Beckett's Baseball Card Hall of Fame

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

I think we tried to do something similar in the past. Beckett chose ten cards based on their "historical significance and their standing in the hobby." Five of the ten selected are prewar cards.

I think it is hard to argue that the five prewar cards chosen belong. What does everyone else think?

http://www.beckett.com/estore/info.asp?T=CP&D=1210&eskin=beckett


1909-11 T206
Honus Wagner

1914 Cracker Jack
Joe Jackson

1916 Sporting News M101-4
Babe Ruth

1933 Goudey #53
Babe Ruth

1933 Goudey
Nap Lajoie

1952 Topps
Mickey Mantle

1954 Bowman
Ted Williams

1963 Topps
Pete Rose

1968 Topps
Nolan Ryan

1989 Upper Deck
Ken Griffey Jr.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

By the way.....I just stumbled on the Beckett site by accident. I don't really read Beckett or look at the Beckett website.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Here's a similar list which overlaps with respect to 6/10 cards (funny that they have the wrong Ruth card pictured):

http://www.forbes.com/home/2002/03/27/0327conn.html.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

A 2005 Bowman card of a rookie, a 1/1, just sold for $4000. Hmmmm would I want a 2005 Bowman rookie card or 2 nice 1933 Ruths? Hmmmmmmmm

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

Sick ain't it?

I know a person who spent $12K at the National on 2005 single rookie cards. He is buying up all the J.J Hardy's, Richie Weeks', Francisco Liriano's and Xavier Nady's in sight.

I'm pretty sure that if you gave me that $12K, I'd probably spend it a tad wiser. Where's Scott's table?

DJ

edited to say: I don't mind the list. While I don't really like Pete Rose or Ken Griffey Jr. on any list with the Wagner and Shoeless Joe, I understand their collecting significance. I may have put the McGwire 1985 Topps card instead of Pete and found a way to include the Iron Horse to that list.

Thinking it over some more..you gotta add 1954 Hank Aaron and remove Nolan Ryan. The Ryan card was significant because of it's interest when he hit the 5000/300 milestones, but the 1954 card is classic!

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

I certainly disagree with the Lajoie, a tribute card issued lord knows how long after he retired. Yes, I know it is scarce, but so what? I would put in the 34 yellow Gehrig in its place, or a Cobb.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I don't really have any problems with the list on a historical significance level. But, it turns my stomach a bit to see Ken Griffey Jr. on the same list as Wags and Ruth. Rose's rookie is a bit questionable. Also, where's Cobb in regards to the Beckett list?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Peter:

You wouldn't put in the Toleteros Josh Gibson "tribute" card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Of course I would, but I thought we were only discussing prewar.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Dawson

Once again, Henry Aaron gets no respect.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Speaking of which wasn't Willie Mays a pretty good post-war player? The 89 Griffey I understand their rationale, it is symbolic of the whole generation of premium priced cards that started with 89 Upper Deck. The Rose rookie is questionable, why does it have iconic status any more than a Mays or Aaron or Koufax rookie? The Ryan rookie is even more dubious, it is as overrated as Ryan himself.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike M

I think the '48 Leaf Jackie Robinson card needs to be on the list.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I have no problem with the Rose,Ryan or Griffey because while i was collecting and reading beckett all of those cards were top card for a long time.When Rose was nearing the hits record that was definitely the most popular card going at the time. Same thing for Ryan when he went for 300 wins and then set K's record,that card was on top.Griffey upper deck rookie was extremely popular for a long long time so i couldve guessed that card if i didnt see the list.I Probably wouldve guessed it 3rd behind Wagner and Mantle,that card was a big deal.

