Vintage Undervalued Roookies

[ronniehatesjazz]

Are there any left at this point? I always thought Mays 51 Bowman was undervalued but just checked eBay and my god!! I can only come up with the list below and would love to see if you guys can add to the list or disagree with my picks.

1948(49?) Leaf Stan Musial
1949 Bowman Roy Campanella (I think almost all of his cards are undervalued)
1955 Topps Sandy Koufax (Very surprised his mid grade cards aren't higher)
1957 Topps Frank Robinson (Will it always be cheap?)
1965 Topps Joe Morgan
1968 Topps Johnny Bench

I have most of these cards and I'm a Reds fan, so I may be biased. What are your guys thoughts about others out there?

[jb67]

Bench is certainly a good buy at todays prices. I can only see his rookie card going up in the future. As Leon in known to say "every thread needs a card".

[dio]

1960 topps Carl Yastrzemski in psa/sgc/bvg 8, criminally undervalue

[rats60]

Musial, Bench and Schmidt would be my top 3. Brooks Robinson, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal and Steve Carlton are also pretty cheap.

[Wanaselja]

Frank Robinson

[BeanTown]

Ken Griffey Jr

[Jobu]

I think the multiplayer cards like Bench and Seaver suffer a bit because there is someone else featured. I also think that all 57 Topps suffer a bit because they are less appealing (IMO) than many of the other cards from this era.

I will also add Reggie Jackson to the list, though maybe he isn't considered undervalued.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We've been saying these same cards are undervalued ever since I can remember. There's probably a reason. That said, my vote would be for Seaver. High number, very tough card to find without one thing or another wrong, vastly underrated pitcher, arguably top 5 of all time.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We've been saying these same cards are undervalued ever since I can remember. There's probably a reason. That said, my vote would be for Seaver. High number, very tough card to find without one thing or another wrong, vastly underrated pitcher, arguably top 5 of all time.

Agreed. This has always been a pricey card. (I finally just landed one myself after wanting it literally for decades...) But the price range on them to me seems to always be tight. For example a PSA 8 may "only" be a $3k card, but even beat up ones and you are hard pressed to find them cheaper than $4-500 bucks. With that kind of activity on the lower end of the scale, it seems to me like the higher grade ones are artificially low. But I could be wrong.

[Big Six]

1965 Topps Carlton...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Big Six

1965 Topps Carlton...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would tend to agree with you, but cards like that have seemingly been stuck in the mud for decades. '65 Carlton and Joe Morgan. '57 F. Robby and the '60 Yaz rookie. Just because a player is great doesn't always translate to card values. Stan Musial remains grossly undervalued for the player he was for virtually all of his cards that were produced after the 1940's. It's difficult to understand.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I would tend to agree with you, but cards like that have seemingly been stuck in the mud for decades. '65 Carlton and Joe Morgan. '57 F. Robby and the '60 Yaz rookie. Just because a player is great doesn't always translate to card values. Stan Musial remains grossly undervalued for the player he was for virtually all of his cards that were produced after the 1940's. It's difficult to understand.

On the flip side, there is no purely baseball reason for Mantle to dwarf everyone else in value; obviously there are many intangibles involved in why some players are relatively underappreciated card-wise. But I don't expect after all this time much will change for Musial, Spahn, Foxx, E Collins, etc.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On the flip side, there is no purely baseball reason for Mantle to dwarf everyone else in value; obviously there are many intangibles involved in why some players are relatively underappreciated card-wise. But I don't expect after all this time much will change for Musial, Spahn, Foxx, E Collins, etc.

True, but Mantle is virtually a unique situation unto himself, owing to how the hobby evolved in the late 1970's and early 80's. When things went from underground hotel shows to retail and multiple card shops in many towns by 1985 and later, many of the target baby boomer customers had all grown up idolizing Mickey Mantle. That's what I attribute it to, anyway. From a pure baseball perspective, he wasn't as good as Williams, Musial, Mays, Aaron, and possibly others.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

True, but Mantle is virtually a unique situation unto himself, owing to how the hobby evolved in the late 1970's and early 80's. When things went from underground hotel shows to retail and multiple card shops in many towns by 1985 and later, many of the target baby boomer customers had all grown up idolizing Mickey Mantle. That's what I attribute it to, anyway. From a pure baseball perspective, he wasn't as good as Williams, Musial, Mays, Aaron, and possibly others.

Not totally unique. Maris values are utterly disproportionate. Same, honestly, with Koufax (150 wins). Munson. Purely statistically speaking, Jackie.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

True, but Mantle is virtually a unique situation unto himself, owing to how the hobby evolved in the late 1970's and early 80's. When things went from underground hotel shows to retail and multiple card shops in many towns by 1985 and later, many of the target baby boomer customers had all grown up idolizing Mickey Mantle. That's what I attribute it to, anyway. From a pure baseball perspective, he wasn't as good as Williams, Musial, Mays, Aaron, and possibly others.

There are several potential factors that explain the disproportionate value gaps between Mantle, Mays, and Aaron cards, considering their careers essentially began around the same time.

First, there is the Yankee factor. Mantle was a life-long Yankee, and played for the sporting world’s most well-known franchise. People collect the best player on the best team. Second, there is New York City factor. Although Mays partially played his career in NYC, Mantle played his entire career in it. Mantle received more exposure during his playing days.

Third, there is the winning factor. Mays and Aaron only have one title each. Mantle was a seven-time world series champion. Again, more exposure. Fourth, Mantle has the most iconic post-war card, which is arguably the second all-time most iconic card only behind the T-206 Wagner. There is a trickle-down effect to other cards. You see this with Wagner’s other cards as well.

