Observations while hunting for a Ryan rookie....

[deweyinthehall]

I'm down to needing one card for my '68 set, and there can be no doubt about which on it is.

What amazes me about what I've seen during my hunt for #177 is:

1) The number of sellers who SERIOUSLY over estimate the condition of their card.
2) The sheer number of cards there are for sale. I have it on my saved searches and every day at least a dozen pop up. At any given time an eBay search returns about 500 of them - some, yes, are reprints or other mistakes - but still there must be 450+ genuine articles out there, and a lot are in PSA 6 or equivalent or better.

It strikes me that with this sort of supply, the prices wouldn't be quite as high as they are.

Are most buyers looking to simply get one they think they can resell for more the next week?

As frustrating as it is, it's also very curious.

I remember buying my first Ryan rookie in about 2000, raw and in EXMT+ for $200 - boy, those were the days.

P.S. Which grading companies tend to be most conservative? I'm looking at an SGC 3 right now that looks for all the world like it should have been a 5. Is SGC more conservative? I've only ever purchased PSA slabs, and then only a very few.

[jchcollins]

Yes, they aren’t rare by any stretch of the imagination. I’d be very hesitant to buy that card raw without being able to hold it first due to the number of raw sellers who don’t know what they are doing with grading. Anymore SGC is pretty conservative, yes. They have become centering fanatics too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dandor]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I'm down to needing one card for my '68 set, and there can be no doubt about which on it is.

What amazes me about what I've seen during my hunt for #177 is:

1) The number of sellers who SERIOUSLY over estimate the condition of their card.
2) The sheer number of cards there are for sale. I have it on my saved searches and every day at least a dozen pop up. At any given time an eBay search returns about 500 of them - some, yes, are reprints or other mistakes - but still there must be 450+ genuine articles out there, and a lot are in PSA 6 or equivalent or better.

It strikes me that with this sort of supply, the prices wouldn't be quite as high as they are.

Are most buyers looking to simply get one they think they can resell for more the next week?

As frustrating as it is, it's also very curious.

I remember buying my first Ryan rookie in about 2000, raw and in EXMT+ for $200 - boy, those were the days.

P.S. Which grading companies tend to be most conservative? I'm looking at an SGC 3 right now that looks for all the world like it should have been a 5. Is SGC more conservative? I've only ever purchased PSA slabs, and then only a very few.

I am looking for this card as well, but I am being super patient until I find one at the price I want to pay. A lot of the flippers have gotten into vintage after a lot of modern and junk wax graded cards crashed. I have been trying to put together all of Hank Aaron's base cards together and everything is super inflated right now. I am hardly buying these days unless I see a lower graded card that is perfectly centered for a great price.

SGC right now tends to be the toughest grader for vintage right now and IMO it isn't even close. SGC hammers centering and recently they have been hammering every aspect of the card. However, if it is a SGC 3 and looks great, there are probably surface wrinkles or a surface issue that you can't see through an image. This wouldn't stop me though if the card was perfectly centered at a great price.

Below is an image of a Bench rookie I recently bought from BO forums. The card looks much better than most PSA 7's I was looking at buying. I have been only looking at SGC's recently since the price is cheaper and the cards in the slabs look better for the same grade the majority of the time for new SGC slabs.

[Lucas00]

I find the milton bradley version to be far more scarce vs his regular ‘68. Yet for some reason they go for about the same price as his regular’68. If you are ok counting it as part of the ‘68 topps set I think its one of the best buys there is right now.

[ALR-bishop]

https://goldin.co/item/1968-topps-17...-10-cardsi6ti9

[Exhibitman]

I am missing only the RC for my Ryan run but I just cannot bring myself to pay the price. I wouldn't have a Bench RC either except that I bought a collection a few years ago that had one in it.

[toppcat]

It's hard to find without a tilt. Same with the 67 Seaver.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by toppcat

It's hard to find without a tilt. Same with the 67 Seaver.

From both a baseball and a baseball card perspective, it still makes no sense to me that the Ryan RC is worth more than the '67 Seaver. Seaver is pretty demonstrably the better pitcher, but I guess people are enthralled still by all the K's and no-hitters that Ryan's reputation rests on. The '67 Seaver is the much tougher card, being a legit rarity as a 7th series single print - while the Ryan is a pretty middle of the road 2nd series card in 1968. I mean I get it, but...

