NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-02-2023, 12:10 PM
homerunhitter homerunhitter is offline
Bert
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 341
Default Is there such thing as junk era vintage cards?

I know that itís widely accepted in the hobby that junk era is basically 80s and 90s issued and that vintage cards are generally issued 1979 and below so my question is:

When it come to topps cards 1979 and below is there years that collectors/the hobby/you/etc considered ďjunk vintageĒ meaning less desirable or over produced?

For me junk vintage is like 1976-1979 topps. But really leaning toward anything made in the 1970ís as junk vintage. It almost seems to me like ďrealĒ vintage should be 1969 topps and below. What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-02-2023, 01:03 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,839
Default

I donít think 1980 or 1970 make sense as cutoff years. 1974 (end of the Topps series era) and 1981 (end of Topps Monopoly) do.

The Topps sets become more junky with pretty much every year, in the sense production tended to go up over time and value today decreases over time. I donít think they were ďjunkĒ in the sense we use for the 80ís though. Production was still honest, in that it increased to meet a higher natural demand as time went on and more kids bought cards as the years ticked by. The speculative demand from investors that spiked 80ís production in a less natural way is what makes it junk, people buying immense quantity with no intent to open or use the cards as intended. Thatís why there are 100 unopened 1988 wax boxes for every person in America still and a 1976 box is tough and worth a lot of money. I wouldnít call a period in the vintage era ďjunkĒ, because production was always tied to actual natural demand.

The junk can be gold though. I love the 1987 Topps design and set and that it is worth like $5 is a sweet bonus to an enjoyer of cards instead of cash. That we all call this era junk seems to say more about peoples priorities than the cards themselves. That which they may profit off of is gold, that which they do not is junk, the actual cards themselves donít really even enter the equation.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-02-2023, 01:38 PM
homerunhitter homerunhitter is offline
Bert
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 341
Default

I think my point on my post is for example are there many people here chafing 1979 topps or 1978 topps? Or getting excited about 1977 topps! I think more would get excited about 1952 topps or 1953 topps or chasing 1955 topps or 1956 topps versus 1974 topps!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-02-2023, 01:46 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homerunhitter View Post
I think my point on my post is for example are there many people here chafing 1979 topps or 1978 topps? Or getting excited about 1977 topps! I think more would get excited about 1952 topps or 1953 topps or chasing 1955 topps or 1956 topps versus 1974 topps!
I mean, 1952-1956 is obviously more popular. I donít think comparing less than favorably to the pinnacle of the golden era is the barometer of junk.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-02-2023, 01:57 PM
homerunhitter homerunhitter is offline
Bert
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 341
Default

Iím sorry maybe Iím not communicating the question Iím asking correctly. Hopefully someone else will come along and hopefully understand the question Iím asking.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-02-2023, 01:59 PM
Beercan collector's Avatar
Beercan collector Beercan collector is offline
Eric
member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Midwest
Posts: 26
Default

I don’t think there’s any pre-1980 junk era mainly because of topps poor printing
- It’s still fun to find a 1975 card where a players image is focused or a 76 card without print dots - 1978 and 1979 have horrendous centering .
Seems to me quality control was pretty good in 1977
- I still expect anything from 1980 to be in mint condition .

Last edited by Beercan collector; 01-02-2023 at 02:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-02-2023, 02:05 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,687
Default

.

Last edited by toppcat; 01-02-2023 at 02:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-02-2023, 02:05 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,687
Default

1970 was a starting point because there were no Mantles. 1972 to me is the end of the vintage era, not the least because it's the year Topps went public and dramatically changed their business model.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-02-2023, 02:09 PM
ejstel ejstel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 260
Default

As someone mentioned here; I'll go with the 1976-86 as vintage junk (for building sets) with 74&75 on the fringe.

This is where I love heritage (design and premium) but don't love the thousands of minions I have hanging around each year.

...maybe per above it is the collectors shaping the demand for 73 and below...each set had multiple series to collect/fill? Vs the feeling of all in one like 74 started (with some rare 1973 test market releases of all in one series).

