When commons are not commons - the end

[Leon]

Originally Posted by donmuth

There are some good vintage online trading groups (e.g. Vintage Card Traders) where you can turn your duplicate commons into ones you need to complete your set(s). I would highly recommend considering getting involved in one or more trading groups and putting your dupes to work for you while also helping out other collectors who are probably looking for some cards that you have extras of.

That can be done on our own BST too...without the distractions of FB..
.

[fkm_bky]

A common is also not a common (to me personally) if I have a tie to a player or a back run b/c of a pose or commonality. Example, I share a birthday w/ Buck Herzog. I'm working on the back run, so the "common-ness" of his card evaporates for me. Now, to Ryan's point, I'm not buying his cards as an investment, although they'll likely at least hold their value to a certain extent going forward.

Bill

[Jay Wolt]

Cobb, Ruth, Matty's & Wagners are great
But to me the cornerstone of the hobby is commons.
As an example, there's 100 Turkey Red's in the set 25 are Hall Of Famers, the rest is commons & minor stars.
I'll take the commons all day long. Much bigger bang for the buck

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I'm a postwar collector who especially likes the Bowman sets of the 1950s. I have a lower grade but presentable '52 set, and I'm currently working on the '50 set, including the copyright/no copyright cards. Recently, I purchased a couple of 1960s Topps Mantles, and I have my eye on similar star cards that I don't already own. Briefly the thought of "Why am I spending money on commons? Ultimately, I could buy more of Mantle, Clemente, Aaron, etc. with those funds" occurred to me. For me, I am a passionate fan of baseball in the the early 1950s, and I read a great deal about that era. Those "common players" in the Bowman sets are almost all known commodities to me from my reading, and they just happen to cost less than the stars. There's nothing terribly uncommon about most of the star cards from the 50s and 60s. The only thing that separates me from them is money. My collecting budget isn't unlimited, so it's nice to pick up an attractive card of a player that I have knowledge of for substantially less than a star card. After I finish '50, I'll probably work on '54 Bowman next. Somehow it has grown on me over the years. It has some errors/variations in it that involve "common" players, and I'll have fun tracking them down at not a huge cost and continuing to read about their exploits. Maybe someday, I'll actually be able to get into the 60s and work on a set or two there (if I ever get all of the 50s cards I want).