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

From both a baseball and a baseball card perspective, it still makes no sense to me that the Ryan RC is worth more than the '67 Seaver. Seaver is pretty demonstrably the better pitcher, but I guess people are enthralled still by all the K's and no-hitters that Ryan's reputation rests on. The '67 Seaver is the much tougher card, being a legit rarity as a 7th series single print - while the Ryan is a pretty middle of the road 2nd series card in 1968. I mean I get it, but...

It's definitely the no-hitters and the K's.

Those are dramatic events that people remember.

All sports are littered with athletes that people collect, more for the memories they created, rather then their actual full resumes.

Mike Tyson and Joe Namath are the two biggest examples I can think of, off the top of my head. On a smaller scale, Roger Maris is another.

[Kutcher55]

I just picked up a beater Ryan RC for a bit under $300. Yeah I agree it’s worth more than maybe it “should” be and the pop count for this card is crazy high. That all said, it is a Ryan RC. If you asked anyone what their top ten most iconic baseball cards are between 1950 and 1990 this card would be a lock to be on the list IMO. The Seaver RC, although considerably more scarce, would simply not be on that list. Ryan is held in higher regard by collectors certainly, even though you could make a case Seaver was the better pitcher. There’s also the strike out thing.

Heck I never wanted to pay for this card because I do feel it’s overvalued based purely on data. But maybe it actually isn’t overvalued after all. The card has gravitas.

Top 10 most iconic cards from 1950-1990 IMO: 51B Mantle. 52T Mantle, Mays and Robinson. 54 Hank Aaron. 55 Clemente. 68 Ryan. 75 Brett. 80 Henderson. 84D Mattingly.

Honorable mentions: 56 Mantle. 63/64 Rose. 67 Seaver RC. 73 Schmidt. 54 Banks. 89 UD griffey. 89 Ripken FF. 90T F Thomas RC. 85T McGwire.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

It's definitely the no-hitters and the K's.

Those are dramatic events that people remember.

All sports are littered with athletes that people collect, more for the memories they created, rather then their actual full resumes.

Mike Tyson and Joe Namath are the two biggest examples I can think of, off the top of my head. On a smaller scale, Roger Maris is another.

No, I totally agree. Don't get me wrong I love Nolan Ryan; he was my favorite player as a kid. But there are a laundry list of 70's pitchers that were arguably better than him (Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Jenkins, Gibson, Perry...) who are all but forgotten today by the card hobby because of Nolan Ryan. To me that part is sad.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

If you asked anyone what their top ten most iconic baseball cards are between 1950 and 1990 this card would be a lock to be on the list IMO. The Seaver RC, although considerably more scarce, would simply not be on that list.

Agreed. When I was 13, the Ryan RC was every kid's dream card. I still remember the first copy I had as a young adult, because I remember thinking I would never own it. But I'm also old enough to remember when I first started collecting - and Tom Seaver was still active and was held in way higher regard than Nolan Ryan. It's just crazy to me how that changed over the last 35-ish years or so.

Another who hasn't necessarily aged well per se is Joe DiMaggio. When I was a kid he was routinely mentioned in top 10 lists, etc. Not so much today. Certainly in his prime though in the 1940's - he was one of the single most popular Americans, not just ballplayers.

[profholt82]

He was dominant into his 40s, still regularly leading the majors in strikeouts as one of its oldest players, and he still holds the all-time record. In 27 seasons, he maintained an ERA in the low 3s. Yet, some of you are sitting here diminishing him? "People collect him for the memories he created, like Joe Namath or Roger Maris." Seriously?

Tom Seaver had a long, brilliant career, but by the time he was into his 30s, he was just a solid pitcher in the rotation, no longer dominant. And there's nothing wrong with that, he was great, and pitched for 20 years. But Ryan led the league in strikeouts for 4 straight seasons IN HIS 40s! The guy was a superstar. And not just to the kids of the 70s, but to the kids of the 80s and 90s as well. The same simply can't be said of Tom Seaver.

