second year cards more valuable than rookies?

[begsu1013]

52 mantle
71 munson
92 favre stadium club
76 george brett (in psa 9)
71 blue
71 buckner
62 williams (in 8)
t210 jackson
92 martinez bowman


edited to add honorable mentions:

71 bench
52 campanella
67 maury wills
86 ryne sandberg in 10
52t mays in a 9. (no recent 51b 9 sale)
73 joe morgan 9 (until recent hof rc buying group surge bubble, at least)


interesting side notes of this thread:

lou pinella has 3 two player rookie cards.
bill davis has 5 topps rookie cards.

__________________________________________________ __________


can be pre or post, but curious what other player's second year card is considered more valuable than their rookie card in the same grade.

don't mind if regional/obscure oddballs/xrc's are thrown into the mix, but really wanting to concentrate on the predominate runs....

the 52 mantle is a world unto it's own obviously, but a prime example of what i'm looking for is the 71 munson. even in a 8, it's nearly 2x's what you can pick up his 70 in a 9 for...

any other examples that you can think of?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Your examples are not good. Mantle is that high of a price ONLY because it is the first year of Topps.

To answer the question, truly depends on the player. If it's a top prospect, nothing sells more than hype in your example.

If it's an outside 100 prospect or whatever, they may have significantly more value their second year (depending on performance of course).

This is for current minor leaguers. Buxton great example. His prices will go up most likely because it's hard to do as poorly as he did (he clearly could be worse). But they may not reach his hype peak ever again, unless he starts doing what he was scouted to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

71 Bench in high grade is worth more than the rookie.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

71 Bench in high grade is worth more than the rookie.

Condition sensitivity? I totally forgot that aspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[begsu1013]

same grade. it's up there.

i noted the mantle.

i think the munson is a fantastic example.

especially considering the 71 8 almost doubles what a 70 9 goes for!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

same grade.

Yes, Bench 8 in 1971 sells for more than Bench 8 in 1968 I believe.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Condition sensitivity? I totally forgot that aspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, exactly. Or in the case of the 52 high numbers (Campanella example), just plain relative scarcity.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, exactly. Or in the case of the 52 high numbers (Campanella example), just plain relative scarcity.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

52T Campanella probably worth more across the board than his 49B

And that 49 Bowman set is so unattractive. Right, makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

52T Campanella probably worth more across the board than his 49B

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

52T Campanella probably worth more across the board than his 49B

I think you got to go by the same card company...where the 2nd year is worth more than the rookie....its a bit unfair to compare bowman 'rookie' with Topps (pseudo rookie ie. First Topps Card')

You dont see 'first bowman card' for a reason...you only see first topps card...

[begsu1013]

71 is not bench's second year, but nevertheless a good call.

and it would be nice to keep it the same company but even that's asking too much, i think

perfect world, same company, same grade and keeping it rookie year vs second year...

but it's hard to put any boundaries here, so throw out anything ya got...

even the 71 bench 8. ; )

[the 'stache]

Besides being a high series card, the Favre Stadium Club card is unique, as his first Stadium Club card was issued when he was an Atlanta Falcon. The second, more valuable card, was issued when he went to Green Bay. Munson, Bench, Mantle et all stayed with the same team for their careers. The Falcons gave up a future Hall of Famer. The Packers fleeced the Falcons badly. <3 Ron Wolf.

[MR RAREBACK]

.

[MR RAREBACK]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MR RAREBACK

joe nuxhall josh hamilton gap after rookie card

No idea about Hamilton. Not Nuxhall. The ones I was thinking of are Mike Cuellar (59 60T then no card until 65T) and Lou Piniella (64T then no card until 68T). I had not thought of Wills but that is a great one.

Speaking of Piniella he must be the only player to appear on THREE of the two player rookie cards -- 64 68 and then again in 69. All with different teams.

[Mikehealer]

This isn't a great example, but in cards graded a 9, George Brett's '76 card almost doubles his '75 card. Not so much in 8's or less.

[begsu1013]

Originally Posted by Mikehealer

This isn't a great example, but in cards graded a 9, George Brett's '76 card almost doubles his '75 card. Not so much in 8's or less.

i would like to thank mikehealer for point out my complete idiocy. i am a huge collector of the 76 brett card. even snagged that recent psa 8.

the 76 brett is almost impossible to find w/o a tilt, a severe pd and it's almost always completely oc. to find one otherwise is a true needle.

you are completely right and im an idiot.

the 76 in a 9 most certainly trumps a 75 in a 9.

this fits the criteria of exactly what i'm looking for.

so great example and good work!

[ALR-bishop]

[QUOTE

Speaking of Piniella he must be the only player to appear on THREE of the two player rookie cards -- 64 68 and then again in 69. All with different teams.[/QUOTE]

Check out Bill Davis

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

[QUOTE

Speaking of Piniella he must be the only player to appear on THREE of the two player rookie cards -- 64 68 and then again in 69. All with different teams.

Check out Bill Davis[/QUOTE]

That is absolutely incredible.

[begsu1013]

[QUOTE=ALR-bishop;1507047]

Check out Bill Davis

al,

might not fit the criteria...(hadn't researched all 4 cards yet on pricing yet)

BUT

that is incredible and making a note on the original post.

and thanks for teaching me something today!

[clydepepper]

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