Stupid relic cards

[rats60]

Originally Posted by steve B

The 73 and 74 baseball team checklists were inserts.
And the 68 game, and 69 deckle edge.
71 coins
64 coins

Probably others.

1984 Topps racks had the all star inserts. Those lasted till 1990.

The modern ones already mentioned were the beginning of the escalation, the UD signed cards were a big deal, and the 93 Finest refractors were a big deal at the time.

Those were in every pack. The 1986 Fleer All Stars were the first modern insert. You didn't get one in every pack. They were seeded one in six packs, so it was a big deal to pull one. It started what became an insert craze in the early 90's. The inserts, then memorabilia and autographed cards became all people cared about and the regular cards, outside of rookie cards, became an afterthought.

[Sean]

In 1965 Topps put gold foil inserts in a few packs. They were mostly star players, 72 players in all. And they were butt ugly. There's still a lot of them on ebay.

[quinnsryche]

Yeah! It's new so it's crap!! Only old stuff is cool! Some of you guys sound as ridiculous as the cards you are bashing. I guess my son is a moronic idiot because he likes new cards and not old ones. Anybody want to say that? Smart move, didn't think so. How about like what you like and don't worry about what others collect? How does someone collecting new stuff have any effect on vintage collectors? Just because a 12 year old kid (or a 55 year old man for that matter) doesn't know who Rube Marquard is, doesn't make him stupid. Maybe a shiny card of an older player sparks an interest in finding out about the history of baseball where a T206 holds no interest or value to him (they are small and many are down right ugly).
Food for thought, back to slamming new cards.
PS - by the way, ALL cards were new at some point.

[Snapolit1]

I collect plenty of new cards. I though this particular thing was horrible.
Now back on your soap box.

[Louieman]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Yeah! It's new so it's crap!! Only old stuff is cool! Some of you guys sound as ridiculous as the cards you are bashing. I guess my son is a moronic idiot because he likes new cards and not old ones. Anybody want to say that? Smart move, didn't think so. How about like what you like and don't worry about what others collect? How does someone collecting new stuff have any effect on vintage collectors? Just because a 12 year old kid (or a 55 year old man for that matter) doesn't know who Rube Marquard is, doesn't make him stupid. Maybe a shiny card of an older player sparks an interest in finding out about the history of baseball where a T206 holds no interest or value to him (they are small and many are down right ugly).
Food for thought, back to slamming new cards.
PS - by the way, ALL cards were new at some point.

+1

It's already happening, but at some point down the road there will be very low demand for the super vintage cards that many of us like, and our niche will be obsolete in terms of being a valuable commodity. Personally I don't care, I just like the cards. But given that, I don't see what the big deal is with liking these new relic cards. It gets kids into the hobby. You're bashing your own kind and pushing young people away from the hobby when that's exactly who is needed down the road. I mean if we're going to go down this route then, why don't I just say that a lot of those t206s and OJs are commercial crap just trying to market to the masses? If you want the real stuff, you need to get soil samples from Elysian Fields and those 1850s potato sacks they used as bases. Those are the "pure" baseball collectibles.

[cubman1941]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Yeah! It's new so it's crap!! Only old stuff is cool! Some of you guys sound as ridiculous as the cards you are bashing. I guess my son is a moronic idiot because he likes new cards and not old ones. Anybody want to say that? Smart move, didn't think so. How about like what you like and don't worry about what others collect? How does someone collecting new stuff have any effect on vintage collectors? Just because a 12 year old kid (or a 55 year old man for that matter) doesn't know who Rube Marquard is, doesn't make him stupid. Maybe a shiny card of an older player sparks an interest in finding out about the history of baseball where a T206 holds no interest or value to him (they are small and many are down right ugly).
Food for thought, back to slamming new cards.
PS - by the way, ALL cards were new at some point.

You make some valid points - I collect old (vintage) and new. The primary difference I see is a 12 year old kid can't afford vintage so should be encouraged to buy, trade and maybe try and sell new cards by all of us. I didn't know who Rube Marquard was when I started collecting my new stuff in 1952. (I also thought they were ugly and quit). Then the 53 Topps came out and then, my favorite, then 53 Bowman black and white. I quit when I went to high school primarily because in my town of 1500 there were no other collectors and no one to talk to. It wasn't until 1975 that i started back again. I now had some resources to spend on cards and started buying everything. Long story but point is we need to encourage kids to collect the new cards - all too many are just playing games on their phones. By encouraging them we build a new generation of card collectors who will maybe learn and care who Rube Marquard was and Johnny Logan and Dave Winfield and all the others that came before and after them. That is what will keep this hobby alive. We won't because we will be gone.