87 forward was junked due to the volume of print.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Last edited by ejstel; 01-03-2023 at 09:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-02-2023, 02:30 PM
GasHouseGang's Avatar
GasHouseGang GasHouseGang is offline
David M.
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: S. California
Posts: 2,705
Default

I think since Topps first factory set was offered in 1974 exclusively in the J.C. Penney catalog, that would probably be the start of the Junk Vintage for me.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-02-2023, 03:02 PM
Beercan collector's Avatar
Beercan collector Beercan collector is offline
Eric
member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Midwest
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GasHouseGang View Post
I think since Topps first factory set was offered in 1974 exclusively in the J.C. Penney catalog, that would probably be the start of the Junk Vintage for me.
Thanks - 1974 - didnít know that .
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-02-2023, 03:04 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,739
Default

I would give the question a resounding "No!"

The thing about groups of junk era cards is the fact that they're so 'worthless' that you can't even give the stuff away. With Topps cards (including commons) from any year up and into the 80's there will always be enough value associated with them to find collectors willing to pay for your stacks of extras.
__________________
Take a look at my funny Baseball Cards T-Shirts:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=320524

Interested in trading? Check out my bucket:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706

ďI was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.Ē
Casey Stengel

Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s.

Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-02-2023, 03:09 PM
D. Bergin's Avatar
D. Bergin D. Bergin is offline
Dave
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 5,314
Default

Best thing to ever happen to Topps was losing the monopoly in 1981. Mainstream interest absolutely sky-rocketed after that.

So I'd say anything before that can't really qualify as junk.

Try to find a legit unopened box of anything before 1981, and see what price you're going to pay for it...even in sets that have very limited chase/rookie cards in them.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-02-2023, 04:45 PM
bobsbbcards's Avatar
bobsbbcards bobsbbcards is offline
Bob F.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,736
Default

1981 through late 1981.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-03-2023, 06:44 AM
deweyinthehall deweyinthehall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Bergin View Post
Best thing to ever happen to Topps was losing the monopoly in 1981. Mainstream interest absolutely sky-rocketed after that.

So I'd say anything before that can't really qualify as junk.

Try to find a legit unopened box of anything before 1981, and see what price you're going to pay for it...even in sets that have very limited chase/rookie cards in them.
This is something I often hear - the advent of multiple brands was needed to push Topps out of its doldrums, but I have to say I think some of their best work was in the 1970s and some of their worst was in the 1980s.

I've been doing a couple projects which have me poring over card images from the 80s of all makers and while Topps' card designs are often very good, the execution is often terrible, in comparison to Fleer and Donruss (setting aside Score and UD - both clearly superior). So many of their on-card images are fuzzy, dark, grainy, etc. - far worse than Fleer or Donruss and certainly far worse than their own product in the 1970s. The other thing which has recently left me really surprised was the extensive continued use of paint jobs, even for players/teams that the other companies managed to locate nice images of - even in Traded sets! So to me, the competition corresponded to a decrease in Topps' quality.

A bit off topic, but the quote got me thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-03-2023, 02:10 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is offline
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 8,749
Default

Back in the 80s cards from the 60s-70s were considered like junk wax is now. There was so much of it nobody thought it would be worth anything close to what it is now.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-03-2023, 02:25 PM
JustinD's Avatar
JustinD JustinD is offline
Ju$tin D@v3n.por+
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Birmingham, Mi
Posts: 2,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homerunhitter View Post
I think my point on my post is for example are there many people here chafing 1979 topps or 1978 topps? Or getting excited about 1977 topps! I think more would get excited about 1952 topps or 1953 topps or chasing 1955 topps or 1956 topps versus 1974 topps!
I would say this is not true in my experience at all.

Many, if not most collectors enjoy the memories and feelings they receive from their collections. The cards that twist the heart strings of childhood will bring you out and are usually the first sets purchased.

