second year cards more valuable than rookies?

[ALR-bishop]

See post 48. Courtesy of Bob Lemke maybe ?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

See post 48. Courtesy of Bob Lemke maybe ?

That'll learn me for relying on ebay.

[begsu1013]

so lemme get this straight...

poor ol bill davis had 5 multiplayer rookie cards...

and if that wasn't enough, never had a card all to his lonesome?

[brianp-beme]

Check out post # 48...Mr. Smiley finally had a card to smile about. Wait a minute! Is that a fantasy card?

Brian

[mrmopar]

72 Garvey was almost always "worth more" in the books than the 71 RC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Check out post # 48...Mr. Smiley finally had a card to smile about. Wait a minute! Is that a fantasy card?

Brian

If it is, it sure fooled me.

http://ratingtherookies.blogspot.com...tars-bill.html

[begsu1013]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

72 Garvey was almost always "worth more" in the books than the 71 RC.

what? seriously?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

what? seriously?

Yes in Beckett days for sure. High number.

[begsu1013]

complete fantasy card, so never had his own card! d@mn.

not only that, the guy was 6'7 and had to fit in on a card w/ someone else or 3 other dudes.

so you know when he flies, he always gets the middle seat too. poor guy.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes in Beckett days for sure. High number.

whopwhop.

[begsu1013]

so thanks to this thread, i found out about ol bill davis.

had to put his rookie, err i mean player set together!

here she is:

[pokerplyr80]

It's not a second year, but an 86 Topps Sandberg PSA 10 is worth much more than his rookie, the 83.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

This is mostly correct. With the importance and value of RCS a card would have to be condition sensitive or part of a rare series, short print, etc to be worth more. That's why there are such few examples. Second year cards that just look better like a 69 Ryan or 64 Rose aren't worth more for their appearance alone.

[begsu1013]

that works. good example and will definitely add that to the list.

[pokerplyr80]

It's an 11 year gap but the 52 topps Reese sells for more than his 41 playball RC in most grades.

[quitcrab]

Kind if strenching it here ...1967 and 1971 Brooks Robinson sell for as much as his 57 rookie ...especially the 71

[quitcrab]

Kind of strenching it here ...1967 and 1971 Brooks Robinson sell for as much as his 57 rookie ...especially the 71

[glynparson]

A 1965 fritz ankley is worth more than a 1964 and a 1973 Ron cry is worth more than a 1972.

[Rich Klein]

Way Back in the day:

1990 Leaf Steve Avery > 1989 Topps Avery

1992 Stadium Club Brett Favre: 1991 Stadium Club Favre

Don't know prices of today

Rich

[ls7plus]

Getting back to the original question, I would assume that Gabby Hartnett's second year card, from the very tough '23-24 Exhibits issue, would be worth more than his rookie 1922 W-strip card. I have the former. Anyone actually aware of a sale of the latter? Great, underrated catcher, by the way.

Best to all,

Larry

[clydepepper]

That was some fun trivia Peter - thanks for posting!
.
.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

Kind of strenching it here ...1967 and 1971 Brooks Robinson sell for as much as his 57 rookie ...especially the 71

1967 was the last year that the different series were released separately, and the last or high series had shorter production runs.

1971 is possibly the most condition sensitive Post WWII set but it still shouldn't be more than the underappreciated 1957 set which was a landmark as the first set of what has become the standard 2.5 x 3.5 size.
.
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In high grade at least 57 Brooks go for much more than 71.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

A 1965 fritz ankley is worth more than a 1964 and a 1973 Ron cry is worth more than a 1972.

lol

[clydepepper]

Not his second-year card, but I bet the 1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese card is noticeably more valuable than his RC (1948 Leaf?). - and that's probably just based on the cards' appearances.
.
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Not his second-year card, but I bet the 1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese card is noticeably more valuable than his RC (1948 Leaf?). - and that's probably just based on the cards' appearances.
.
.

I would think his 52T high number is more expensive than the 53B. In any case his RC is 1941 Play Ball (and Double Play).

[Snapolit1]

No Pee Wee Reese in the 49 Leafs.

[CW]

Haha nice Davis run, Bob! That's actually pretty cool to see them back to back. The '66 doesn't look bad at all for being qualified as OC.

