Most over-valued card

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I guess it doesn't make a difference how a card got rare, but I've never been a fan of the "artificial" rarity of the modern cards. Printing a card to intentionally make it rare to me is like the Franklin Mint intentionally only making a few of a given crappy collector plate. Sure it's rare, but....

EDIT: What Daryl said....

When something is manufactured to be scarce, rare or collectible it sort of takes the shine off of the collecting to me. For those that collect the manufactured rarities, good luck!! You will need it.

[ALR-bishop]

Since I collect Topps and Bowman sets I find myself indifferent to the issue of whether his first Bowman card should be worth more than his first Topps card. But as a person who adds variations to my sets the Mantle ( along with the two other DP high numbers, Robinson and Thompson), added a good deal of expense to my 52 set build

The 3 DP variants do not have a great deal of hobby recognition, but the Mantle has both back ( stitches on ball on back run right or left) and front differences ( the most noticeable being the top line of stars is wavy or straight and the end of the e in the auto is full or truncated). I don't think the Registry lists the two versions in it's master list, but the SCD Standard Catalog does.

I assume, but do not know if both versions exist in the hobby in approximately equal numbers. Nor have I heard that one or the other carries any premium. But for variation set guys, the Topps Mantle is a dilemma...whether overvalued or not

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

When something is manufactured to be scarce, rare or collectible it sort of takes the shine off of the collecting to me. For those that collect the manufactured rarities, good luck!! You will need it.

I actually disagree with this to some extent, in regards to the value of manufactured rarities (appeal is a different story). I think the early years of artificial scarcity will not only hold their value but increase tremendously. I'm specifically talking about cards manufactured from ~1996-2000. There were loads of innovations during this period, and it was a time when pulling a sequentially numbered card was near impossible (there would usually be a main set and a parallel set and that was it). Ultimately the card companies went too far with the concept and started serial numbering everything. If everything is sequentially numbered, then nothing is.

In addition to being scarce, these cards also feature players you can't find on vintage cards. I love Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb, but I grew up watching Griffey. If I want his best card, I look to the ones that are the scarcest, whether or not that scarcity is artificial doesn't really bother me too much, as long as the item is truly unique. The 1997 SPx Force autograph is one of my favorite cards in my collection, and I appreciate knowing exactly how many were made and which one I own. And as much as I love the aesthetics of my vintage collection, there's something I love about the ridiculous "in-your-face" 90's design. Maybe just because it reminds me of the aesthetics I grew up in...

I think this will apply a lot more to the basketball cards from that era though than baseball. Like Mantle did for baseball cards, Jordan heralded the modern era of card collecting and cards from his era will always carry value. I also think basketball benefits from a strong international market (particularly from China/SE Asia). I think there will be a time when low serial numbered Jordan cards from the 90s appear on the covers of auction magazines right next to the t206 Wagner. And if you look at auction results, it's not that far off I don't think.

But who knows, I could be totally wrong. I actually hope I'm wrong and the late-90s bubble will burst. I'd love to be able to afford all the cards from my childhood again...