Is the 1952 Topps Andy Pafko an overrated card?

[Doug]

I was looking back through the pickup thread about the posts regarding the '52 Topps Mantle incorrectly being referred to his "rookie card" and it got me thinking. Do you think that the 1952 Topps Andy Pafko is overrated based on the perception that it's "the first Topps baseball card" just because it's the #1 card in the 1952 Topps set? As far as I'm concerned it's just a low series common that happens to be card #1. The fact that it sells for more than all of the 1-310 series Hall of Fame players with the exception of Willie Mays doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't really buy into that premium put on the first and last cards in set because that they were more prone to wear from being put into the front/back of stacks with rubber bands either. That might have a minimal effect on the population of higher grade examples, but why low grade ones sell at any kind of a premium since they are already worn anyway doesn't seem to add up either (although that's a different rant for another day ).

[scmavl]

Agreed, I think low grade examples should not carry such a premium. I bought a Pafko raw last year on ebay for fortysomething dollars when I was thinking of building the '52 set. I sold it earlier this year on ebay and I think it got around $150! It would've graded no higher than a 2 on a good day (likely lower) and it was still raw when I sold it.

[mintacular]

Yes, it is overrated and I too think the "1" and "Last Card" premium is more of an old wives tale than reality....I can't tell you how many people also don't understand the "NM" drop-off if the #1 card is not "NM", i.e. they want 10% on a low grade Pafko and when I try to tell them that high point is only relevant if the card is NM they get a glazed look on their eyeballs...Kinda like a dealer who sells low grade $20 t's for $60 cause that is 10% of book...

As for Pafko, it is a popular set, the first card in that set, and a recognizable card in that set so I think it deserves some premium over the other low # commons...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by mintacular

Yes, it is overrated and I too think the "1" and "Last Card" premium is more of an old wives tale than reality....I can't tell you how many people also don't understand the "NM" drop-off if the #1 card is not "NM", i.e. they want 10% on a low grade Pafko and when I try to tell them that high point is only relevant if the card is NM they get a glazed look on their eyeballs...Kinda like a dealer who sells low grade $20 t's for $60 cause that is 10% of book...

As for Pafko, it is a popular set, the first card in that set, and a recognizable card in that set so I think it deserves some premium over the other low # commons...

I agree with Pat. I don't necessarily think it's overrated, but most people (well, actually most dealers) don't understand that "NM" drop off (and a significant one) that Pat is referring to.

[novakjr]

It is a very over-rated card...BUT at the same time it is a really, really nice card. I think Patrick hit it on the head, when he referred to the fact that most people forget about the NM drop off when it comes to first and last cards...But then again, people still pay a premium for those cards even when they're beat to hell. And as long as they keep paying, dealers will keep charging.. The Pafko however, has since been immortalized in Kevin Smith and Bruce Willis' collective brain-fart, "Cop Out". Hell, the card was pretty much the focal point of the plot. As a big Kevin Smith fan, it kinda adds to the appeal of the card though..

Off the top of my head, as far as high BV goes, the Pafko(I believe) is the 3rd or 4th most expensive standard issue Topps card ever produced. After the Mantle, Mathews and possibly the Mays. So, in any grade, it's a key card for anyone putting together a '51 or '52-current Topps run.. And that is probably the main reason that the NM drop off doesn't necessarily apply to the Pafko, or at least not to the extremes of other first/last.. It's basically a card, where the hype has created more hype..

[Zach Wheat]

I agree with Doug & Pat. I think there should be some premium, but the premium is overstated.

ZWheat

[toppcat]

The Pafko went through at least three printings and as well all know, is not a scarce card. As noted above, it does have some good things going for it and is a well composed card with great eye appeal. The whole first card/last card hype has elevated it to almost mythic status and that rising tide is lifting all boats. The fact it is a Brooklyn Dodger also helps boost it and that is true with any 50's card. I overpaid for my Pafko (a 2, with good eye appeal which I cracked) but was happy to get it. It's frustrating but that's reality.

[Doug]

I won a PSA 2 Pafko last night on eBay and I found it kind of frustrating that it cost more than both the PSA 4 1952 Topps Duke Snider and PSA 4.5 Phil Rizzuto that I picked up a few days ago. I still don't think it makes sense, but I guess that's just how it goes.

[ALR-bishop]

I have a red back and black back. Bought one on ebay, red, and traded for the black one with Levi. Mathews, Pafko and Mantle may all be overpriced, but someone keeps bidding on them. Maybe when all of us baby boomers are dead you younger x guys can pick them all up cheap

[Doug]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have a red back and black back. Bought one on ebay, red, and traded for the black one with Levi. Mathews, Pafko and Mantle may all be overpriced, but someone keeps bidding on them. Maybe when all of us baby boomers are dead you younger x guys can pick them all up cheap

I just went ahead and got mine now since by then our money will be probably be worthless and the inflation will be so high that they will be even more expensive!