With the younger crowd on here, there's constant mentions of sets I have little interest in like 88 or 91 Topps. For myself, I prefer 1985 Topps over any and all other sets of any year as it was my favorite year of collecting and when I jumped in full force.

Most members have favorites of years they began, I have seen true excitement for the 22' Topps Heritage with the 73' format. I would rate this one of the worst designs Topps ever created, but I would never look down on someone's childhood whimsy.

It's all perspective, for me the happiness I get from those memories far surpasses other sets. I still love them, but its a different kind of love. Those days of riding bikes to get cards, a soda, and a Marathon Bar rule all.
__________________
- Justin D.


Player collecting - Lance Parrish, Jim Davenport, John Norlander.

Successful B/S/T with - Highstep74, Northviewcats, pencil1974, T2069bk, tjenkins, wilkiebaby11, baez578, Bocabirdman, maddux31, Leon, Just-Collect, bigfish, quinnsryche...and a whole bunch more, I stopped keeping track, lol.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-03-2023, 02:39 PM
D. Bergin's Avatar
D. Bergin D. Bergin is offline
Dave
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 5,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deweyinthehall View Post
This is something I often hear - the advent of multiple brands was needed to push Topps out of its doldrums, but I have to say I think some of their best work was in the 1970s and some of their worst was in the 1980s.

I've been doing a couple projects which have me poring over card images from the 80s of all makers and while Topps' card designs are often very good, the execution is often terrible, in comparison to Fleer and Donruss (setting aside Score and UD - both clearly superior). So many of their on-card images are fuzzy, dark, grainy, etc. - far worse than Fleer or Donruss and certainly far worse than their own product in the 1970s. The other thing which has recently left me really surprised was the extensive continued use of paint jobs, even for players/teams that the other companies managed to locate nice images of - even in Traded sets! So to me, the competition corresponded to a decrease in Topps' quality.

A bit off topic, but the quote got me thinking.

I meant from more of a business perspective. Agree with you on the quality control.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-03-2023, 03:25 PM
Eric72's Avatar
Eric72 Eric72 is offline
Eric Perry
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 3,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homerunhitter View Post
I know that itís widely accepted in the hobby that junk era is basically 80s and 90s issued and that vintage cards are generally issued 1979 and below so my question is:

When it come to topps cards 1979 and below is there years that collectors/the hobby/you/etc considered ďjunk vintageĒ meaning less desirable or over produced?

For me junk vintage is like 1976-1979 topps. But really leaning toward anything made in the 1970ís as junk vintage. It almost seems to me like ďrealĒ vintage should be 1969 topps and below. What do you think?
I certainly don't think '70s Topps cards are junk. If you're giving any away, let me know.
__________________
Eric Perry

Currently collecting:
T206 (129/524)
1956 Topps Baseball (183/342)

"You can observe a lot by just watching."
- Yogi Berra
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-03-2023, 03:49 PM
homerunhitter homerunhitter is offline
Bert
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 341
Default

Iím sure you are taking about early 1970ís cause ainít no one got time for 1979 Topps!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-03-2023, 04:21 PM
sthoemke sthoemke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 307
Default

Wasn't 1952 Topps junk at one point?

It's said that they dumped a cargo container of the cards into the Atlantic Ocean because the cards weren't worth storing.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-03-2023, 07:10 PM
Eric72's Avatar
Eric72 Eric72 is offline
Eric Perry
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 3,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homerunhitter View Post
Iím sure you are taking about early 1970ís cause ainít no one got time for 1979 Topps!
My collecting began with '77, '78, '79, and '80 Topps. Not surprisingly, I have a disproportionately high degree of affection for those sets.