[mrmopar]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

From both a baseball and a baseball card perspective, it still makes no sense to me that the Ryan RC is worth more than the '67 Seaver. Seaver is pretty demonstrably the better pitcher, but I guess people are enthralled still by all the K's and no-hitters that Ryan's reputation rests on. The '67 Seaver is the much tougher card, being a legit rarity as a 7th series single print - while the Ryan is a pretty middle of the road 2nd series card in 1968. I mean I get it, but...

Growing up in the late 70s/80s, I always preferred cards of Palmer and Seaver over Ryan and Carlton. Might have been the poses. Not sure why, but have more of those 2 than the other 2. Loving the Dodgers, I should have also loved Don Sutton, but not so much.

A lot of what happens in the card world is baffling. Popularity holds more weight than scarcity a lot of the time. The demand is fairly limited, but any scarce oddball card should probably be much more expensive than they are now, if copies are even available. Maris, Mantle, Paige, Koufax and J. Robinson (among others) all have premiums associated with them that really don't match their career stats. Card collectors also tend to never forget. Hot cards of players that go on to bust often stay at elevated levels for some goofy reason, even though they are essentially worthless. I get not wanting to lose money on a failed player, but many people are still paying more for certain guys just to say thery own a once popular (and often expensive) card. Weird.

I have found that collecting what I like and paying only what I think is reasonable has worked well with me and I often shake my head at what I see going on around me.

[deweyinthehall]

I was so in awe of Ryan as a kid and young adult, that when I got married my wife had to warn me that if we had a boy, we would NOT be naming him Nolan or Ryan. Other pitchers of the era were arguably better in some ways. But, Ryan played for the Angels, Astros and Rangers in his prime - none were powerhouses. What if he had spent those same years playing for the Orioles, Yankees, Reds or A's during their dominant periods? Betting he finishes with 400 wins.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I do believe one of his issues was his lack of pitch variety. 9 times out of 10 it was coming in hard and fast and if you could get a piece of it, good for you. So he struck out a Hell of a lot of batters and scored those no-nos, but he also led the league in walks almost as often as in Ks (probably why there wasn't a perfect game somewhere in those no hitters) and he had a middling ERA. Had he worked to develop some better off-speed or breaking material, or concentrated more on location, things may have been different.

Like I said, I'm no expert, so my analysis may be highly suspect. Just somethings I've often thought about him. And don't get me wrong - I still love him and consider him one of the top 10 pitchers of all time, which some experts would argue with.

[MattyC]

I always loved the Ryan RC as a kid (I am 45 now) and it may very well be "the" card from the 60s onward. Just a really classic and super popular card.

I have owned several over the years and what I noticed about the card is that often times the focus/registration can be a little off; this is especially noticeable around the caps, the cap logos, and sides of their faces. Also, tilt and centering are often problems for the card.

I wanted to find a nice looking signed copy to pair with my unsigned, and the signed copies are pretty tough to come by if one wants a pretty one.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by profholt82

Yet, some of you are sitting here diminishing him? "People collect him for the memories he created, like Joe Namath or Roger Maris." Seriously?

Curious why you put that in quotes, when that wasn't remotely what I said?

For the record, Ryan would have been my favorite pitcher of that era. If I were to start collecting any pitcher during that time, it would be Ryan.

I wasn't sh*tting on him, I was just making a point for why players who you could argue were more effective then him, such as Seaver and Carlton (hardly a revolutionary idea), are not collected as aggressively as Ryan.

[G1911]

Strikeouts don’t matter if you’re walking 150 guys. Ryan’s ERA+ is 112, 12% better than the league. He wasn’t that good at not giving up runs, a pitchers central job. Strikeouts are one way to not give up runs, but if a pitcher is walking huge numbers of batters, he apparently ends up not saving many runs.

That said, pitching effectively for 27 years is Hall worthy alone. Being 12% over the league for a quarter century is nuts. The legend of Nolan and his statistical value are miles apart, but by even the most negative reading of him he’s a star. I don’t think anyone is dumping on him.

I’d take a Seaver rookie over his any day. I need both for my sets, the price on Nolan’s is annoying because that series of 68 Topps is extremely common, and that he was one of the 66 in the MB’s makes it even more common than most to basic set collectors. Seaver’s is a pain to find (by Topps standards, there is no such thing as a rare basic Topps card).