Other newer cards that owned the hobby news for a significant time while i was young were the 80 Henderson,84 donruss Mattingly,85 topps McGwire and 86 donruss Canseco

I never remember Aaron,Mays,Gehrig cards being the talk of the hobby town so to speak so while people here might think of them as more important for the last 25 years(which is as much as my age allows me to remember) they dont rank in popularity with any of those cards

If i made my own list the 52 Mantle would be the newest card on it but i agree with their later inclusions just for symmetry

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

As someone who collects sets from the 50s - 70s, you can't tell me that the Ryan, Rose or Griffey rookies belong. The 56 Mantle -- the happy, triple crown looking Mantle belongs before either of them. So does the 55 Koufax and 54 Aaron.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

This list isn't about visually appealing cards, cards of value or "great cards" but cards that are significant. Cards that have perhaps impacted the way we collect.

John is correct, I can't remember anyone really talking about a particular Willie Mays card (even though the 1953 is amazing), Hank Aaron (would be included if extended), Ty Cobb or even Sandy Koufax.

You can pile on Ryan, Rose and Griffey but these are important cards to the hobby no matter how much vintage collectors hate it. Shoot me, but on my own list, I decided to remove Shoeless Joe and ad the 1985 McGwire card.

Heck, I'd throw the "FF" Billy Ripken card in the list if it was extended. Remember all the hub-bub when this profane card was introduced into the hobby? I

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

did you even read their reason on how they chose the cards.How popular was beckett in the 50s when those came out that you mentioned.Their choices of 63 Rose,68 Ryan and 89 Griffey were well thought out and definitely the right choice no matter what you collect.Where were you when those cards were the hot topic every month for years?

Youre putting personal preference over their reasoning.I said i wouldnt personally chose those cards either but seriously,those cards you mentioned were never in the same class of popularity as the 3 they chose,never.The Griffey,Ryan and Rose were unsurpassed in popularity all for a long time

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Somebody mentioned it above, but the 1984 Donruss Mattingly belongs on the list. It was the first card to break $100 within 3 years of its release. The frenzy over this card in the mid-1980s was unreal and it brought alot of investors into the hobby.

The 1954 Aaron belongs on the list too.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Did someone say John Littlefield error? Or how about the original Donruss Elite insert Cal Ripken from 91?

You can make a case for a lot of things. It's still troubling

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

I think i should have sold mine - how much is that 84 donruss mattingly worth today.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

Now we're reaching.

If there was a top 500, gotta perhaps (room for debate) include some of the following:

-Dale Murphy 1989 Upper Deck reverse negative
-Fatty Arbuckle Zee-Nuts consuming ball card
-Bo Jackson 1990 Bo Knows Card
-Jim Nettles Pacific 1991 Old Timers Card w/ A**H*** written on bottom of bat
-Keith Comstack 1988 Topps White Letter variation
-Moxie Hengle n172 playing dead card
-Lenny Randle 1978 Topps card where his hand is actually missing

Reachin....

DJ


edited: Josh, 1984 Donruss Mattingly sell raw in EX+/NM for about $30. Prices go up from there if you want it graded. Seen PSA8's sell for $40-45.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Here is the the original Baseball Card Hall of Fame that died a slow death due to lack of interest.

http://webpages.charter.net/sabrjay/cardhof.html

Think I should sue Beckett for use of the name

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

I would add the 1991 Ripken as the first real insert card and the 1981 Fleer Craig Nettles as the first major error card.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

"historical significance and their standing in the hobby."

Based on the above stipulation, it's a very good list.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Let's replace the Ryan and Griffey cards. After all, these two
are not even tough to find like the others are. For that matter
Rose is not either. But, I do recall how the Rose Rookie card
"hype" played an important role in the very early '80s as this
hobby was growing (as of course did the 1952 Topps Mantle).

So, I'd replace the above two with the Goodwin Champs (N162)
Cap Anson. Possibly, the finest looking card in the entire hobby.
And, either a Red or Green T206 Cobb; certainly they are one of
the most sought after cards in the hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Dawson

Actually Scott, I would argue that the 1974 Washington NL cards were the first "major" error cards. They were huge in the mid-to-late '70s. Also, the 1979 Bump Wills Toronto Blue Jay (and Texas Ranger correction) card was huge when it came out.

