Question for the E90-1 Experts

[FrankWakefield]

I think that in the 70s and 80s the demand for Wagner cards and Jackson cards was less, relative to cards in general. Mitchell was the key card then.

It isn't that the Wagner throwing or the Jackson is less plentiful than Mitchell, but now there are more folks who want a 'Jackson' card or a 'Wagner' card, so one from E90-1 will do. That demand has made it tougher to get one of these cards, of late. If money were no object, a super whale buyer could more readily find Wagner throwing or Jackson cards to buy, and not as many Mitchell's, Sweeney's, Graham's, Shean's, and maybe even Upp's.

[pkaufman]

Frank, no slam at all....just saying that over the entire realm of supposedly tough cards just mentioned, ie - Shean, Upp, McLean, Wagner Throwing, etc. you could probably find an example much easier if you didn't mind having one that was trimmed. As we all are aware, this sort of trimming was fashionable in the early days of collecting.

[FrankWakefield]

.

[pkaufman]

I certainly can't argue with your supposition that some cards are much rarer than others irregardless of condition. I have personally found the Shean, McLean, Stahl, Walsh, Speaker, and Wagner throwing to be among the toughest, no matter what criteria one is using.

[FrankWakefield]

I agree that some cards got trimmed just to 'fit' into a tobacco card stack, or into sleeves or holders. But I am satisfied that there are fewer Walsh's, and Sweeney's out there, than a bunch of the other E90-1s. And if accepting one that is trimmed is ok, that still doesn't drop the card down to 'common' in terms of availability. So if your point was that condition did not matter, then more all of the Mitchells out there would be acceptable, instead of only settling for a slabbed 9 of Mitchell for the Northern Hemisphere's Toughest Want List, for example.

Still. Mitchell is tough. Sweeney and Graham are tough. Notwithstanding condition.

[pkaufman]

Please refer to post #24 for your answer.

[FrankWakefield]

Right.