[mark evans]

Couple points:

My comment on the Gehrig card was not intended to slight collectors of modern cards but rather to note that there is no apparent nexus between Gehrig and the gem. Seems gimmicky to me.

No kids are buying Panini's Diamond rookie cards (Simmons). On the other hand, bidding shows five bidders with boatloads of transactions willing to pay > $10,000. I'm obviously missing something. It is hard for me to believe that prices based upon a contrived low supply will be maintained over time.

[Leon]

It seems to be a gamble. Much of what new card collecting is.

Originally Posted by mark evans

Couple points:

My comment on the Gehrig card was not intended to slight collectors of modern cards but rather to note that there is no apparent nexus between Gehrig and the gem. Seems gimmicky to me.

No kids are buying Panini's Diamond rookie cards (Simmons). On the other hand, bidding shows five bidders with boatloads of transactions willing to pay > $10,000. I'm obviously missing something. It is hard for me to believe that prices based upon a contrived low supply will be maintained over time.

[swarmee]

It's not just a Gehrig thing. The entire set has multiple parallel sets with different colored gemstones at varying rarity levels. The gem is based on the rarity.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Yeah! It's new so it's crap!! Only old stuff is cool! Some of you guys sound as ridiculous as the cards you are bashing. I guess my son is a moronic idiot because he likes new cards and not old ones. Anybody want to say that? Smart move, didn't think so. How about like what you like and don't worry about what others collect? How does someone collecting new stuff have any effect on vintage collectors? Just because a 12 year old kid (or a 55 year old man for that matter) doesn't know who Rube Marquard is, doesn't make him stupid. Maybe a shiny card of an older player sparks an interest in finding out about the history of baseball where a T206 holds no interest or value to him (they are small and many are down right ugly).
Food for thought, back to slamming new cards.
PS - by the way, ALL cards were new at some point.

My objection is not that the cards are new. A Trout RC, a Judge RC, etc. is fine. The problem is their turning to gimics to sell cards. Then doing Jersey cards and using fake jerseys (Thorpe). Doing bat cards and using fake bats (Gibson). Doing cut autograph cards with fake cuts (1st 5 hofers). Getting players autographs and not witnessing them and ending up with fakes (Shaq). Now they aren't satisfied with rookie cards and they now put a logo on cards to make "fake rookie cards" years after their real rookie cards. Now they only want to sell to breakers and not hobby stores/dealers. They want their cards to be a form of legalized gambling and not a hobby. So the problem isn't with the cards and when they were made, but the card companies and their business practices.

[orly57]

+10000 to Packs.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by rats60

My objection is not that the cards are new. A Trout RC, a Judge RC, etc. is fine. The problem is their turning to gimics to sell cards. Then doing Jersey cards and using fake jerseys (Thorpe). Doing bat cards and using fake bats (Gibson). Doing cut autograph cards with fake cuts (1st 5 hofers). Getting players autographs and not witnessing them and ending up with fakes (Shaq). Now they aren't satisfied with rookie cards and they now put a logo on cards to make "fake rookie cards" years after their real rookie cards. Now they only want to sell to breakers and not hobby stores/dealers. They want their cards to be a form of legalized gambling and not a hobby. So the problem isn't with the cards and when they were made, but the card companies and their business practices.

Speaking of business practices, artificial scarcity was rampant among pre-war card manufacturers. The Goudey Lajoie is a prime example.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Speaking of business practices, artificial scarcity was rampant among pre-war card manufacturers. The Goudey Lajoie is a prime example.

Goudey sent one to any collector that wrote a letter to them requesting one. One collector was sent 10 of them. Nothing like today where they deliberately make a 1/1, /5, /10, /25, etc.

[MartyFromCANADA]

Originally Posted by rats60

My objection is not that the cards are new. A Trout RC, a Judge RC, etc. is fine. The problem is their turning to gimics to sell cards.

Kind of like the 'gimmick' that the American Tobacco Company used to get young fellas to buy cigarettes back then.

[Runscott]

I just saw a Kyle Seager uni relic card. That should go for about a nickel.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MartyFromCANADA

Kind of like the 'gimmick' that the American Tobacco Company used to get young fellas to buy cigarettes back then.

Not at all alike. The kids had a product, cigarettes, that they could resell.

[itslarry]

So so many salty old men in this thread.
"Only my bit of old cardboard has value".