Finally, I’m not trying to start any political debates, but there is the race factor. The 1950s and 1960s was obviously an entirely different era. White kids from this era grew up idolizing and pretending to be Mantle, while African American kids grew up idolizing and pretending to be Mays/Aaron at the plate in their sandlots.

This simply carried over to collecting. There are more white collectors than African American ones (at least based solely on my unscientific observations from attending shows for over 30 years), and these baby boomers are simply collecting their childhood hero more than Mays/Aaron. I think all these factors are at play.

On a side note, has anyone else observed the Mays explosion since January? You simply cannot find a decently priced Mays card anymore. Wow!

[skelly423]

I've operated on this theory for a while, but the only players who really move the needle are all-time stars. Eventually everyone else fades into obscurity.
If you're not dealing with the players who were regarded as the top 1-2 players in the world during their career, their cards don't (and shouldn't) appreciate at the same rate as the all time greats.

There's no disrespect intended for these remarkable careers, but I don't look at these secondary stars as underpriced. I think their value reflects the fact that they aren't going to be the first names mentioned in a discussion of baseball history (Cobb, Ruth, Robinson, Mays, Aaron, etc.)

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by skelly423

I've operated on this theory for a while, but the only players who really move the needle are all-time stars. Eventually everyone else fades into obscurity.
If you're not dealing with the players who were regarded as the top 1-2 players in the world during their career, their cards don't (and shouldn't) appreciate at the same rate as the all time greats.

There's no disrespect intended for these remarkable careers, but I don't look at these secondary stars as underpriced. I think their value reflects the fact that they aren't going to be the first names mentioned in a discussion of baseball history (Cobb, Ruth, Robinson, Mays, Aaron, etc.)

This seems right to me - it's not about all-time stats. The players whose cards skyrocket are the ones who transcend the baseball fan/hobby demographic and have some level of broader pop cultural significance. Which makes perfect sense, in that having, say, a Warren Spahn rookie card doesn't allow you to show off, because you first have to educate 99% of people on who Warren Spahn was. Then maybe they'll be a little bit impressed. Whereas a lot more people will be instantly impressed by your Mickey or Jackie.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by ASF123

This seems right to me - it's not about all-time stats. The players whose cards skyrocket are the ones who transcend the baseball fan/hobby demographic and have some level of broader pop cultural significance. Which makes perfect sense, in that having, say, a Warren Spahn rookie card doesn't allow you to show off, because you first have to educate 99% of people on who Warren Spahn was. Then maybe they'll be a little bit impressed. Whereas a lot more people will be instantly impressed by your Mickey or Jackie.

You said that better than I did. I will add that I think there may be some extra boost that comes when a player starred for a behemoth like the Yankees rather than a smaller market like Milwaukee. The Yankees bring an automatic boost to pop cultural appeal (my wife knows the Yankees, she's go no idea where the Braves play/played). It's not fair, but I do think that if Stan Musial played in NYC, he would be mentioned in the same echelon as Willie Mays. Likewise, Mickey Mantle as a St. Louis Brown becomes just another name.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I would tend to agree with you, but cards like that have seemingly been stuck in the mud for decades. '65 Carlton and Joe Morgan. '57 F. Robby and the '60 Yaz rookie. Just because a player is great doesn't always translate to card values. Stan Musial remains grossly undervalued for the player he was for virtually all of his cards that were produced after the 1940's. It's difficult to understand.

But it wasn't always that way. Ted Williams and Musial used to be priced in higher tiers. Some of these rookie cards were priced much higher relative to where they are today. 1938 Goudey DiMaggio and 1939 Ted Williams for Prewar. 1948 Bowman Musial, 1957 Brooks Robinson, 1960 Yaz, 1965 Carlton, 1967 Seaver and 1973 Schmidt for postwar. The 1968 Bench was always the same as the 1968 Ryan until ~1989-91 when Ryan got hot. Mantle wasn't priced above other top tier HOFs until a few dealers decided to buy up Mantles to sell to non collectors. So, I wouldn't absolutely say that some of these couldn't turn around.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by rats60

But it wasn't always that way. Ted Williams and Musial used to be priced in higher tiers. Some of these rookie cards were priced much higher relative to where they are today. 1938 Goudey DiMaggio and 1939 Ted Williams for Prewar. 1948 Bowman Musial, 1957 Brooks Robinson, 1960 Yaz, 1965 Carlton, 1967 Seaver and 1973 Schmidt for postwar. The 1968 Bench was always the same as the 1968 Ryan until ~1989-91 when Ryan got hot. Mantle wasn't priced above other top tier HOFs until a few dealers decided to buy up Mantles to sell to non collectors. So, I wouldn't absolutely say that some of these couldn't turn around.

Yeah but the Mantle price points relative to other HOF'ers have been basically the same for 40 years now. It could change, but I would be surprised if it changes dramatically.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yeah but the Mantle price points relative to other HOF'ers have been basically the same for 40 years now. It could change, but I would be surprised if it changes dramatically.

I really don't see Mantle being replaced at the top. However, some of those cards could be more in line. Collecting in the 60s, Ted Williams was #1 followed by Musial, Mays, Koufax and then Mantle. Mays and Aaron seem to be closing the gap and in the past Jackie and Clemente have made big jumps. I can see Ted and Stan being guys poised for good run ups with their RCs leading the way.

[Jcfowler6]

Yogi has to be in the conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[itjclarke]

These guys too... wish I had nicer examples.

[packs]

From the other thread on the pre-1980 side, I agree with the thought on Jackie's true rookie card. The significance of Robinson's career can't be overstated and I think the same would be true for the first card every issued of him from a set devoted to him.

The 75th anniversary is just around the corner too.

[tkd]

I still think all Hornsby cards are undervalued.