[Iwantmorecards77]

I remember this card being mentioned on an episode of Home Improvement!

[scmavl]

I agree with those of you who said it's a good looking card. It's probably one of my 10 favorite '52s based on eye appeal.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Iwantmorecards77

I remember this card being mentioned on an episode of Home Improvement!

The Pafko is at least the 2nd card from the '52 set to have been mentioned on a tv show or movie..

Pafko-Home Improvement, Cop Out

Joe Nuxhall- Married with Children...I believe Al was going to leave his "worthless Joe Nuxhall rookie card" to Bud in his will..

[GoldenAge50s]

Here's another way to look at it---Because it is the 1st card in what was then a NEW, OVERSIZED set of cards, it was mangled extra hard by us kids w/ our rubber bands or stuffing them into small boxes w/ our small Bowmans ('48 thru '52 & '51 Topps) !

It's also a reason a High Grade Pafko is so hard to find, percentage wise!

[hangman62]

I agree with many.. the 1st card of the set in lower grade..should be nothing more then a common( provided its not a star card )
Many just dont understand that the high value given to first card of a set is a premium of the card being NM ....although I think its funny that if and when YOU own an extra 52T Pafko...YOU want to get a lot more for it then a common value ! LOL

[HaloFan]

In any case, this is probably one of the few situations where buying a higher grade example for $1000+ is a better value than spending $150 for a low grade one. It's funny considering Pafko, aside from this card isn't really associated with being with the Dodgers as he was with them for only a short time. Being a much younger collector, I noticed he's more associated with the Cubs and Braves.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by novakjr

The Pafko is at least the 2nd card from the '52 set to have been mentioned on a tv show or movie..

Pafko-Home Improvement, Cop Out

Joe Nuxhall- Married with Children...I believe Al was going to leave his "worthless Joe Nuxhall rookie card" to Bud in his will..

Yeah, that episode ran recently on a cable channel I was viewing. But, I don't believe Al mentioned the particular set the card came from. Why would Al, a Chicago guy, presumably in his 40's in about 1990, save a Nuxhall rookie card from, what - 1950? Nuxhall was famously brought up by the Reds at the age of 15 in 1944 and pitched one game to a St. Louis lineup that included Stan Musial. Ed O'Neil is from Youngstown, Ohio, but...who knows?
In another episode Al goes to a card show to try to put together an all-time Cubs team set, but can't find a Ken Hubbs card. Why Hubbs, who only played two seasons with a .247 average? Why not Sandberg, or Hornsby?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Volod

Yeah, that episode ran recently on a cable channel I was viewing. But, I don't believe Al mentioned the particular set the card came from. Why would Al, a Chicago guy, presumably in his 40's in about 1990, save a Nuxhall rookie card from, what - 1950? Nuxhall was famously brought up by the Reds at the age of 15 in 1944 and pitched one game to a St. Louis lineup that included Stan Musial. Ed O'Neil is from Youngstown, Ohio, but...who knows?
In another episode Al goes to a card show to try to put together an all-time Cubs team set, but can't find a Ken Hubbs card. Why Hubbs, who only played two seasons with a .247 average? Why not Sandberg, or Hornsby?

Correct. There was never any specifications as to set or year...But Nuxhall rookie card, would lead me to believe that it was supposed to be the '52. The Ohio connection might've been the reason for Nuxhall to be used. Or quite possibly it could've been from a childhood memory. Since O'neill would've been 6 or so, in '52. Maybe it was his first card? Who knows?...I almost forgot about the all time Cubs set....Ken Hubbs. Ha!

Speaking of Ed O'neill. Up until I looked at his Wiki page today, I honestly had no idea that he was signed by the Steelers in 1969...

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by HaloFan

In any case, this is probably one of the few situations where buying a higher grade example for $1000+ is a better value than spending $150 for a low grade one. It's funny considering Pafko, aside from this card isn't really associated with being with the Dodgers as he was with them for only a short time. Being a much younger collector, I noticed he's more associated with the Cubs and Braves.

Short time Dodger yes, but he made it into Kahn's The Boys of Summer and that, as they say, is that and he is forever associated with them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Speaking of Ed O'neill. Up until I looked at his Wiki page today, I honestly had no idea that he was signed by the Steelers in 1969...

Yip, drafted out of Polk High School in the first round. J/K, that was the fictional high school that Al played for. But I didn't know he (Ed O'Neill) was actually signed by the Steelers. Cool!

