second year cards more valuable than rookies?

[Peter_Spaeth]

52T Campanella probably worth more across the board than his 49B

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

52T Campanella probably worth more across the board than his 49B

I think you got to go by the same card company...where the 2nd year is worth more than the rookie....its a bit unfair to compare bowman 'rookie' with Topps (pseudo rookie ie. First Topps Card')

You dont see 'first bowman card' for a reason...you only see first topps card...

[begsu1013]

71 is not bench's second year, but nevertheless a good call.

and it would be nice to keep it the same company but even that's asking too much, i think

perfect world, same company, same grade and keeping it rookie year vs second year...

but it's hard to put any boundaries here, so throw out anything ya got...

even the 71 bench 8. ; )

[Peter_Spaeth]

In general I would think these could yield any other examples.
1. Where the RC is an undesirable black and white issue like 39PB (Ted) or 48B with no corresponding Leaf (Berra).
2. Where the later card is a scarce high number.
3. Where the later card is in a condition sensitive set but none comes to mind except 71T.

[begsu1013]

definitely agree.

i think any examples produced will be products of the 52t, condition sensitive sets like the 71 or simply rc's that happened to land in an unattractive set.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

definitely agree.

i think any examples produced will be products of the 52t, condition sensitive sets like the 71 or simply rc's that happened to land in an unattractive set.

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

[Peter_Spaeth]

Name a player whose second year card was six years after his RC. Both Topps.

[begsu1013]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

ignoring.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

This is mostly correct. With the importance and value of RCS a card would have to be condition sensitive or part of a rare series, short print, etc to be worth more. That's why there are such few examples. Second year cards that just look better like a 69 Ryan or 64 Rose aren't worth more for their appearance alone.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

you mean unattractive set of a different company...if its the same company is going to have to be a condition sensitive etc

Here is a same-company example--Monte Irvin 1951 Topps Red Back vs 1952 Topps.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk