1952 Topps numbers??

Kutcher55 · #1 12-22-2021, 07:53 PM

It�s a famous card and it�s the #1 card in the set. Not exactly rocket science. The other thing to mention is that the lower grade versions haven�t appreciated much at all in the past two years while most star cards from this era have exploded in value.

ALR-bishop · #2 12-22-2021, 08:05 PM

My theory is the Bartirome guy is secretly hoarding Pafko as well

G1911 · #3 12-22-2021, 08:45 PM

I am hard pressed to think of a single other example of card #1 carrying such a huge premium in lower grades in a baseball card set.

Tom S. · #4 12-22-2021, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I am hard pressed to think of a single other example of card #1 carrying such a huge premium in lower grades in a baseball card set.

1933 Goudey Benny Bengough would be right up there IMO.

Seven · #5 12-22-2021, 09:22 PM

At least Pafko was no slouch, during his career. Very respectable numbers. .285 Average, 213 Homers, almost 1800 Hits, 37 WAR, over a 17 season career.

However it's also the pitfall of attempting to collect THE postwar set of the hobby.

BobC · #6 12-22-2021, 09:41 PM

The was even a movie put out about that '52 Pafko card. The 2010 movie "Cop Out" starring Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. Willis plans to sell the card to pay his daughter's wedding.

cardsagain74 · #7 12-22-2021, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

It�s a famous card and it�s the #1 card in the set. Not exactly rocket science. The other thing to mention is that the lower grade versions haven�t appreciated much at all in the past two years while most star cards from this era have exploded in value.

Apparently the rest of us are too dense to figure out the matter as clearly as you have, but it's not that famous (outside of serious collector circles).

As mentioned, it's an easy card to get in low-mid grade. And most are a little surprised that it carries such an extreme card #1 premium (even for '52) relative to other vintage sets in those grades.

That's not exactly rocket science either.

ALBB · #8 12-23-2021, 07:37 AM

If your selling it, it's - hey, this is a very tough card, back then kids stacked their cards and the #1 card was always abused( ignoring the fact that the card is beat to hell ! )

If you buying it, its - Hey ,I know its hard to find in real nice shape,because back then kids stacked their cards and the #1 card was always abused (ignoring the fact that that never seemed to matter when selling 52T Pafko )

Kutcher55 · #9 12-23-2021, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Apparently the rest of us are too dense to figure out the matter as clearly as you have, but it's not that famous (outside of serious collector circles).

As mentioned, it's an easy card to get in low-mid grade. And most are a little surprised that it carries such an extreme card #1 premium (even for '52) relative to other vintage sets in those grades.

That's not exactly rocket science either.

The card is famous for people who collect vintage baseball cards and certainly for anyone building a 52 set. Is it as famous as the 52 Mantle? No but the card has cache. Do you disagree? I didn’t think so. So it’s not exactly a mystery as to why it holds value far above random 52 Topps commons, which was the question initially raised. It’s a prized card for a lot of people. I own a modest SGC 2.5 and when I was able to get such a famous card a couple of years ago for only $200 I was thrilled. You might not like it or agree with it, but hey it’s not exactly rocket science! It doesn’t make you a fool if you don’t think it should carry a premium, but it is somewhat foolish that you are apparently unwilling to accept the reasons why low graded versions are still somewhat expensive. It’s not even really subject to debate that the card is a famous one and significantly more in demand than some random common.

cardsagain74 · #10 12-23-2021, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

The card is famous for people who collect vintage baseball cards and certainly for anyone building a 52 set. Is it as famous as the 52 Mantle? No but the card has cache. Do you disagree? I didn�t think so. So it�s not exactly a mystery as to why it holds value far above random 52 Topps commons, which was the question initially raised. It�s a prized card for a lot of people. I own a modest SGC 2.5 and when I was able to get such a famous card a couple of years ago for only $200 I was thrilled. You might not like it or agree with it, but hey it�s not exactly rocket science! It doesn�t make you a fool if you don�t think it should carry a premium, but it is somewhat foolish that you are apparently unwilling to accept the reasons why low graded versions are still somewhat expensive. It�s not even really subject to debate that the card is a famous one and significantly more in demand than some random common.

I didn't say it shouldn't carry a premium. That is beyond clear from my posts above. I said 20x seems excessive for low-mid grades in always abundant supply. 20x is more than "somewhat" expensive.

Plenty agree. Some don't. Your opinion is not the end-all authority on the matter.

But the marketplace is. And for the OP, naturally you just have to either accept it or not build the whole set.

I've been through it. If you think Pafko is bad, try spending a thousand bucks on Tony Bartirome (because of some scamming jackass). That was the only card that made me grit my teeth for a second.

Would still do it all over again though. The end goal was worth it!

ALBB · #11 12-23-2021, 04:08 PM

yea, thats one reason why I stopping putting together vintage sets...after many many years of doing it...just couldn't no longer justify big dollars for no names

irv · #12 12-23-2021, 05:08 PM

Not getting involved in the debate but just thought I'd add that there are only 3 red back PSA 8's in existence, none higher.
Black backs, which is surprising to me, have 1-10 and 6-8's.

3's, 4's, and 5's have certainly seen a rollercoaster ride over the years but it looks like 6's, and especially 7's and up have been climbing pretty steadily as of late.

Not sure how much, if any, these higher end copies drag up the lower ones, but all I'll say is I'm glad I finally got one this year.

https://www.psacard.com/auctionprice...ues/178493#g=7
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/ba...-back-1/739284

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB: 1952 Topps low numbers	jasonc	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	5	03-13-2021 12:56 PM
FS: 1952 Topps PSA 6 Low Numbers	1952boyntoncollector	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	09-16-2020 08:23 AM
FS: 1952 Topps Hi Numbers PSA 7	jtschantz	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	07-21-2018 12:49 AM
F/S : 1952 Topps low numbers	doug.goodman	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	10-10-2012 10:49 PM
1952-1964 Topps HOFers and 1952 Topps High Numbers NEW ADDITIONS--PRICES REDUCED	poorlydrawncat	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	07-22-2012 01:44 PM