And, every thread needs a card:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1979-Topps-Eddie-Murray-(set-upgrade).jpg (190.2 KB, 378 views)
__________________
Eric Perry

Currently collecting:
T206 (129/524)
1956 Topps Baseball (183/342)

"You can observe a lot by just watching."
- Yogi Berra
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-03-2023, 08:37 PM
homerunhitter homerunhitter is offline
Bert
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 341
Default

Very Cool!!! Thatís what makes this hobby to great is there is room for everyone to enjoy what they like best!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-05-2023, 04:44 AM
Snowman's Avatar
Snowman Snowman is offline
+j +R@!|
Tra,vis Tr,ail
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,171
Default

Pretty much anything after 1972 I consider to be semi-junk until 1981 when it becomes true junk. The only exception I have is for 1975 because of the cool design.
__________________
I'm a data scientist who works on problems that are very similar to the problem of "AI" card grading. Here are some links to some of my thoughts on the topic.

https://net54baseball.com/showthread...35#post2132535

https://net54baseball.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=46
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-21-2023, 01:15 PM
Jenx34 Jenx34 is offline
Ch.ris Jenk.ins
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Birmingham AL
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homerunhitter View Post
I think my point on my post is for example are there many people here chafing 1979 topps or 1978 topps? Or getting excited about 1977 topps! I think more would get excited about 1952 topps or 1953 topps or chasing 1955 topps or 1956 topps versus 1974 topps!
The simple answer to that is Duh! Of course people are more excited to chase '52 and '53 vs. 1974. The reason is time.

1970's card values are rising, especially in high grade due to time passing. In 20 years, you'll think differently about 70's cards. Granted one will always have a set they like less than others, but watch card values, especially of the stars over the next 5-10 years and beyond. They won't be thought of as junk.

One thing that does differentiate sets after 1973, is there is no extra value for High #s, common or stars. A Mark Lemongello or Rogelio Moret card will likely never command any value, but mid to low grade 50's commons are often sold for $1 or $2, so it's not like they are skyrocketing. There is a little more cache to older stars. There was also an air of mystery about many from the 50's and 60's due to the lack of television.

The only way we will ever truly know what the hard definition of the junk era is will be in 30-40 years, are people seeking out the stars from the mid-80s to early 90s. If a 1983 Tony Gwynn in a PSA 8 doesn't appreciate proportionately (as it seems to have stayed stagnant for the most part now), then you'll have your answer. But to look at the 1970's cards as junk, in my opinion, indicates a narrow minded view and ignores what history shall provide us.

Last edited by Jenx34; 01-21-2023 at 01:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-11-2023, 12:48 PM
RCMcKenzie's Avatar
RCMcKenzie RCMcKenzie is offline
Rob
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 2,776
Default

I'm sort of agreeing with the OP that the "junk vintage" era is 1957 thru 1979. I will carefully place a 1956 Topps common into a cardsaver, but 1957's are shuffled up and dealt into a 5000 count box with Joe Montana and Walter Payton rookies.

It probably depends on your own era. I bought packs in the mid 70's and bought late 50's cards in lots at shows for pennies, and put them all together in boxes.

I would categorize card eras as before 1886, 1886-1919, 1920-1938, 1939-1956, 1957-1979, 1980-1992, 1993-today.
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades)
Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-12-2023, 06:13 AM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 11,968
Default

It is really hard to label cards from the 1970s as junk wax from 40 years later. In the 1980s-1990s, there were some definite distinctions I saw when going to hundreds of card shows that might be helpful to the discussion.

IMO, the closest thing to junk era vintage is 1978-1980. Those cards were issued in great abundance and buying back in the day, I recall 1979 Topps wax and three-pack trays available at shows for years after issue, very cheaply. I opened 1979 tray packs for years chasing a Smith RC (stupid move, BTW, worse than drawing to an inside straight). Same with various configurations of 1980. That bears out with the stacks of these cards you can find in high grade at shows in common boxes.

1977 is kind of a transition year. I never saw unopened in the volume that the next few years brought but there was still quite a bit of it.

1974-1976 is the next tier. I really did not see these cards as unopened in any quantity. I understand that there were some big dealers with giant caches of unopened but it wasn't out there like later years.

1973 is another transitional year. It is the last of the series era, though in some areas all 660 cards were issued at once. Still, the high numbers are notably tougher than the rest.

