 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
01-30-2011, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
1st last
I feel with any vintage first or last card of a set. (Outside of the card being true NM..and provided its not a star card)..the card should be looked on as a run of the mill common..and graded in its proper condition as any other common in that same condition.....the 61 T Groat, any 60s #1 card of a league Leaders, etc.. What often happens is...for ex. - that 1950B # 252 ( last card in set DeMars) in VG gets valued higher then card # 251 ( also a common) which is also a Vg shape card
|
|
#2
01-30-2011, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First and Last
I had assumed they normally would be treated the same but for the apparent view that the first and last card in better condition would be scarcer than other commons in top condition, a demand versus supply effect rather than treating the card itself as more valuable. Whether that assumption/impression is correct or not, which I assume was the question, I admit I do not know.
I collect sets and recognize the situation exists, whatever the reason, even if it involves false assumptions/impressions. In putting together my 52 set with all variations, whether Pafko in red and black was over priced or not, it was what it was. Good question/discussion though
|
|
#3
01-30-2011, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First and last cards suffered more than other cards. In vg or lower I don't think they should have a premium, but in higher grades they really should.
(Up to maybe 1980 or so after that it doesn't fit well. ) The first set I had many of was 74. I had a binder and pages by the time I got Aaron, and the Aaron specials got the page treatment too. But the first card in the box got wrecked. Not from having rubber bands, but because I used a toy tractor as a wedge to keep the cards from slumping over in the box. Same went for the last cards 660, 599,499,....I was sorting one day and spilled a glass of juice. The bottom card of each stack was pretty much done for. Even into the mid 80's dealers at shows would often stack cards with no sleeves and rubber bands. If the customers were gentle the cards did ok, if not they got dented and notched. So yes, whatever sorting system was used the first and last cards took the bulk of the beating. Steve B
|
|
#4
01-31-2011, 12:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The '52 T Pafko is probably the best ever example of #1 card abuse. When this new large size card set came out, all other previous cards from 1948 on up were smaller.
'52 Topps got banded in stacks w/ '52 Bowman or other issues and you can imagine what happened to the large cards---They got bent even worse before us kids realized what was happening & we didn't worry about it!
__________________
I've learned that I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy it.
|
|
#5
02-01-2011, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
52t #1
I agree a 52T #1 Pafko in true NM should comand a big premium,but the mistake in value/price is ALWAYS made with this card when it is low grade..this card in G-F-P is no different in scarcity or rarity then any other off condition low # 52T , but it is always goes for higher..this is where I feel the price guides should have corrected this many years ago..give the huge price to the true NM #1 card,but then drop it way way down when you get to the G-F-P
|
|
#6
02-01-2011, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Market Price
There was a similar discussion about the 52 Mantle on CU recently. It is a high number but a double print and there are a lot of them so why does it sell for so much in any condition.
Admittedly with the Mantle there are other factors, but when cards like that and the Pafko keep coming up, and keep selling for a premium, it is what it is, a market result. Maybe the market is irrational and if one waits long enough it will straighten out. 
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
