second year cards more valuable than rookies?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

definitely agree.

i think any examples produced will be products of the 52t, condition sensitive sets like the 71 or simply rc's that happened to land in an unattractive set.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Name a player whose second year card was six years after his RC. Both Topps.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Name a player whose second year card was six years after his RC.

Second card a Goudey issue? lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Second card a Goudey issue? lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Topps for both.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Topps for both.

Dang!..I'm sure someone on here knows. Gotta be either a military break or a cup of coffee then didn't make it back up for a while. Maybe Adam Greenberg?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Dang!..I'm sure someone on here knows. Gotta be either a military break or a cup of coffee then didn't make it back up for a while. Maybe Adam Greenberg?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oops I had the question wrong sorry!! He had a first year card, a second year card (I didn't realize he had this one damn just found out), and then his third card is not until five years later. And there is a second player with a four year gap between his first and second cards. 50s/60s era.

[Rookiemonster]

1969 topps Johnny bench is pretty close .

The only other card I can think of off the top of my head is in football . Brett Favre 1992 stadium club high series .

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oops I had the question wrong sorry!! He had a first year card, a second year card (I didn't realize he had this one damn just found out), and then his third card is not until five years later. And there is a second player with a four year gap between his first and second cards. 50s/60s era.

Not sure if this falls into the realm of your intent, but Maury Wills' rookie card is a '63 Fleer, and he didn't get a Topps until about 5 years later ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[begsu1013]

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

ignoring.

[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.

[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.