#1 and Last Card $ Bump: Fallacy?
 

Just wondering if you felt that the #1 card/Last card of a set is worth much more than other commons or is this a fallacy? Were these cards really much more likely to bear the brunt of the rubber band or is this an old wives tale? I've noticed Beckett book buys into this concept but I feel like this is an artificial "book" construct. What is your experience with the value of first/last cards???

Definitely NOT an old wive's tale Minty. Back when I was a kid EVERYONE had their card stacks surrounded by rubber bands and they not only made dents, they very often broke the paper edges top, bottom & sides. That was the universal way to store them!

When I reclaimed my cards in the '80's after over 25 yrs in the closet almost all of them still had the rubber bands around them---some had actually "fused" to the top, bottom & sides of the cards!

Fred
 

Fred, I have no doubt that collectors did use rubber bands but do you really think the top/bottom card really felt the effect that much more than the others? I could see a slight premium for higher grade cards of 1/last cards but really the jump that beckett gives it? For example, #1 dick groat '61 card is valued at $30 NM but every other common $3-do you really think groat '61 is so much more likely abused due to rubber bands to demand a x10 price jump?

Rubber bands
 

I started collecting in 1957 at age 7, and I agree with Fred. I used rubber bands and they did take a somewhat greater toll on the top and bottom cards surfaces as opposed to edges. Enough for the various premiums , I don't know

But it wasn't all kids. I have an unopened "rack" pack that includes a full set of 51 Red Backs in panels in two rows with a game board. Sandwiched in between the panels are 4 or 6 either Connie Mack or Current All Stars ( can see the red backgrounds). Both columns of panels have small rubber bands binding them at the panel perforations. I am sort of amazed the rubber bands have not disintegrated over 60 years. I think David has a picture of the type pack in his blog ( it may be the pack since I got it in a major auction years back)

We also wrapped our cards in rubber bands, but all my friends and I collected by teams. I started collecting in 1970 age 7, and we wrapped rubber bands around the teams, not putting them in numerical order at all.

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

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

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

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!

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

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. :)