Seaver RC vs Ryan RC

[1952boyntoncollector]

Nolan Ryan beating up robin ventura sets him above seavor..forget his ks

[Eric72]

Generally speaking, there are fewer Seaver rookies available for sale at any one time. As such, the competition for Seaver rookies is a bit more spirited among collectors who simply wish to own one.

Both cards are from the late '60s. Both are multi-player cards that feature HOFers. One (Seaver) may be the best pitcher from the 20th Century. The other (Ryan) may be the most popular pitcher from the 20th Century. In a "tale of the tape" that's otherwise relatively close, Seaver's scarcity matters.

As for the prices at higher grades, Ryan's popularity may be a factor. This popularity applies to both the player and the card. Ryan's rookie has been a chase card for 35-40 years. For those into "competitive collecting" it probably makes sense to spend an extra five grand for a one-grade-bump.

[G1911]

This is pretty normal. The Ryan is one of the most highly printed cards of the decade, the Seaver one of the least. When total population is low and demand high, it pushes the price between poor and mint closer than it is when there’s enough to go around and the set builders can just take the low grade ones without much scarcity. The Ryan is popular and iconic, but there’s one out there for every single vintage collector.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is pretty normal. The Ryan is one of the most highly printed cards of the decade, the Seaver one of the least. When total population is low and demand high, it pushes the price between poor and mint closer than it is when there’s enough to go around and the set builders can just take the low grade ones without much scarcity. The Ryan is popular and iconic, but there’s one out there for every single vintage collector.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Greg gets it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Seaver gets no love. Far superior pitcher to Ryan, and a very tough card that in addition to being in relatively short supply is plagued by several problems.

[Republicaninmass]

I believe 1968 topps has had a plethora of large finds. At least I was told that back in the 90s

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is pretty normal. The Ryan is one of the most highly printed cards of the decade, the Seaver one of the least. When total population is low and demand high, it pushes the price between poor and mint closer than it is when there’s enough to go around and the set builders can just take the low grade ones without much scarcity. The Ryan is popular and iconic, but there’s one out there for every single vintage collector.

That makes total sense. It’s interesting just how much this impacts the low grade market for these cards.

[brian1961]

I'd like to chime in on this matter. I was a 13-year-old collector in 1967, trying with all my might to complete the big Topps set. Based upon what I did in 1966, I knew what I would have to do.

Late in the summer of '66, every outlet seemed to have turned to football cards. My Chicago suburb only had one convenience shop carry the 7th series, and by the time I discovered it, there was just one wax pack left! At this time, I was ordering cards from The Trading Card Company, located in Farmington Hills, Michigan. I ordered the 1966 7th series from them, for a very nominal price. Beautiful condition. This purchase completed my '66 Topps.

So here it was 1967. Football was getting a lot more popular after the first SUPER BOWL, and the card-selling outlets seemed to stock them even earlier. I did not bother even looking for the 1967 7th Series baseball; I once again ordered them from The Trading Card Company. Same result---gorgeous cards---completed my 1967 set. Nestled among the last series was Tom Seaver! I had wanted him for several months. Early in May, Tom's picture appeared on the front of THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE sports section, just as he was about to deliver a flaming fastball. I thought to myself, "wow, that guy looks good!" Of course, Topps was doing their lousy-looking duo-player rookie cards; ugh, I hated how they looked. Be that as it may, that duo card was Tom Seaver's Topps rookie card. I was half a century away from discovering the New York Mets made a small postcard set of their team, including a drop-jaw gorgeous beauty of Tom Terrific! I finally got that baby this year; it's the proverbial 100 times better-looking than his sardine Topps.

Back to the OP. None of my friends got the 1967 Topps 7th Series baseball but me. Compared to the plethora of 1968 Topps 2nd Series with Nolan Ryan, offered early in the season by the millions, the 1967 Topps 7th Series is a rarity. I remember well getting at least doubles of the Ryan rookie back in '68. Not that I noticed much, since he was a nobody at that time.

That's what I remember as a teen collector back in the day. Take it for what it is.

--- Brian Powell

[rats60]

To echo the above. My brother and I both completed the 1968 Topps sets and between us we had a dozen Ryan RCs. We both had 1967 complete up through series 6, but had few high numbers and 0 Seaver RCs. When I got my first job, the first thing I did was order 2 complete 7th series sets from The Card Collectors Co. My brother's Christmas present that year was one of those runs of mint high numbers to complete his set.

In my opinion, the 1967 Topps Seaver is one of the most underpriced cards in the hobby. Irregardless of how good Seaver was and if Ryan is overrated or not, the scarcity of the Seaver should make it more expensive than the Ryan RC. They were both outstanding pitchers.

I think the disparity in pricing for lower grade copies is also due to the lack of distribution of 1967 high series. Many areas didn't even get them. Most of the supply came into the hobby through mail order dealers selling to collectors who took care of their cards. The Ryan being more available to the general public, put lots of copies into hands of kids who played with their cards, flipped them, put them in bike spokes, etc.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Generally speaking, there are fewer Seaver rookies available for sale at any one time. As such, the competition for Seaver rookies is a bit more spirited among collectors who simply wish to own one.

Both cards are from the late '60s. Both are multi-player cards that feature HOFers. One (Seaver) may be the best pitcher from the 20th Century. The other (Ryan) may be the most popular pitcher from the 20th Century. In a "tale of the tape" that's otherwise relatively close, Seaver's scarcity matters.

As for the prices at higher grades, Ryan's popularity may be a factor. This popularity applies to both the player and the card. Ryan's rookie has been a chase card for 35-40 years. For those into "competitive collecting" it probably makes sense to spend an extra five grand for a one-grade-bump.

Both cards are great cards to have in your collection. They getting 1 of each in whatever the best grade your budget allowed.
As for the why I think it feels like their are always Ryan’s cards available for purchase or auction.

[ALR-bishop]

What if any is the differential in price between the Topps Ryan and the Topps/MB Ryan in the same condition ?

[bobsbbcards]

PSA 1:
Seaver $415
Ryan $443

PSA 1.5:
Seaver $603
Ryan $434

PSA 2:
Seaver $823
Ryan $465

PSA 2.5:
Seaver $576
Ryan $540

PSA 3:
Seaver $928
Ryan $580

PSA 3.5:
Seaver $730
Ryan $664

PSA 4:
Seaver $1046
Ryan $859

PSA 4.5:
Seaver $1183
Ryan $924

PSA 5:
Seaver $1217
Ryan $1049

PSA 5.5:
Seaver $1225
Ryan $1285

PSA 6:
Seaver $1598
Ryan $1636

PSA 6.5:
Seaver $1680
Ryan $2348

PSA 7:
Seaver $2130
Ryan $2843

PSA 7.5:
Seaver $3250
Ryan $4171

PSA 8:
Seaver $4303
Ryan $7511

PSA 8.5:
Seaver $7975
Ryan $21,690

PSA 9:
Seaver $18,924
Ryan $108,034

PSA 10:
Seaver $344,400
Ryan $600,000

[Cliff Bowman]

And to think the Mets traded both of them for Jim Fregosi, Steve Henderson, Pat Zachry, and Doug Flynn.

[jchcollins]

Though I came of age during the time that the '68 Ryan card was skyrocketing in the early 1990's, I had started collecting 5+ years earlier, and from my reading already up to that point in time, I knew inherently somehow that the '67 Denehy / Seaver was the more difficult card due to it's series placement and scarcity. Interesting that when I first started buying packs in 1986 - Nolan Ryan was considered a good pitcher, but I think pretty much everyone would have agreed at the time that Seaver was better. Here nearly 40 years later - the card world aside, and the sports world (as evidenced by debates on social media, etc.) would seem to think just about the opposite.

I guess the Seaver RC has always been so appealing to me because it checks both the baseball greatness and baseball card greatness boxes. First ballot HOF'er, iconic pitcher who was likely the greatest of his generation. And from a card perspective, a single print high number in what was likely the most popular set of the decade of the 1960's.