Carlton, Palmer, Jenkins, all are still cheap. I think they’re a bargain. Pitchers tend to be, usually.

[carlsonjok]

I finally finished my 1968 set this week and the Ryan RC was the last card. I've been working on the set for 5 years and have been sitting at 2 cards left for the last two years. I've been waiting and watching for a Ryan in reasonably decent condition and also in my price range. Unfortunately, those were conflicting goals until a copy came up in the most recent Collector's Connection auction. It was a solid VGEX to EX card, except for some fading on the left side of the card. The loss of color isn't all that noticeable, at least to me, and I consider it a steal at under $350. I was starting to despair about having to give up on finishing the set or opening my wallet wider than I was comfortable.

[deweyinthehall]

Under $350?? That was a steal for a card that looks that nice in today's environment. Great job!

Update - I just checked their auction site - they used the word "poor" in the item description?? Madness!!

But still, your lucky day I think. When you receive it please let us know if there are any unobserved defects.

[jchcollins]

I don’t think anyone is crapping on Nolan Ryan.

His best selling point is that what he did is totally unique. There’s not really any comps for him in terms of other pitchers. He’s a first ballot HOF’er by a mile, even with his flaws. But again, just interesting how baseball greatness and baseball card greatness aren’t necessarily the same thing. Fans get all juiced up over strikeouts and no-hitters, but that’s not at all the best measure of how effective a pitcher is. Yeah, Seaver had nowhere near Ryan’s longevity; nobody did. But even on his career, he has the better winning percentage, ERA, WHIP, far fewer BB, significantly higher WAR, etc. etc. - standing tall in literally every other category than Ryan except strikeouts and no-hitters. It’s not so much saying anything bad about Ryan, as it is illustrating how much Seaver and others like him are underrated.

True in the card world pitchers are nowhere near as popular as hitters. I’m just tired of the notion with postwar vintage that Ryan and Koufax are the only pitchers there are room for. It’s not true, but it certainly would be easy to get that impression.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Seaver’s is a pain to find (by Topps standards, there is no such thing as a rare basic Topps card).

True. I shouldn’t have said “rarity”. Neither card is difficult to find today if you’ve got the coin. (Neither is a ‘52 Topps Mantle for that matter…) We've gone from the idea of "rare" meaning a card you literally could not find at a show in say the late 70's, to it simply meaning price prohibitive. Hell, is there a card you can't have within a week in 2021 if money is no object? Maybe a Wagner. I digress...

Seavers particularly in high grade seem to abound on eBay in the last few years. But certainly when these cards were coming out of packs 50+ years ago, the Ryan would have been an easier pull.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deweyinthehall]

And when we think of Ryan, we can't left it unsaid that he is involved in one of the best baseball highlight films of all time when he gave a young and naive Robin Ventura what for.

[profholt82]

Ha! I suppose I got a bit defensive over old Mr. Ryan. Just a big fan of his. I was fortunate enough to see him pitch at Tiger Stadium in the early 90s when the Rangers visited Detroit. Other than him getting a bunch of strikeouts, my most vivid memory of that game was when Juan Gonzalez hit a towering foul ball that landed on the roof above our heads in right field. I can still hear that clang. Haha
Also, I recall being disappointed that Julio Franco didn't play. While I was a Tigers fan first and foremost, what kid didn't love seeing Franco's unique batting stance?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

And when we think of Ryan, we can't left it unsaid that he is involved in one of the best baseball highlight films of all time when he gave a young and naive Robin Ventura what for.

Most famous "noogies" of all time

[Exhibitman]

We are all just primates and we naturally are drawn to the alpha males. In all sports that manifests in the allure of physical power. The 500 foot home run, the slam dunk, a slapshot goal, a knockout. All of the 'overrated' athletes have power in common. My favorite basketball player is Wilt Chamberlain. He holds most of the scoring records in the NBA and is the greatest force of all time by a staggering margin. First in career rebounding % (him and Russell are 25% better than the next leaders). Led the league in Win Shares 8 straight years and is #2 alltime (Russell is 20th). #2 alltime in scoring %. He's Goliath come to life. We had a big debate on the boxing page over Tyson. There are probably 8-10 heavyweights with better resumes than Tyson (he lost to two guys who are better than him by all objective measures, Holyfield and Lewis) yet his card valuations are second to Ali. It's the power. All the collectors who came of age during his reign remember the savage KOs (against mostly tomato cans, but that doesn't seem to bother them). Joe Louis, who was a much better fighter (Louis and Ali are neck and neck for GOAT), is far behind Ali and Tyson in collecting terms. One of the iconic postwar cards is Jim Brown's RC. He was the personification of a smashmouth fullback who led the league in rushing every year of his career except one and still is the alltime record holder for yards per game. At his best he just ran through defenders. There are objectively better backs but none with the aura he has.

