makes one feel lucky to have a card at all. Also, there is no substitute for a real example common when you are thinking of making a much larger purchase for a HOFer or star from that set. Having an example in hand gives you a lot more information and confidence that what you are looking to buy is real and worth the asking price. I have passed on countless items that were suspect or flat out wrong due to having had a common in my collection for comparison.

[JLange]

...and to show that people actually do buy commons, here are my latest two pickups.

-E97 Joe Birmingham

-W503 Guy Morton

Thanks Brian!

Adding to the commons I bought this because of living in Eastern North Carolina at one time, being in the area of Rocky Mount, Wilson, Goldsboro and Raleigh of the Old Eastern Carolina League, more than likely Cabrol or Carrol was a Phantom Player

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by JimC

My only rebuttal to this would be that I think high grade pre war commons can do very well. The level of grade varies based on the set, but if less than 10-15% of a set can be found in a particular grade or higher then the demand for those cards is likely to be there. Just my two cents.

+1, T206 Rucker portrait in a 5 just went for $500, beautiful "common".

[RCMcKenzie]

Without my glasses, this one looks like Babe Ruth after hitting a home run. Bescher was actually really good, as most of the set of 50 images were of contemporary stars. They are unknown commons today. I think of this card as rare, but there are 3 more on eBay. Going for a Bescher back run, instead of buying an e102 Cobb.

[Chuck9788]

Originally Posted by JLange

...and to show that people actually do buy commons, here are my latest two pickups.

-E97 Joe Birmingham

-W503 Guy Morton

Thanks Brian!

Commons are not "common" people. Joe Birmingham was the reason Napoleon Lajoie was dealt away from Cleveland to Philadelphia.

Joe Birmingham was named the Player/Manager of the Cleveland Naps in 1912 at the age of 28 and stayed at the helm for three more seasons.

His tenure was marked with a bit of controversy in 1913 which would be his best finish as manager (86-66, 3rd place). Nap Lajoie, who was Birmingham's former manager, struggled through a hitting slump in mid-season and Birmingham decided to bench the future Hall of Famer at one point. Lajoie who had no love for Birmingham was outraged and cursed out the young manager to his face and in the press. The feud only ended when Lajoie was sold back to Philadelphia after the 1914 season.

His next season would be a disaster, as the newly named Indians lost 102 games, and in 1915, Birmingham was fired after only 28 games.

Guy Morton called "Moose" died of a heart attack at age 41.

[ALBB]

I know of many long time collectors who stopped the " complete set " insanity ,now ignore all the commons and just call sets " done " with stars, specials, etc..

[GasHouseGang]

While it can be very fulfilling to complete a set, it can also be prohibitively expensive. I'm done collecting sets. I still collect "semi-stars", but I'm done with commons.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Chuck9788

Commons are not "common" people.

Putting together my collection of Cubs all-time greats and notables over the past couple decades (nothing individually extraordinary, all 1900s+ currently) has allowed me to really dig into personalities that make up the club's history.

A slew of these guys are players that joined the Cubs post-RC and they're commons because their main Cubs contributions are simply they got a big chunk of innings/games/at-bats regardless of results. Some guys are just interesting and never did anything in their careers that stand out, making their RC's pretty much commons.

Hal Jeffcoat has a 1951 Bowman RC that's never been in much demand that I know of. He was a cruddy CF'r for some cruddy Cubs teams 1948-1953 and became a cruddy pitcher for the team from 1954-1955 until being traded to CIN to pitch for them. Nothing in his stats make him a Cubs great, but the guy went from the field to the mound with only an off-season in between his change of career path.

Poking around in the history of the team has sent me on the hunt for cards of all kinds of vintage that would seem to be forgettable commons.

[JLange]

As a Cleveland Baseball Fan I absolutely love these guys, Joe Birmingham and Guy Morton. Both played their entire MLB careers with Cleveland.
I picked them up specifically because they were alumni of my favorite team.
I try to give players a wide berth when it comes to characterizing their playing days stats as HOF quality, Star, Above Avg, or Common.
One such measure I use is WAR. By this standard Joe Birmingham's lifetime WAR of 3.2 just doesn't register. I agree his colorful managerial career makes him interesting, but I would lump his playing days exploits into the common category when viewing it myself. Guy Morton on the other hand with a lifetime WAR of 16.3 ranks well for pitchers, in the top 600 all time. That is well above average, making him arguably not a common player. In any case though, I am thrilled to have added both of these players and their cards to my Cleveland Type Card Collection.

I would also like to add that highlighting stories about the players, as you have done with Joe Birmingham in his dustups with Nap Lajoie, brings life to these guys and makes the pursuit of their collectables all the more interesting and rewarding. Thanks for sharing this story!

Originally Posted by Chuck9788

Commons are not "common" people. Joe Birmingham was the reason Napoleon Lajoie was dealt away from Cleveland to Philadelphia.

