Crossover value?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

Are there occurrences where a particularly notable rarity of a card in one issue effects the value of the same player in another issue?

The only example I can think of this, and even then it might just be my fantasy, is Honus Wagner. Period Wagner's tend to generally be quite valuable. How much, if any, of this is due to the fame, rarity and value of the t206 Wagner? Would Wagner have QUITE the level of appeal and respect he does now if not for that card? Do you think that card makes other issues of Wagner more valuable?

What about the 52 Mantle? All of of Mantle's cards tend to go for a lot. Would that be quite the case if not for the 52 Mantle?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I think subconsciously the mystique of these cards may have a minor effect, but Wagner was one of the greatest players in the history of the game and so his cards in other period sets are accurately valued at the top in every set in which he appears. They usually bring a bit less than Cobbs, but are appropriately priced with the other first teir hall of famers like Johnson, Mathewson, and Young.

In my opinion, Mantles have always been a bit overpriced. Maybe it is because he was white in a hobby dominated by white people. I don't understand why Mays, Aaron, or Clemente would not bring similar prices. Perhaps it is because he was a Yankee. As a life-long Dodger fan, I personally find this reason repulsive.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

I woould say the rarity in one issue does not affect the price in another. Just look at the price of card #1 in numbered sets, huge prices, but Benny Benough does not go for a premium in any other set.

Obviously if there are fewer sets with that player in it than the price will go up because there is fewer sets in which ot choose from. Eddie Plank comes to mind, by the way how many sets is he in? Does not seem like many.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

but there seems to be a psychological thing where I'd be willing to pay a little more for a Honus Wagner than I would for another player at his level (not like there are many, mind you). For example, and here's an aspect of this I didn't touch upon before:

Right now there's a higher grade Fan Craze Wagner on ebay that's up to $610, but will likely go for a good bit more by the time the auction is over. Now I can understand that the price is due to the rarity of the set, the early year of the set, the fact that Honus was one of the best players ever and the very nice condition of the card, BUT, it also uses the SAME Wagner image used on the t206 3 or 4 years later.

Since the t206 Wagner is out of most people's leagues, this card is FAR more accessible price wise. Would it not be at least a psychological factor to anyone out there that this card uses the same image as the t206? It certainly would for me. Even this card is out of my price range at the moment, but if I had a bit more cash to spare, it would certainly be something to factor in on bidding for me, more so even just that it was a Honus Wagner, who happens to have the most sought after card in the hobby, it's the same image as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Heck, I am guilty of it myself. I know I can never hope to own either T206 rarity, so I look to own the same pose from another set (e.g., M116, E cards, etc.). I think a lot of other T206 collectors do the same and I think this tends to drive the prices on their cards in some respects. The rarity of these cards also reduces by a large margin the typical pool of cards available for HOF collectors of the era. If Cobb was as rare as Wagner, how many hundreds of HOF collectors would be out of luck and would have to look elsewhere for a card?

I also think that the name recognition factors into things with many vintage collectors, especially at the start of their collecting experience. Remember the old Hollywood adage: good press or bad press, as long as they spell my name right. Wagner and Plank benefit from high name recognition generated by the publicity surrounding their cards. The same is true of other publicized players: Joe Jackson, Jim Thorpe and Buck Weaver come to mind. This tends to drive their cards to heights that I don't think we'd otherwise see, even for the post-career cards (e.g., 1940 Play Ball Jackson, 1948 Leaf Wagner).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Lee, there is a reason that with Bengough cards. It has to do with the fact that he only appears in in the 33 Goudey and 33 WWG sets

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

There are many oldtimers and noteworthy baseball historians who contend that Honus Wagner is much more than one of the top ballplayers of all time. They cite him as the top ballplayer of all time.

I have always had difficulty resolving that opinion, but of course, I have never seen him play.

A cursory glance at his statistics reveals him to be a player who hit for power and average and stole lots of bases. Reports that he was an excellent fielder are noted.

But his lifetime batting average is .327. It is true that he played several years beyond his prime, and that had an impact on his avarage, but if you back those seasons out he still falls .025 short of Cobb's lifetime total (who also hit for power and average and stole bases).

So although I still can not resolve this contention, I can not dismiss it either. This consideration alone is sufficient for me to prefer a Wagner card over almost any other.