[The Nasty Nati]

1957 Topps Frank Robinson...I'm cheating as he never got a card for his rookie year in '56. IMO for an outstanding HoFer it's a very undervalued card.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would think his 52T high number is more expensive than the 53B. In any case his RC is 1941 Play Ball (and Double Play).

Obviously, after I got my 53 Bowman, I just forgot about the rest...very embarrassing.
.
.
.

[pokerplyr80]

The T210 jackson is a second year worth a lot more than his e90-1 rookie.

[begsu1013]

adding the 62 Williams in an 8 and t210 Jackson back to the original post.


thanks peter and jesse




edit: and i think we have a clear case w/ the most recent 71 munson sale @ $30K

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

Here is a same-company example--Monte Irvin 1951 Topps Red Back vs 1952 Topps.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[xplainer]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1976-TOPPS-1...p2047675.l2557

Some one explain this. I'm missing something.

[begsu1013]

error in the listing.

it's properly back....

$350

[kevinlenane]

I always thought the 41 Play Ball Ted Williams should be the leader card for him over the 39 Play Ball true rookie. The 41 card is a gorgeously colored portrait and the 39 is such a blah black and white card with absolutely nothing on the front. The 41 is definitely diproportionately valued for what it is in sequence - but I hope in the future that card actually surpasses the rookie based on the love that clearly went into it. Ditto for the 48 lead. Unlikely though...

Disclosure - I have both and my 39 is in a higher grade.

[thenextlevel]

Originally Posted by kevinlenane

I always thought the 41 Play Ball Ted Williams should be the leader card for him over the 39 Play Ball true rookie. The 41 card is a gorgeously colored portrait and the 39 is such a blah black and white card with absolutely nothing on the front. The 41 is definitely diproportionately valued for what it is in sequence - but I hope in the future that card actually surpasses the rookie based on the love that clearly went into it. Ditto for the 48 lead. Unlikely though...

Disclosure - I have both and my 39 is in a higher grade.

Agreed on the 41 Williams. I purchased a few of his other cards before I bought his 39.

[Matt]

In an attempt to bring this thread in the pre-war forum around to, you know, pre-war: Bill Terry.

[packs]

Tris Speaker's E-90 Caramel is always going to outsell his T206

[Baseball Rarities]

The 1903-04 E107 Breisch Williams cards of virtually any player who was also issued in the 1902 W600 Sporting Life set.

[MVSNYC]

Those Sporting Life cabinets are amazing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's modern but at least in PSA 10 and presumably elsewhere there are a couple of 1992 Pedros worth more than his 1991 Upper Deck Final edition.

[begsu1013]

lemme know the verbage on the pre war cards you guys are referencing and i'd like to add them to cover the full spectrum...

if not, no worries.


and pete, got specifics?

if so, will add those to the top as well.

[pokerplyr80]

With that 52 Mays PSA 9 sale of 480k it may be worth more than the 51 Bowman in a 9. Although I haven't heard of any recent 51 sales in a comparable grade.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

lemme know the verbage on the pre war cards you guys are referencing and i'd like to add them to cover the full spectrum...

if not, no worries.


and pete, got specifics?

if so, will add those to the top as well.

92 Bowman for sure.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

92 Bowman for sure.

Yeah, the 92 Bowman for sure.

[begsu1013]

.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

The T210 jackson is a second year worth a lot more than his e90-1 rookie.

Plus, this pre rookie of Joe Jackson shown below. I might add Cy Young to the list to. He Has an 1891/2 JA Rogers cabinet card in street clothes and his Just So 1893 card would be greater.

[Harliduck]

As a set collector these popped into my head...after McClain and Stanley the others may be a bit lame, but certainly fall into the criteria... I do think the first two though are significant...especially if your looking to buy those two in NM for your sets...




1965 Topps Denny McClain RC #236
1966 Topps Denny McClain #540

(66 High Number)


1966 Topps Mickey Stanley RC #198
1967 Topps Mickey Stanley #607

(67 High Number)


1965 Topps Gary Kroll RC #449
1966 Topps Gary Kroll #548

(66 High Number)

1965 Topps George Smith RC #483
1966 Topps George Smith #542

(66 High Number)

1962 Topps Tom Tresh RC #31
1963 Topps Tom Tresh #470

(63 SP)

1962 Topps Don Clendenon RC #86
1963 Topps Don Clendenon #477

(63 SP)