When he was on Ryan was the most dominant pitcher I ever saw. I watched him throw a complete game shutout (one of 61 he had) and never saw a pitcher make an entire team look amateurish like that. That ability to dominate your foe is manna to our monkey-minds and makes legends.

I still need the damn rookie card.

[jayshum]

For anyone into WAR, these are the numbers for the pitchers mentioned in the thread as well as some others from the same time period. Seaver is far and away the highest. I didn't realize Blyleven would be that high or that Palmer would be that low.

Seaver 109.9
Phil Niekro 95.9
Blyleven 94.5
Carlton 90.2
Perry 90.0
Jenkins 84.1
Gibson 89.1
Ryan 81.3
Rick Reuschel 69.5
Palmer 68.5
Sutton 66.7

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by jayshum

For anyone into WAR, these are the numbers for the pitchers mentioned in the thread as well as some others from the same time period. Seaver is far and away the highest. I didn't realize Blyleven would be that high or that Palmer would be that low.

Seaver 109.9
Phil Niekro 95.9
Blyleven 94.5
Carlton 90.2
Perry 90.0
Jenkins 84.1
Gibson 89.1
Ryan 81.3
Rick Reuschel 69.5
Palmer 68.5
Sutton 66.7

I'm not a stat guy, but my uneducated guess as to the difference between Blyleven and Palmer could be - each was very good, with Palmer certainly better, but Blyleven pitched primarily for weaker clubs, thus making his contributions stand out more noticeably. Palmer, pitching for some outstanding clubs (with other outstanding players) had to share some of statistical glory, resulting in a lower WAR.

Is this reasonable, or have I totally misinterpreted things? Genuinely curious.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I'm not a stat guy, but my uneducated guess as to the difference between Blyleven and Palmer could be - each was very good, with Palmer certainly better, but Blyleven pitched primarily for weaker clubs, thus making his contributions stand out more noticeably. Palmer, pitching for some outstanding clubs (with other outstanding players) had to share some of statistical glory, resulting in a lower WAR.

Is this reasonable, or have I totally misinterpreted things? Genuinely curious.

I don't know enough about how WAR is calculated to be able to answer you. I know it is supposed to be calculated in a way to compare across seasons and different eras (high scoring, low scoring, dead ball, etc). Also, I think for pitchers, it tries to take into account the results that pitchers have more control over so innings pitched, strikeouts, walks and home runs factor into it more than wins and losses, ERA and other stats that are more team related.

[G1911]

Blyleven hurled over 1,000 more innings than Palmer and WAR loves the K, helps Blyleven a lot.

What I don’t understand is Rick Reuschel over Jim Palmer.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Blyleven hurled over 1,000 more innings than Palmer and WAR loves the K, helps Blyleven a lot.

What I don’t understand is Rick Reuschel over Jim Palmer.

Definitely a surprise to see. Palmer had about 400 more IP than Reuschel, but he also had a lot more walks (376) and HR allowed (82) and only about 200 more strikeouts. Palmer's ERA was significantly better, but his FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) which is supposed to be similar to ERA but without being dependent on the team's defense was a lot higher than Reuschel's was even though Palmer's ERA was lower. I guess all of those stats combine to giving them WAR values that are almost equal.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I was so in awe of Ryan as a kid and young adult, that when I got married my wife had to warn me that if we had a boy, we would NOT be naming him Nolan or Ryan.

My brother’s son (aka, my nephew) IS named Nolan. When he talks about it, my brother uses the expression “won life” to explain it.

Of course, Nolan Ryan’s first name isn’t actually Nolan…something even this Red Sox loving dad’s son TEDDY knows!

