topps tiffany
 

Im new to this forum and I'm sure it's probably been discussed but I'll ask anyway. I've been collecting for years,since the 80's as a child. Ive just recently been intrigued by the Topps tiffany and fleer glossy sets. I've made a few purchases and have noticed that they seem to be more valuable than there basic topps brothers. I've been eyeing a griffey jr in both and was hoping to get some input on it. Does anyone not beleive that they will appreciate over time? I mean even the steroid users seem to even have some value. Any input out there?

Topps Tiffany sets are becoming more valuable once people realized the print runs of these complete sets sold through card shops (not retail like Wal-Mart) were limited to 5000 sets some years, 10K some years, and 30K some years. Due to their limited print runs, people that collect different versions of cards have become enthralled with these as a semi-"numbered" card from the overproduction era. Many are also on nicer card stock rather than the grey backs.
I think they'll continue to hold value or go up. No reason for them to lose.

Tiffany
 

I have a run of the sets and related traded sets from 1984 to 1991, they are all still in factory boxes and I have not kept up with values. Fritsch used to list several of those sets in their catalog. I also picked up boxed special edition sets in 2000 to 2002, or 2001 to 2003, that were similar to the Tiffany sets, but unlike the earlier 84-91 sets were not listed in the last SCD Standard Catalog that included post 80 issues

Well I've made several purchases over the last few weeks on auctions. I've really looked into it and nothing I've seen indicates that they're not sought after. Im probably going to end up getting the griffey in the next couple weeks.

I'm buying the 87 fleer glossy bc it seems like a good bargain, but the 86 topps traded tiffany is off the charts! Had no idea.

Well I've just finished buying the rookie cards out of that set,Larkin,Mcgwire and Bonds. I'm still a huge Mcgwire fan even though he's been shunned! My thinking is that eventually baseball will have to make peace with what happened and accept it. At the moment there are a lot of record holders that aren't getting in Cooperstown. But on the same token Pete Rose is the greatest hitter of all time and he's not in. As a baseball fan,and some one who played baseball 24-7 until I had to get a real job,I understand that there are some perks to taking steroids. However you can juice all day and it wont make your hand eye coordination any better or make you hit your spots as a pitcher. In my oppinion 90% of the guys accused of juicing would of made the hall regardless. Bond's and Mcgwire were great players and All stars before

Clearly you have not heard of Joe Mauer.

On a more serious note, Ted Williams will have issues with your comments when they thaw him out.

I have liked them since the late '90's due to their limited production (anywhere from around 2,000-3,000 of the "91's to 60,000 of the '87's) and higher end character. In the midst of gross overproduction of regular cards of the era, they form sort of an oasis. I agree that they will prove to be some of the better cards of that era in terms of value in the long run, but in terms of outright rarity, they will never approach many significant prewar cards.

PS: Please, no more nonsense about Pete Rose being the greatest hitter of all time. Per BaseballReference.com, Rose's average 162 game season was 6 HR, 60 RBI, .303, with an OPS of .784 and an OPS+ of 118. Average 162 game season for Ted Williams: 37 HR, 130 RBI, .344, 1.116 OPS and 190 OPS+. In addition, by the yardstick I consider most accurate, Bill James' runs created compared to a league average player, there are only 8 players who created 200% of the runs an average player of the same era created, and Ole Teddy Ballgame tops the list at 250% (better over his entire career than Lou Gehrig was (also a member of the 200% club) in his very best season, 1927 (47 HR, 54 doubles, 17 Triples, 118 extra base hits, .373 BA, for 249% of average league runs created). Ruth, by the way, was second at 240% (while the Babe created more total runs, scoring was higher and runs easier to create on average during his era). Rose, in comparison, is absolutely nowhere in sight! The best player remains Ruth over Williams, because the Babe has to be given credit for his substantial pitching success with the Red Sox.

Larry

Interesting. Where does Mauer fit into all this?

I think Mauer fits in every bit as well as a .255 hitter with 4 homers at this point in the season should--his formerly elevated status is now but a wisp of a forgotten dream. Personally, I think he owes the Twins a substantial refund!

May your collecting bring joy,

Larry