New York Times Leaf Article

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Not all of us collectors:



Some of us still reserve the right to shake our heads or roll our eyes.

That YOU personally don't value rookie cards says nothing about the hobby as a whole, much less prove that this is some conspiracy foisted on dumb collectors by unspecified people at an unspecified time. Next point, if you have one?

[BioCRN]

The only RC that I feel like a fool for having in my collection is 1963 Topps Pete Rose because it's an ugly as hell card that has cost too much since the 80s.

I would say at least the value is way more than than when I bought it many years ago, but it's a card in my collection not an investment I'm trying to turn for a profit.

The 63T Tony Oliva is ugly as hell, too, but at least it's not anywhere near the price of a Rose.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That YOU personally don't value rookie cards says nothing about the hobby as a whole....

Well clearly not. Trying to wax eloquent and explain the hobby as a whole to even other collectors let alone non-collectors would be one of those Sisyphean tasks to which I referred two posts ago. Feel free to take on the task if you're so inclined.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

...much less prove that this is some conspiracy foisted on dumb collectors by unspecified people at an unspecified time.

I take it you've yet to notice that collecting isn't like mathematics. As a not entirely rational activity driven by deep-rooted psychological impulses (see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), it's not amenable to hard and fast proofs.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Next point, if you have one?

Yes I do indeed! Why do you and OhioLawyerF5 so often come across as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, or Abbott and Costello if you prefer? Is it the water in Ohio? Something more sinister perhaps? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like an explanation, if there is one.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by rats60

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.

In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.

As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

Oh absolutely! I agree!

It was the 1952 Mickey Mantle high numbered rookie card that got the ball rolling (helped along by sellers sitting on Mantle rookies circulating stories of untold cases of high numbers being dumped in the Hudson River). Then the Topps 1958-59 Bobby Hull rookie card was the last card in the set thus being more susceptible to pocket wear and rubber band damage. But those sitting on inventories of rookie cards, i.e. dealers, fanned the flames of demand for rookie cards which is how/why the silliness took hold and escalated beyond all reason.