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Definitely a surprise to see. Palmer had about 400 more IP than Reuschel, but he also had a lot more walks (376) and HR allowed (82) and only about 200 more strikeouts. Palmer's ERA was significantly better, but his FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) which is supposed to be similar to ERA but without being dependent on the team's defense was a lot higher than Reuschel's was even though Palmer's ERA was lower. I guess all of those stats combine to giving them WAR values that are almost equal.

Good analysis - Reuschel being that high has always been a head scratcher to me. Some will use this to ding WAR…but I feel it’s kind of either “the exception that proves the rule” or we’re all missing something about Reuschel.

Seeing Blyleven’s number makes me shake my head thinking about all the ink and pixels spilled, and “mother’s basement” jokes endured, in the push to get him elected to Cooperstown.

[Eric72]

Something else which *might* factor into Nolan Ryan's rookie being more expensive than statistics alone would account for:

During three of the most significant periods in baseball card collecting, Nolan Ryan was positioned perfectly.

He was a dominant pitcher when baseball card collecting exploded in popularity in the early 80s...and still dominant through the junk wax era...and had recently retired when the strike occurred in 1994.

The timing couldn't be better.

• When new collectors jumped on board in droves, the Nolan Ryan rookie was a key card, so far as it applied to active players.
• When card companies were printing a mountain of cardboard, Nolan Ryan was featured prominently in most sets. Another group of new collectors started chasing the Ryan rookie.
• When baseball went on strike, Nolan Ryan had just retired. He wasn't one of the "millionaires vs. billionaires" people were angry with.

[Jim65]

I read a while back about Reuschel, how he played most of his career with defensively inferior teams. Reuschel's teams defensive runs saved was -70 over his career. Compared to Jim Palmer who played with defensively superior teams and Palmer's teams defensive runs saved was 143 over his career.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I read a while back about Reuschel, how he played most of his career with defensively inferior teams. Reuschel's teams defensive runs saved was -70 over his career. Compared to Jim Palmer who played with defensively superior teams and Palmer's teams defensive runs saved was 143 over his career.

That would explain the difference in their FIP values with Reuschel's being lower than his ERA and Palmer's being higher.

[nat]

You guys have basically got it. The Orioles had great defense, and it makes palmer look better than he was. Don't get me wrong, he was a great pitcher, but not dramatically better than Reuschel, who is criminally underrated. Meanwhile, palmer owes one or two of those cy young awards to Brooks, Belanger, and Paul Blair.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I still need the damn rookie card.

I have (had...) the full Nolan run, but just sold my '69 in a PSA 5 because I needed the money for something else and decided I could live later with a lower grade raw version of that card. For whatever reason I don't love it, it's probably my least favorite of the early Ryans. Blasphemy? Even a year ago I probably would have thought so.

[deweyinthehall]

Another 12 new ones listed today on eBay - to go with the dozen from yesterday and the day before, and the roughly 10 or so daily since I started this post - most in nice shape or better, and far too many laughably overpriced in BIN auctions, others less so.

This hunt is maddening - I love Ryan, one the greatest ever, all true - but man oh man there's a glut on the market now. I could see paying more than I'd like for a Seaver or Rose rookie - those are much rarer, but this is ridiculous!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Another 12 new ones listed today on eBay - to go with the dozen from yesterday and the day before, and the roughly 10 or so daily since I started this post - most in nice shape or better, and far too many laughably overpriced in BIN auctions, others less so.

This hunt is maddening - I love Ryan, one the greatest ever, all true - but man oh man there's a glut on the market now. I could see paying more than I'd like for a Seaver or Rose rookie - those are much rarer, but this is ridiculous!