I group 1957-1972 together. Size standardized and high and semi-high series that never made it into every market.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true.

https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/

Or not...

Last edited by Exhibitman; 03-12-2023 at 11:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-12-2023, 02:38 PM
RCMcKenzie's Avatar
RCMcKenzie RCMcKenzie is offline
Rob
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 2,776
Default

This 64 Drysdale is the card that reminded me of this thread, and it prompted me to bring this topic up again. I found this Drysdale in a box of unsorted late 70's Topps. I fished it out and placed it into a Cardsaver 1. Is it "junk"? No, it's worth about $5. I think the term "junk vintage" is humorous. I can see where it could be considered inaccurate, or even rude. When I bought this card in 1980 for $2, I thought I really had something, and I guess I still do.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg topps64drysdale.jpg (106.5 KB, 145 views)
File Type: jpg topps64drysdaleb.jpg (103.4 KB, 146 views)
File Type: jpg topps64drysdalec.jpg (160.2 KB, 146 views)
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades)
Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-12-2023, 03:35 PM
Harliduck's Avatar
Harliduck Harliduck is offline
John Otto
J0hn Ot.to
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Marysville, Wa
Posts: 1,506
Default

Interesting read...and I agree with most and feel ultimately it's what stirs you personally on how you feel...personally. I started opening packs of 78s and 79s...not the coolest cards but to me, I love them. I have both sets in Mint...and my childhood sets...not so mint...and those are the priceless cards for me.


I will add this from a non partisan point of view. In 2014 I bought a NrMT 1976 Topps set for $200 off ebay. At the time I was thinking, dang, that's a lot. Almost ten years later...worth probably triple that, probably now I could sell for at least $600, maybe more...it's tight with a rare centered Brett. I would hardly call anything I can triple my "investment" on in 10 years as "junk". I do hold more regard to cards 73 and back, but you can't deny the value. What will that set be worth in 2033?? $1200?

I could buy a 1988 Topps set in 2014 for 20 bucks...I can buy a 1988 Topps set now for 20 bucks...probably could go cheaper then and now...haha. That...is junk.
__________________
John Otto

1963 Fleer - 1981-90 Fleer/Donruss/Score/Leaf Complete
1953 - 1990 Topps/Bowman Complete
1954 Red Heart - 24/33 73%
1953-55 Dormand SGC 39/41 95% SGC AVG Score - 4.7
1964 Topps Giants SGC 20/60 33% SGC AVG Score - 7.5

Last edited by Harliduck; 03-12-2023 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-12-2023, 03:41 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harliduck View Post
Interesting read...and I agree with most and feel ultimately it's what stirs you personally on how you feel...personally. I started opening packs of 78s and 79s...not the coolest cards but to me, I love them. I have both sets in Mint...and my childhood sets...not so mint...and those are the priceless cards for me.


I will add this from a non partisan point of view. In 2014 I bought a NrMT 1976 Topps set for $200 off ebay. At the time I was thinking, dang, that's a lot. Almost ten years later...worth probably triple that, probably now I could sell for at least $600, maybe more...it's tight with a rare centered Brett. I would hardly call anything I can triple my "investment" on in 10 years as "junk". I do hold more regard to cards 73 and back, but you can't deny the value. What will that set be worth in 2033?? $1200?

I could buy a 1988 Topps set in 2014 for 20 bucks...I can buy a 1988 Topps set now for 20 bucks...probably could go cheaper then and now...haha. That...is junk.
I bought a 1988 Topps set for $3 recently. Great buy, because it's a ton of fun and nice cards for basically free.