Joe Birmingham was named the Player/Manager of the Cleveland Naps in 1912 at the age of 28 and stayed at the helm for three more seasons.

His tenure was marked with a bit of controversy in 1913 which would be his best finish as manager (86-66, 3rd place). Nap Lajoie, who was Birmingham's former manager, struggled through a hitting slump in mid-season and Birmingham decided to bench the future Hall of Famer at one point. Lajoie who had no love for Birmingham was outraged and cursed out the young manager to his face and in the press. The feud only ended when Lajoie was sold back to Philadelphia after the 1914 season.

His next season would be a disaster, as the newly named Indians lost 102 games, and in 1915, Birmingham was fired after only 28 games.

Guy Morton called "Moose" died of a heart attack at age 41.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I don’t know. Except for a few discrete sets that have always had cache (t206, 1914 CJ, 33 Goudey), I think commons are a bad investment generally, and I think that will remain the case, if not worsen, as set collectors get fewer and farther between.

100% agree

[Leon]

Commons from scarce sets will hold their value, imo...

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Leon

Commons from scarce sets will hold their value, imo...

While I tend to agree, it is very hit or miss and certainly not always the case. Take T208's for example -- awesome set and crazy, super rare. Back in like 2010 there were a few people collecting the set and competing against each other for available cards. Those people have given up the chase (for whatever reason) and the value of T208s are today half of what they were in 2010.

For example, an SGC 2.5 Harry Davis sold in 2009 for $6,000. However, a PSA 4 sold in 2019 for $3,000.

A Jimmy Dygert SGC 3 sold in 2009 for $20,400 (a dumb result), yet an SGC 4 sold in 2011 for $4,700 and then again for $4,200 in 2016

A PSA 4 Topsy Hartsel sold in 2009 for $6,600, but then an SGC 3 only sold for $2,500 in 2021

[Leon]

I agree, Ryan. I remember when the first T208 came out in years. There were many bidders and it sold for that crazy number....20k....

But that brought out a set and some others and the prices went down. I think a few people completed their sets and then demand tanked as it was only type collectors, like myself, collecting them. And we only need 1 to fill the slot. That was a rare instance and not unlike other cards that have done that but it's not common.
I have been on both sides of that equation, more than once.

I paid 250 for that Krause, 3 yrs ago, so I am not too worried about it going down.

I picked up this T208 recently and feel it was priced right, not low and not high...

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

While I tend to agree, it is very hit or miss and certainly not always the case. Take T208's for example -- awesome set and crazy, super rare. Back in like 2010 there were a few people collecting the set and competing against each other for available cards. Those people have given up the chase (for whatever reason) and the value of T208s are today half of what they were in 2010.

For example, an SGC 2.5 Harry Davis sold in 2009 for $6,000. However, a PSA 4 sold in 2019 for $3,000.

A Jimmy Dygert SGC 3 sold in 2009 for $20,400 (a dumb result), yet an SGC 4 sold in 2011 for $4,700 and then again for $4,200 in 2016

A PSA 4 Topsy Hartsel sold in 2009 for $6,600, but then an SGC 3 only sold for $2,500 in 2021

[bounce]

Set collecting is still one of the best ways to enjoy the hobby, particularly with vintage.

I like it as it keeps you in the collecting game, but gives you the time to find the star cards that really make sense with your set.

It takes patience, but it's rewarding.

And ask yourself this question - are high eye appeal mid-grade 1950s/1960s "commons" more or less expensive than they were a year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago?

Is it a great investment strategy? Not in relation to collecting the stars as others have noted. So you may not get rich, but you also are pretty unlikely to get slaughtered. Slow and steady as you go.

[gonefishin]

A lot of great information from everyone since I started this thread. Would anyone like to share what they do with their duplicate commons? Do you simply store them away unsleeved? Do you put each in protective sleeves and toploaders and store them away? Do you begin a second or third set? Do you simply save them as in investment or sale them when you obtain a quality replacement?

I ask because as I have been working on completing master sets (48 - 69 Topps and Bowman) for several years. I don't sell very many of my vintage cards - I simply have been keeping them. Over time you end up with more cards than the base set consists of. And of course, you may end up with 4 or more commons of the same player.

There are a couple of considerations for sure: (1) No more of the original cards can be produced. (2) Vintage common cards become increasingly rare with time. (3) Vintage cards rarely go down in price - even commons. (4) Most players are deceased and cannot commit a private act that destroys their legacy, regardless of how insignificant their career was.

I know sometimes I am thrilled to find a "common" card in good shape, at a good price, that I have been searching for.