That card continues to surprise me. I was lucky to pickup a raw, centered EX-ish one for around $400 in 2019.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

We are all just primates and we naturally are drawn to the alpha males. In all sports that manifests in the allure of physical power. The 500 foot home run, the slam dunk, a slapshot goal, a knockout. All of the 'overrated' athletes have power in common. My favorite basketball player is Wilt Chamberlain. He holds most of the scoring records in the NBA and is the greatest force of all time by a staggering margin. First in career rebounding % (him and Russell are 25% better than the next leaders). Led the league in Win Shares 8 straight years and is #2 alltime (Russell is 20th). #2 alltime in scoring %. He's Goliath come to life. We had a big debate on the boxing page over Tyson. There are probably 8-10 heavyweights with better resumes than Tyson (he lost to two guys who are better than him by all objective measures, Holyfield and Lewis) yet his card valuations are second to Ali. It's the power. All the collectors who came of age during his reign remember the savage KOs (against mostly tomato cans, but that doesn't seem to bother them). Joe Louis, who was a much better fighter (Louis and Ali are neck and neck for GOAT), is far behind Ali and Tyson in collecting terms. One of the iconic postwar cards is Jim Brown's RC. He was the personification of a smashmouth fullback who led the league in rushing every year of his career except one and still is the alltime record holder for yards per game. At his best he just ran through defenders. There are objectively better backs but none with the aura he has.

When he was on Ryan was the most dominant pitcher I ever saw. I watched him throw a complete game shutout (one of 61 he had) and never saw a pitcher make an entire team look amateurish like that. That ability to dominate your foe is manna to our monkey-minds and makes legends.

I still need the damn rookie card.

Well said and I agree 100%. That's why we also like Mickey and Sandy. Power. Even though Mick struck out a gazillion times and Sandy took a few seasons to learn how to pitch. You came out to the park to see them perform more than all the other players on the field put together. The same for Bo Jackson.

We dig the long ball - and the strikout and knockout. More so than the stolen base, double play or winning a fight on points.

[deweyinthehall]

Public Service Announcement - for any of you looking for 1968's #177, look no further...and the item description even highlights the fact the card has "no flaws" - get it quick before I decide to take the plunge!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/35383242941...QAAOSwC29hxWnC

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Public Service Announcement - for any of you looking for 1968's #177, look no further...and the item description even highlights the fact the card has "no flaws" - get it quick before I decide to take the plunge!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/35383242941...QAAOSwC29hxWnC

huuuuboy, Facepalm on isle eBay....

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Public Service Announcement - for any of you looking for 1968's #177, look no further...and the item description even highlights the fact the card has "no flaws" - get it quick before I decide to take the plunge!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/35383242941...QAAOSwC29hxWnC

In a tux, no less.

I'm surprised the seller didn't mention SGC.

[deweyinthehall]

Looking at this now and thinking about it - good dealer whom I've bought from before. Do we think there is any chance this is a Milton Bradley version because of the yellow-looking back?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/13397296476...53.m1438.l2649

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Looking at this now and thinking about it - good dealer whom I've bought from before. Do we think there is any chance this is a Milton Bradley version because of the yellow-looking back?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/13397296476...53.m1438.l2649

I don't know if this is 100% foolproof but every genuine 1968 MB Ryan I've seen has a small splotch of black ink in the T of Stars. That card doesn't have it.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I don't know if this is 100% foolproof but every genuine 1968 MB Ryan I've seen has a small splotch of black ink in the T of Stars. That card doesn't have it.

Thanks - I've done a quick ebay and google image check and this does seem to be a consistent feature. It's the first time I've heard of it - usually its the white line on the front and yellow coloring on the back. Wondering if anyone else on these boards has information as to whether or not this might be 100% foolproof?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Thanks - I've done a quick ebay and google image check and this does seem to be a consistent feature. It's the first time I've heard of it - usually its the white line on the front and yellow coloring on the back. Wondering if anyone else on these boards has information as to whether or not this might be 100% foolproof?

Not sure if it's 100% foolproof, but both MB Ryan's I have have the black blotch inside the T (near the base), and first I've heard of it as well.

FWIW, you won't see the white line on well centered cards MB baseball cards. Likewise on well center '67 FB or hot rod cards, you won't see the burlap.

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I don't know if this is 100% foolproof but every genuine 1968 MB Ryan I've seen has a small splotch of black ink in the T of Stars. That card doesn't have it.

Hi Jim (and everyone else),

The black ink in the letter T is indeed a 100% sure tell that the card is a Milton Bradley. There are other indicators, but use this the one if you only have a front scan and it is a nearly perfectly centered Ryan RC. Of course, a regular issue 1968 Ryan could have a stray tiny black mark which just happened to land right in that exact spot, but those odds are long.