That's what it makes the junk era junk though - that there is no demand for it. You can move 60's and 70's and 1957 Topps sets with ease, they sell immediately if priced even 3% below the market rate. You might be stuck with that 1988 Topps set at $3 for 15 years before it sells.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-12-2023, 04:48 PM
Republicaninmass Republicaninmass is offline
T3d $h3rm@n
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,667
Default

I mean if commons are worth less than .25, isn't even worth the cardboard its printed on?
__________________
"Trolling Ebay right now" ©

Always looking for signed 1952 topps as well as variations and errors
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-12-2023, 08:00 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 7,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
Back in the 80s cards from the 60s-70s were considered like junk wax is now. There was so much of it nobody thought it would be worth anything close to what it is now.
Yep,

I paid $3 for a stack of 50 1968 Topps at a flea market, and my local shop I hng out at said I paid too much. Most 60's commons were only 5-10 cents each in the early 80's and not much more by the end of the 80's.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-12-2023, 08:26 PM
Rrrlyons Rrrlyons is offline
R!CK LYON$
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Washington
Posts: 239
Default

Not to the same degree as 74-81 but I would make a case for most of 60-72 early series cards because of the big difference in supply compared to the high series cards. I feel the first few series are way to easy to get and cheap assuming you arenít looking for gem mint cards. Where high numbers for the most part demand out ways the supply.
Rick
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-12-2023, 09:34 PM
BobC BobC is offline
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Parma, Ohio
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie View Post
This 64 Drysdale is the card that reminded me of this thread, and it prompted me to bring this topic up again. I found this Drysdale in a box of unsorted late 70's Topps. I fished it out and placed it into a Cardsaver 1. Is it "junk"? No, it's worth about $5. I think the term "junk vintage" is humorous. I can see where it could be considered inaccurate, or even rude. When I bought this card in 1980 for $2, I thought I really had something, and I guess I still do.
Nice Drysdale card.

I think a more correct/accurate term besides "humorous" you might be looking for is "oxymoron".
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-12-2023, 10:45 PM
RCMcKenzie's Avatar
RCMcKenzie RCMcKenzie is offline
Rob
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 2,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC View Post
Nice Drysdale card.

I think a more correct/accurate term besides "humorous" you might be looking for is "oxymoron".
No, Bob, I mean "funny". I laughed when I first read this thread calling post-war cards junk-vintage. I collect post-war, so I'm laughing with and not at.
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades)
Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-12-2023, 11:34 PM
BobC BobC is offline
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Parma, Ohio
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie View Post
No, Bob, I mean "funny". I laughed when I first read this thread calling post-war cards junk-vintage. I collect post-war, so I'm laughing with and not at.
Oh, I agree with you Rob, I think of the term "junk-vintage" as somewhat funny also, just like the jokes others make regarding similar types of oxymorons out there, like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp". That is what I was getting at in that you could simply call the term "junk-vintage" an oxymoron, which to me implies a humorous element as well. So I'm laughing with you, and not at you, as well. Sorry if I came across to you differently.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-13-2023, 12:44 AM
cardsagain74 cardsagain74 is offline
J0hn H@rper
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
IMO, the closest thing to junk era vintage is 1978-1980. Those cards were issued in great abundance and buying back in the day, I recall 1979 Topps wax and three-pack trays available at shows for years after issue, very cheaply. I opened 1979 tray packs for years chasing a Smith RC (stupid move, BTW, worse than drawing to an inside straight). Same with various configurations of 1980. That bears out with the stacks of these cards you can find in high grade at shows in common boxes.

1977 is kind of a transition year. I never saw unopened in the volume that the next few years brought but there was still quite a bit of it.

1974-1976 is the next tier. I really did not see these cards as unopened in any quantity. I understand that there were some big dealers with giant caches of unopened but it wasn't out there like later years.

1973 is another transitional year. It is the last of the series era, though in some areas all 660 cards were issued at once. Still, the high numbers are notably tougher than the rest.

I group 1957-1972 together. Size standardized and high and semi-high series that never made it into every market.
This goes right along with what I experienced in the junk wax era and beyond too. You might find a stack of something like the '79 Topps Reggie Jackson at any time (I swear that card was quintuple printed), but it wasn't going to usually happen like that with '74s or '76s.

