What would it take to collect modern cards again?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

It would be an extremely difficult feat to accomplish, for me. I like rarer cards of stars and HOF'ers to be, and therefore am inclined to at least take a look at such cards as Joe Mauer's Chrome Gold Refractor rookie, for example, with only 50 printed. But with that limited production comes rampant speculation, along with a lot of purely transient demand (ie., making itself felt only while the player is still not only active, but on the upside, rather than the downhill slide of his career), artificially raising the prices to rather ridiculous levels. Larry

Here's my opinion on this matter.

Let's take some anonymous player and let's see the number autographs of him in a given set. (note: I don't actually know any of these counts and I'm sure the corresponding refractors to numbering is off)

Base auto: 800
Refractor auto: 500 (numbered to 500)
xfractor auto: 250
green refactor auto: 100
blue refractor auto: 50
orange refractor auto: 25
gold refractor auto: 10
red refractor auto: 5
superfractor auto: 1

So it may seem rare when it's numbered to ten, but it's just the same as the rest of the 1,741 autographs except the border is a different color or it's shinier. I can understand why people like modern cards, as autographs and game used pieces can be interesting. However, the pull towards an artificially scarce card makes it easy to shy away.

[Iwantmorecards77]

Hey Al, I noticed you stated you like to assemble Heritage sets. Were you the one who just recently purchased my 2009 Neftali Feliz variation?

Back on topic...I do purchase modern here and there, though vintage has taken up most of my budget. I recently sold off some modern cards to fill in some holes in my rookie card collection from the 1970's - 1990's. Besides that, my card purchasing has stopped due to losing my job in June. The only way I can buy cards is to sell some. lol

[mintacular]

From a positive point of view, modern cards and the reasons I don't like them has increased my interest/collecting of vintage cards...Also, I do hope modern collecting increases as it could be a gateway drug to vintage collecting and in my book the more collectors the better...

[brob28]

I put together a 2005 Cracker Jack set when my first son was born in 2005 with the idea I would give it to him someday. I can see collecting a modern set for something like that, but I have to admit, #2 was born last year and I have not put anything together for him, poor kid!

[U240robert]

Originally Posted by vintagecpa

I think if I could go back to the early 80's where you only had to worry about Topps, Donruss and Fleer, I'd probably still find myself buying a couple of rack pack for the heck of it. Even back then, most collectors realized the cards didn't have much value. It was simply mindless entertainment, much like playing nickle slots.

Fast forward 30 years, paying $4-5 per pack for cards that are just as worthless is the equivalent to moving from the nickle slot machines to the dollar slot machines. They both provide the same level of entertainment, but it costs a whole lot more to reach the same conclusion.

Exactly. I haven't bought a modern card pack/set in ages.
I lost interest in the early 90's with the over population
of sets. The inserts are probably here to stay, which is too bad.
In the past we may have gotten inserts in cards but that
was a bonus. Now the inserts are the attraction, not the cards.
I've seen kids open up packs of cards just to comb through them for the inserts. Then dump the cards in the trash like it was yesterdays bubblegum.
I really think the card companies for the past 20 years have been pretty clueless. Too many people without any trading card background are now calling the shots.

[Jayworld]

I agree with the sentiment expressed by several that the MLB game of baseball today is not as appealing for various reasons, which impacts collectibility of modern baseball cards.

As a kid of the 1970s, I enjoyed watching MLB tremendously and collected baseball cards, too. I loved the teams, the uniforms, the colors, the players, and by collecting, I knew virtually every player on each team in the majors. I liked how the players wore their uniforms, the flapless batting helmets, the fact that Jim Sundberg of the Rangers ushered in a new type of catcher's helmet (he did not use the "traditional" cap turned around or flapless batting helmet turned around, the "rainbow" uniforms of the Astros, the fact that when you went to a Rangers game and they played Oakland - you did not know exactly which jersey the A's would wear (gold or green), etc.

Because most of the teams are the same to me, appearance-wise (am I watching Seattle, Milwaukee, San Diego?), the "pajama" pants, the lack of stirrups, the unfriendliness of players generally, the cost of going to a game, etc., I just don't have the interest in modern cards depicting the modern game. I've tried to collect some over the past 4-5 years, but I find the typical players' cards "meaningless" (as brought up by others) and the impact is on finding that relic card.

The latest modern set that has appealed to me is the Topps Fan Favorites cards, which were basically re-dos of players I grew up with (and older) in different poses on the card designs of the past. When I walk into a local card shop, I ask, "are there any new sets featuring players from the past?"

The last modern card I purchased with semi-regularity (two boxes) was the Topps Allen Ginter set of 2008. I liked the artwork and design, and the fact that cards of non-baseball players were represented....

I, too, agree with the sentiment of bringing back wax packs of 10 card counts with gum, 25 cent packs, no relic, autograph, etc. cards, and perhaps issuing a card set in 3-4 series over a season.... That would help a lot.

[pgellis]

I was thinking about how T206s were distributed and that led me back to this question. I was wondering how hard it must have been to try to put together a "set" of T206 back in 1909-11. Since you only received 1 card in each pack of tobacco, then you only had 1 chance to add to your set with each purchase. I assume cigarettes & tobacco were not cheap back in those days.......probably relatively in line with a pack of cigarettes today (allowing for inflation).

So, that led me to think about this question again............

What if a modern set was distributed in a pack with a single card. You would have to make it "fairly expensive", otherwise you could just buy 50 packs.

So, let's take a set of let's say 300 cards. No "insert cards". No short prints. Distributed in 1 card packs for $5.00 per pack. I know $1500 is a lot for a modern set, but if not mass-produced, then each card should hold it's value of $5.00 at a minimum.

I think this would lead to people getting back into trading. You pay $5.00 for a pack and you get an Adrian Gonzalez card, but you already have one. So, now let's trade him for a Joe Mauer.

I think that would be a great idea.

[tachyonbb]

From what I know the price of a pack of cigarettes was about 5 cents to 10 cents (price plus tax) for a pack of 20 in 1910. About fifteen states outlawed the sale of cigarettes and many communities had laws against women smoking in public.

25% of all cigarette sales was in New York City.

Allowing for inflation based on the consumer price index a 5 cent pack of cigarettes in 1910 would cost $1.15 today and the more expensive dime pack would cost about $2.30. Federal and state tobacco are much higher today than in 1910.

A two pack a day smoker would spend $36.50 a year if he smoked the cheap stuff and acquire about 700 cards a year. I have read that kids would mingle outside smoke shops trying to score cards from smokers who did not collect.

[martyogelvie]

Aside from the already stated fewer cards/companies and brands. I would like to see the traditional card board paper vs the shiny rigid paper used today.