![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It is really hard to label cards from the 1970s as junk wax from 40 years later. In the 1980s-1990s, there were some definite distinctions I saw when going to hundreds of card shows that might be helpful to the discussion.
IMO, the closest thing to junk era vintage is 1978-1980. Those cards were issued in great abundance and buying back in the day, I recall 1979 Topps wax and three-pack trays available at shows for years after issue, very cheaply. I opened 1979 tray packs for years chasing a Smith RC (stupid move, BTW, worse than drawing to an inside straight). Same with various configurations of 1980. That bears out with the stacks of these cards you can find in high grade at shows in common boxes. 1977 is kind of a transition year. I never saw unopened in the volume that the next few years brought but there was still quite a bit of it. 1974-1976 is the next tier. I really did not see these cards as unopened in any quantity. I understand that there were some big dealers with giant caches of unopened but it wasn't out there like later years. 1973 is another transitional year. It is the last of the series era, though in some areas all 660 cards were issued at once. Still, the high numbers are notably tougher than the rest. I group 1957-1972 together. Size standardized and high and semi-high series that never made it into every market.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... Last edited by Exhibitman; 03-12-2023 at 11:20 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
This 64 Drysdale is the card that reminded me of this thread, and it prompted me to bring this topic up again. I found this Drysdale in a box of unsorted late 70's Topps. I fished it out and placed it into a Cardsaver 1. Is it "junk"? No, it's worth about $5. I think the term "junk vintage" is humorous. I can see where it could be considered inaccurate, or even rude. When I bought this card in 1980 for $2, I thought I really had something, and I guess I still do.
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades) Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Interesting read...and I agree with most and feel ultimately it's what stirs you personally on how you feel...personally. I started opening packs of 78s and 79s...not the coolest cards but to me, I love them. I have both sets in Mint...and my childhood sets...not so mint...and those are the priceless cards for me.
I will add this from a non partisan point of view. In 2014 I bought a NrMT 1976 Topps set for $200 off ebay. At the time I was thinking, dang, that's a lot. Almost ten years later...worth probably triple that, probably now I could sell for at least $600, maybe more...it's tight with a rare centered Brett. I would hardly call anything I can triple my "investment" on in 10 years as "junk". I do hold more regard to cards 73 and back, but you can't deny the value. What will that set be worth in 2033?? $1200? I could buy a 1988 Topps set in 2014 for 20 bucks...I can buy a 1988 Topps set now for 20 bucks...probably could go cheaper then and now...haha. That...is junk.
__________________
John Otto 1963 Fleer - 1981-90 Fleer/Donruss/Score/Leaf Complete 1953 - 1990 Topps/Bowman Complete 1953-55 Dormand SGC COMPLETE SGC AVG Score - 4.03 1953 Bowman Color - 122/160 76% Last edited by Harliduck; 03-12-2023 at 03:35 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
That's what it makes the junk era junk though - that there is no demand for it. You can move 60's and 70's and 1957 Topps sets with ease, they sell immediately if priced even 3% below the market rate. You might be stuck with that 1988 Topps set at $3 for 15 years before it sells. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I mean if commons are worth less than .25, isn't even worth the cardboard its printed on?
__________________
"Trolling Ebay right now" © Always looking for signed 1952 topps as well as variations and errors |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I think a more correct/accurate term besides "humorous" you might be looking for is "oxymoron". |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
No, Bob, I mean "funny". I laughed when I first read this thread calling post-war cards junk-vintage. I collect post-war, so I'm laughing with and not at.
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades) Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Oh, I agree with you Rob, I think of the term "junk-vintage" as somewhat funny also, just like the jokes others make regarding similar types of oxymorons out there, like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp". That is what I was getting at in that you could simply call the term "junk-vintage" an oxymoron, which to me implies a humorous element as well. So I'm laughing with you, and not at you, as well. Sorry if I came across to you differently.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades) Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have been setting up at a few local card shows, and have plenty of mid 80's junk era cards. I put a lot of the rookies in my display case, and sell some of them.
To those of us over the age of 50, we don't consider it vintage, but the attendees at the show 30 and under consider it vintage. There seems to be a slight demand for all those junk era rookie cards, as well as singles of the star players. They don't sell for crazy money, but the next collecting generation considers it vintage. Personally, I consider vintage to be pre 1974. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
It just always seemed like beginning in the late '70s, production ramped up a lot. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Taking this in a slightly different direction - at some point the junk era - whatever that might be exactly - will need to be considered vintage. Seems foolish to have 70 year old cards considered modern. Pre-war vintage, post-war vintage, junk era vintage works fine.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The real pertinent question should be how old does a card have to be to be considered as "vintage". Antiques are often thought of as being 100 years old or older, while vintage items are thought of more as being decades old. So, how many decades does it take to consider a baseball/sports card as vintage? The supposed start of the true junk wax era is now just hitting 40 years old. I think quite a few people would start considered something that old as vintage. Ot course, the end of the junk wax era is maybe only more like 25 years old, and possibly not as many would consider that old enough to be considered as vintage. Personally, I would think something 40-50 years could easily be considered as vintage. So, to me, the "vintage junk wax era" is going to end up being and include the exact same cards we've considered as being junk wax era cards all along, we're just waiting for those cards to be old enough to now be considered vintage as well. I guess those of us older than 50 or so can now be referred to as "vintage collectors" as well, and I'm not referring to the type of cards/items we collect. LOL Last edited by BobC; 03-13-2023 at 02:20 PM. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
David: funny you say that. I had a table at a show in August that was 95%+ cards made in the 2020s, and one young man going through my cards pulled a bunch of late 1980s-early 1990s cards and said very excitedly: "wow, you have such great old cards!"
RC: "gourmet hamburger" is a thing. I recently tried a burger made from sirloin, short rib and brisket, and the damned thing was fantastic. I did homemade smash burgers with it and the family loved them.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: Junk Silver Or Trade for my Vintage Cards | eliminator | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 0 | 12-06-2021 09:04 PM |
Vintage mix with hall of famers no cheap junk here sold | rjackson44 | Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once. | 8 | 12-15-2020 06:58 PM |