New York Times Leaf Article

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Regardless of your contradiction, every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox, the fact that dealers anf manufacturers leaned into and embraced the desire of collectors to have the earliest cards of a player, does not mean they created that desire.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

All you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

It was plainly stated in my post, but I will repeat it again. Cards in the early days of rookie cards were valued based on rarity. It wasn't until later that there was a preference for rookie cards. This preference for older doesn't necessarily apply to baseball cards. A players oldest card isn't always his most valuable. Mickey Mantle's most valuable card is his 1952 Topps, it is not his oldest card.