It just always seemed like beginning in the late '70s, production ramped up a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-13-2023, 10:49 AM
Section103's Avatar
Section103 Section103 is offline
Rich v@n He$$
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Denver-ish
Posts: 665
Default

Taking this in a slightly different direction - at some point the junk era - whatever that might be exactly - will need to be considered vintage. Seems foolish to have 70 year old cards considered modern. Pre-war vintage, post-war vintage, junk era vintage works fine.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-13-2023, 10:55 AM
RCMcKenzie's Avatar
RCMcKenzie RCMcKenzie is offline
Rob
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 2,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC View Post
Oh, I agree with you Rob, I think of the term "junk-vintage" as somewhat funny also, just like the jokes others make regarding similar types of oxymorons out there, like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp". That is what I was getting at in that you could simply call the term "junk-vintage" an oxymoron, which to me implies a humorous element as well. So I'm laughing with you, and not at you, as well. Sorry if I came across to you differently.
Yes, we agree on this. "Gourmet Hamburger". I have seen auctions for 50 cards of the same player for 1975. I still have lots of 75's.
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades)
Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-13-2023, 11:40 AM
David W David W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 1,635
Default

I have been setting up at a few local card shows, and have plenty of mid 80's junk era cards. I put a lot of the rookies in my display case, and sell some of them.

To those of us over the age of 50, we don't consider it vintage, but the attendees at the show 30 and under consider it vintage. There seems to be a slight demand for all those junk era rookie cards, as well as singles of the star players.

They don't sell for crazy money, but the next collecting generation considers it vintage.

Personally, I consider vintage to be pre 1974.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-13-2023, 02:17 PM
BobC BobC is offline
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Parma, Ohio
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Section103 View Post
Taking this in a slightly different direction - at some point the junk era - whatever that might be exactly - will need to be considered vintage. Seems foolish to have 70 year old cards considered modern. Pre-war vintage, post-war vintage, junk era vintage works fine.
Yup, exactly right. And that is why I think that the term "junk-vintage" or "junk wax era vintage" should still be used solely for the cards starting in the 80's and going into the 90's, and not be including anything before 1981 at all. The junk wax era is the junk was era.......period! And when it becomes old enough to be considered as "vintage", then, and only then, do you have your vintage junk wax era cards.

The real pertinent question should be how old does a card have to be to be considered as "vintage". Antiques are often thought of as being 100 years old or older, while vintage items are thought of more as being decades old. So, how many decades does it take to consider a baseball/sports card as vintage? The supposed start of the true junk wax era is now just hitting 40 years old. I think quite a few people would start considered something that old as vintage. Ot course, the end of the junk wax era is maybe only more like 25 years old, and possibly not as many would consider that old enough to be considered as vintage. Personally, I would think something 40-50 years could easily be considered as vintage. So, to me, the "vintage junk wax era" is going to end up being and include the exact same cards we've considered as being junk wax era cards all along, we're just waiting for those cards to be old enough to now be considered vintage as well.

I guess those of us older than 50 or so can now be referred to as "vintage collectors" as well, and I'm not referring to the type of cards/items we collect. LOL

Last edited by BobC; 03-13-2023 at 02:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-14-2023, 01:42 PM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 11,968
Default

David: funny you say that. I had a table at a show in August that was 95%+ cards made in the 2020s, and one young man going through my cards pulled a bunch of late 1980s-early 1990s cards and said very excitedly: "wow, you have such great old cards!"

RC: "gourmet hamburger" is a thing. I recently tried a burger made from sirloin, short rib and brisket, and the damned thing was fantastic. I did homemade smash burgers with it and the family loved them.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true.

https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/

Or not...
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One thing missing from vintage collecting: opening packs thatkidfromjerrymaguire Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 31 08-21-2020 02:56 PM
Discussion: Good thing or bad thing for the hobby if a hoard of T206 Wagners is found npa589 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 27 05-21-2018 10:13 AM
vintage Babe Ruth misprint/error card... junk? Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 10 09-26-2005 02:58 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:39 AM.


ebay GSB