I'm at the point where I don't consider any card prior to 1960 a "common" any longer. My definition of a common, mine not anyone else's, is a card that was not a SP, not a Star or Semi-Star, and is pretty easy to find. If I continue to define a common in that manner, in my world "commons" seem to be on the endangered species list.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Just wanted to know everyone's thoughts on commons. With today's market and where it is headed (nobody really knows). When will a "common" not become a common any more. Collectors and investors seem to be buying up the vintage market. Does that mean that common cards that currently are relatively affordable, become less common and scarce? Could this be a new investment strategy? A $5 common today could become a $10 common within a year - not a bad return. Thoughts?

As always, there seems to be a split between "collectors" and "investors". I certainly agree that as an investment, commons are a terrible place to spend your money. As a collector, however, I get a satisfaction from complete sets that I would not get if I only bought HOFers and stars. My collection won't be worth as much as it could be if I stuck to the stars, but I'll enjoy it a whole lot more.

[donmuth]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

A lot of great information from everyone since I started this thread. Would anyone like to share what they do with their duplicate commons? Do you simply store them away unsleeved? Do you put each in protective sleeves and toploaders and store them away? Do you begin a second or third set? Do you simply save them as in investment or sale them when you obtain a quality replacement?

I ask because as I have been working on completing master sets (48 - 69 Topps and Bowman) for several years. I don't sell very many of my vintage cards - I simply have been keeping them. Over time you end up with more cards than the base set consists of. And of course, you may end up with 4 or more commons of the same player.

There are a couple of considerations for sure: (1) No more of the original cards can be produced. (2) Vintage common cards become increasingly rare with time. (3) Vintage cards rarely go down in price - even commons. (4) Most players are deceased and cannot commit a private act that destroys their legacy, regardless of how insignificant their career was.

I know sometimes I am thrilled to find a "common" card in good shape, at a good price, that I have been searching for.

I'm at the point where I don't consider any card prior to 1960 a "common" any longer. My definition of a common, mine not anyone else's, is a card that was not a SP, not a Star or Semi-Star, and is pretty easy to find. If I continue to define a common in that manner, in my world "commons" seem to be on the endangered species list.

There are some good vintage online trading groups (e.g. Vintage Card Traders) where you can turn your duplicate commons into ones you need to complete your set(s). I would highly recommend considering getting involved in one or more trading groups and putting your dupes to work for you while also helping out other collectors who are probably looking for some cards that you have extras of.

[Yoda]

A T206 common becomes uncommon when it has a rare back.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by donmuth

There are some good vintage online trading groups (e.g. Vintage Card Traders) where you can turn your duplicate commons into ones you need to complete your set(s). I would highly recommend considering getting involved in one or more trading groups and putting your dupes to work for you while also helping out other collectors who are probably looking for some cards that you have extras of.

That can be done on our own BST too...without the distractions of FB..
.

[fkm_bky]

A common is also not a common (to me personally) if I have a tie to a player or a back run b/c of a pose or commonality. Example, I share a birthday w/ Buck Herzog. I'm working on the back run, so the "common-ness" of his card evaporates for me. Now, to Ryan's point, I'm not buying his cards as an investment, although they'll likely at least hold their value to a certain extent going forward.

Bill

[Jay Wolt]

Cobb, Ruth, Matty's & Wagners are great
But to me the cornerstone of the hobby is commons.
As an example, there's 100 Turkey Red's in the set 25 are Hall Of Famers, the rest is commons & minor stars.
I'll take the commons all day long. Much bigger bang for the buck

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I'm a postwar collector who especially likes the Bowman sets of the 1950s. I have a lower grade but presentable '52 set, and I'm currently working on the '50 set, including the copyright/no copyright cards. Recently, I purchased a couple of 1960s Topps Mantles, and I have my eye on similar star cards that I don't already own. Briefly the thought of "Why am I spending money on commons? Ultimately, I could buy more of Mantle, Clemente, Aaron, etc. with those funds" occurred to me. For me, I am a passionate fan of baseball in the the early 1950s, and I read a great deal about that era. Those "common players" in the Bowman sets are almost all known commodities to me from my reading, and they just happen to cost less than the stars. There's nothing terribly uncommon about most of the star cards from the 50s and 60s. The only thing that separates me from them is money. My collecting budget isn't unlimited, so it's nice to pick up an attractive card of a player that I have knowledge of for substantially less than a star card. After I finish '50, I'll probably work on '54 Bowman next. Somehow it has grown on me over the years. It has some errors/variations in it that involve "common" players, and I'll have fun tracking them down at not a huge cost and continuing to read about their exploits. Maybe someday, I'll actually be able to get into the 60s and work on a set or two there (if I ever get all of the 50s cards I want).

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Leon

Commons from scarce sets will hold their value, imo...

I'm actually a big Harry Krause fan. I love his story, how he was 18-8 with a 1.39 ERA as a rookie, then hurt his arm. He went to Pacific Coast League and ended his career 20 years later with over 300 pro wins.