Why does Post/Jello matter when other similar issues don't

[darkhorse9]

There is a big difference in scarcity pricing for Post and Jello cards from (particularly) 1963. I know there's a slight difference in the red stat line. Other than that you can't tell the difference between Post issues or Jello issues.

If there wasn't a red line difference would there be any price difference? Would we even consider them as separate issues?

I think about issues like Hostess panels from the 1970's. They were issued on different products and the prices reflect scarcity for the overall product, but we don't differentiate between the products, even when panels are issued on multiple product lines.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

If there wasn't a red line difference would there be any price difference? Would we even consider them as separate issues?

Would it be possible to tell the difference if there wasn't the red line on some and not on others? Maybe the thickness of the stock would be the only way to tell them apart?

It doesn't trouble me that they are viewed as separate issues, even with their similarities. In some ways, it's not that different than having OPC and Topps, or US Topps and Venezuelan Topps. While they are all very similar, there are usually some differences that make them recognizable, and for the obsessive amongst us, drives us to collect them all.

When it comes to Post and Jell-o, more exciting for me is collecting the whole boxes or complete panels. Those definitely seem like they should be treated as different issues, IMO.

And looking closely at the images below, at least for my man Mays, it sure seems like there are some subtle differences between the two photos, just in the way that they're cropped.

[whiteymet]

The Jello cards are smaller than the Post Cereal cards.

Also the bottom right corner of the photo on Post ends over the E in League, while the same corner ends close to the next letter In Mays's case the B in Batting.

I also believe the stars on either side of the card number on the Jello cards are closer together than on the Post

[swarmee]

I think he's asking "big picture", who cares?

I'll say that there's a big difference between cereals and jell-os than there is different types of snack cakes, so maybe mentally they're just catalogued differently in people's minds. The short prints also differ between the two sets, plus there were only three years of them, so they're easier to keep straight. And they've got the 1950s/60s superstars, rather than the less interesting 1970s stars.

And even being 10 years earlier, the supply is less making them a more satisfying chase.

[Balticfox]

Another reason is that the Post/Jell-O issues are iconic and have a rabid core of collectors. The multiple available variants are therefore very important to these collectors.

[darkhorse9]

So, is it safe to say that a complete set that includes both Post and Jello would be an abomination to the hobby?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

....I think about issues like Hostess panels from the 1970's. They were issued on different products and the prices reflect scarcity for the overall product, but we don't differentiate between the products, even when panels are issued on multiple product lines.

Good points, on the regular Hostess issue of cards. However, most collectors view the black bar variation of Hostess Twinkies as more desirable. This is probably because they view this as a separate set.

The 1975 "Twinkies" set contains some of the most scarce rookie cards of certain players. jhmo, this issue is underappreciated by collectors when viewed solely on price due to condition sensitivity issues