Married with Children was one of the funniest shows on TV. Who can forget Al's group, NO MA'AM, the "National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood"?

[Doug]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Speaking of Ed O'neill. Up until I looked at his Wiki page today, I honestly had no idea that he was signed by the Steelers in 1969...

I was actually aware that he's a Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (another fun fact), but I never knew he was a defensive lineman signed by the Steelers. I guess Al Bundy can kick the crap out of people in real life too!

[Volod]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Correct. There was never any specifications as to set or year...But Nuxhall rookie card, would lead me to believe that it was supposed to be the '52. The Ohio connection might've been the reason for Nuxhall to be used. Or quite possibly it could've been from a childhood memory. Since O'neill would've been 6 or so, in '52. Maybe it was his first card? Who knows?...I almost forgot about the all time Cubs set....Ken Hubbs. Ha!

Speaking of Ed O'neill. Up until I looked at his Wiki page today, I honestly had no idea that he was signed by the Steelers in 1969...

No kidding? The Stillers? I guess that explains a lot about Al Bundy; all of the football references. What was he - a qb out of Youngstown State?

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I have a red back and black back. Bought one on ebay, red, and traded for the black one with Levi. Mathews, Pafko and Mantle may all be overpriced, but someone keeps bidding on them. Maybe when all of us baby boomers are dead you younger x guys can pick them all up cheap

I agree with you on 2 of 3. The Pafko is definitely overrated in lower grades, given it went through three printings, and I see a bunch on ebay. I certainly wouldn't pay much for a low grade one, and I'd definitely be one to save up for a scarce, higher grade 6 or 7.

Ditto with the Mantle, which I think is a hugely overrated card. It's NOT his rookie, it's a double print, and he was popular, and people were prone to save him. I see tons of these cards on ebay, and they just sit, sit, sit.

But the Matthews...I actually think this card is a bit of a sleeper, given that it is the "least" valuable of the three. It's a high number, it was single printed, and he was a rookie, and rather an unknown quantity...meaning people were less likely to save him. Then you've got the rubberband problem. Finally, there is centering. This card comes atrociously centered on nearly every example I've seen. So when I found an example PSA EX5 dead centered front AND back, I jumped on it. Depending on which price guide you consult, I got it for less, or a little more than book value, so right now I consider it at even cost. But I'm convinced it was a good buy, because after watching auctions for six months before, and for the time since I bought it, I've not seen a similar card come up.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10

But the Matthews...I actually think this card is a bit of a sleeper, given that it is the "least" valuable of the three. It's a high number, it was single printed, and he was a rookie, and rather an unknown quantity...meaning people were less likely to save him. Then you've got the rubberband problem. Finally, there is centering. This card comes atrociously centered on nearly every example I've seen. So when I found an example PSA EX5 dead centered front AND back, I jumped on it. Depending on which price guide you consult, I got it for less, or a little more than book value, so right now I consider it at even cost. But I'm convinced it was a good buy, because after watching auctions for six months before, and for the time since I bought it, I've not seen a similar card come up.

I never noticed the centering issues on the Mathews until you just mentioned it. Mine is pretty much dead centered as well, but after looking on eBay it seems that almost all of the Mathews cards are off centered to the left, bottom or both. It seems similar to how a lot of the '52 Topps Mantle and Mays cards seem to be centered either down, to the right or both.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10

Ditto with the Mantle, which I think is a hugely overrated card. It's his rookie, it's a double print, and he was popular, and people were prone to save him. I see tons of these cards on ebay, and they just sit, sit, sit.

I think you meant, it's NOT his rookie.

I know, I'm turning into the "'1952 is NOT Mantle's rookie police"...It seems at least twice a week I'm having to mention it..

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think you meant, it's NOT his rookie.

I know, I'm turning into the "'1952 is NOT Mantle's rookie police"...It seems at least twice a week I'm having to mention it..

Oh yes, that's what I meant, thanks. Post edited!

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by Doug

I never noticed the centering issues on the Mathews until you just mentioned it. Mine is pretty much dead centered as well, but after looking on eBay it seems that almost all of the Mathews cards are off centered to the left, bottom or both. It seems similar to how a lot of the '52 Topps Mantle and Mays cards seem to be centered either down, to the right or both.

I recall seeing a drawing someone made, showing the positions of each card as they would've appeared on an uncut sheet, and the illustrator had the Matthews near the center, which I think is wrong. Based on how the Matthews is always shifted, I think he was probably toward the lower right corner. Other cards, like the DeLock or Kucab I've noticed are fairly easy to come by well centered, so these ones would be toward the center I'd imagine...