Is there such thing as junk era vintage cards?

[ejstel]

As someone mentioned here; I'll go with the 1976-86 as vintage junk (for building sets) with 74&75 on the fringe.

This is where I love heritage (design and premium) but don't love the thousands of minions I have hanging around each year.

...maybe per above it is the collectors shaping the demand for 73 and below...each set had multiple series to collect/fill? Vs the feeling of all in one like 74 started (with some rare 1973 test market releases of all in one series).

87 forward was junked due to the volume of print.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I think since Topps first factory set was offered in 1974 exclusively in the J.C. Penney catalog, that would probably be the start of the Junk Vintage for me.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I think since Topps first factory set was offered in 1974 exclusively in the J.C. Penney catalog, that would probably be the start of the Junk Vintage for me.

Thanks - 1974 - didn’t know that .

[JollyElm]

I would give the question a resounding "No!"

The thing about groups of junk era cards is the fact that they're so 'worthless' that you can't even give the stuff away. With Topps cards (including commons) from any year up and into the 80's there will always be enough value associated with them to find collectors willing to pay for your stacks of extras.

[D. Bergin]

Best thing to ever happen to Topps was losing the monopoly in 1981. Mainstream interest absolutely sky-rocketed after that.

So I'd say anything before that can't really qualify as junk.

Try to find a legit unopened box of anything before 1981, and see what price you're going to pay for it...even in sets that have very limited chase/rookie cards in them.

[bobsbbcards]

1981 through late 1981.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Best thing to ever happen to Topps was losing the monopoly in 1981. Mainstream interest absolutely sky-rocketed after that.

So I'd say anything before that can't really qualify as junk.

Try to find a legit unopened box of anything before 1981, and see what price you're going to pay for it...even in sets that have very limited chase/rookie cards in them.

This is something I often hear - the advent of multiple brands was needed to push Topps out of its doldrums, but I have to say I think some of their best work was in the 1970s and some of their worst was in the 1980s.

I've been doing a couple projects which have me poring over card images from the 80s of all makers and while Topps' card designs are often very good, the execution is often terrible, in comparison to Fleer and Donruss (setting aside Score and UD - both clearly superior). So many of their on-card images are fuzzy, dark, grainy, etc. - far worse than Fleer or Donruss and certainly far worse than their own product in the 1970s. The other thing which has recently left me really surprised was the extensive continued use of paint jobs, even for players/teams that the other companies managed to locate nice images of - even in Traded sets! So to me, the competition corresponded to a decrease in Topps' quality.

A bit off topic, but the quote got me thinking.

[bnorth]

Back in the 80s cards from the 60s-70s were considered like junk wax is now. There was so much of it nobody thought it would be worth anything close to what it is now.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Back in the 80s cards from the 60s-70s were considered like junk wax is now. There was so much of it nobody thought it would be worth anything close to what it is now.

Yep,

I paid $3 for a stack of 50 1968 Topps at a flea market, and my local shop I hng out at said I paid too much. Most 60's commons were only 5-10 cents each in the early 80's and not much more by the end of the 80's.

[Rrrlyons]

Not to the same degree as 74-81 but I would make a case for most of 60-72 early series cards because of the big difference in supply compared to the high series cards. I feel the first few series are way to easy to get and cheap assuming you aren’t looking for gem mint cards. Where high numbers for the most part demand out ways the supply.
Rick

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

This is something I often hear - the advent of multiple brands was needed to push Topps out of its doldrums, but I have to say I think some of their best work was in the 1970s and some of their worst was in the 1980s.

I've been doing a couple projects which have me poring over card images from the 80s of all makers and while Topps' card designs are often very good, the execution is often terrible, in comparison to Fleer and Donruss (setting aside Score and UD - both clearly superior). So many of their on-card images are fuzzy, dark, grainy, etc. - far worse than Fleer or Donruss and certainly far worse than their own product in the 1970s. The other thing which has recently left me really surprised was the extensive continued use of paint jobs, even for players/teams that the other companies managed to locate nice images of - even in Traded sets! So to me, the competition corresponded to a decrease in Topps' quality.

A bit off topic, but the quote got me thinking.

I meant from more of a business perspective. Agree with you on the quality control.