I do agree that Fleer (and Donruss) took errors to a new (and ridiculous) level, but the "C" Nettles wasn't the first, IMHO.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

What happened to the new n54 Hall of Fame where we compile the best 100 or so cards owned by members? Did it die a fast death?

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Steve, you are right, I was thinking of the Nettles since the others didn't really get that valuable and because of the frenzy that took off about that time. I don't think that the Washington variations were ever worth more than a few dollars (Except McCovey) and the Wills was worth about $7-8 at its peak. I seem to remember the Nettles being in the $25-30 range for awhile.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

I think you could get a Ruth-signed baseball for about the same price or a little more.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

That's a great card, as well as the Pop Lloyd. I'd say the Cabanas Pete Hill, but I think it's too obscure to be on the list. The Billiken's, tho, are a beautful set and rare. Also, as a child of the 80's, where's the famous Billy Ripken card? That's the Holy Grail for a whole generation of collectors.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

I forwarded this thread to our baseball magazine editor who was very impressed and asked if we could use some of these comments in our readers write area.
After checking with Board Moderator Dude (i.e. Leon) he has graciously let me put in a formal request that we would like to use some of these comments in our readers write area in relation to the 1st Class of the Beckett Hall of Fame.

Therefore, barring any objection, we would like to use selected comments for possible usage.

Thanks in advance for your help

Rich Klein
Beckett Media

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

I agree with the inclusion of Rose and Griffey as significant cards. Wasn't the Rose the first card to be counterfieted in any great amount?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The first real reprinted card was the 1959 Fleer Ted Williams
Signs card (#68). I do not believe it was ever marketed as a
counterfeit.

The 1963 Topps Rose Rookie card was indeed counterfeited back
in the very early '80s. I still have a few of them. Some with
"Counterfeit" stampings on their backs (by the California of-
ficers that impounded them). And, a couple that are unstamped.

These counterfeits are amazing replicas and only a trained eye
can tell the difference. I always take one to a show when I set
up. Having a fake card has come in handy several times over the
past 23 years in determining a real Rose rookie. I purchased a
bunch of these fakes at the 1982 St. Louis National.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

The very first line from an article about the "Hall" on the Beckett web site says it all ...

"Total value of the 10 cards inducted exceeds $560,000"

Clearly, Beckett is impressed by the "market value" of a card. To me, the same logic would put Kevin Brown in Cooperstown because the Dodgers were foolish enough to pay him $105 million over five years.

The Rose and Ryan are typically overhyped rookie cards. Why does a rookie card even matter? It's not like they printed less of them. I was around when the rookie card phenomen hit. One day a card was worth $1 and the next day it was worth $20. But does that make it great card? Of course not. As for the Griffey rookie (truly the Kevin Brown of cards — good but not great and way overpriced), was there ever a card that created more of an investing frenzy by non-collectors? Plus, an inaugural class of the greatest cards ever should have a Turkey Red and a 1953 Bowman Color (and representatives from dozens of other far more worthy sets) before inducting an Upper Deck. Give me a break.

It seems to me that a card hall of fame should include cards of great players in great poses in sets with great designs. The 1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese is an obvious example. As for rookies, how about the wonderful horizontal shots of Mantle and Mays from the 1951 Bowman set? How about '33 Goudeys of Dean, Grove, Dickey and others? Or Turkey Reds of Matty, Johnson, Cobb and others?

I realize that Beckett is considered a beacon of sorts by a lot of people in the hobby, but to me it seems like a vehicle to hype modern cards. Just check out the "values" of modern cards listed in its magazine. These guys may not be singlehandedly driving the market up, but they're at least sitting in the passenger seat.

A local dealer who I recently met, assuming I was anovice collector, informed me I "needed" a copy of the Beckett guide. If someone were to ask me where to go to learn more about cards, I would send them to this site.

[Archive]

Posted By: cn

I remember in 1977 when Burger King produced a Yankee set and the Boss was not happy that Lou Piniella was not included and had a fit. B.K. printed the card late as a short print and collectors were gobbling burgers did get the rare Piniella. At card shows the card was going for about $50. This was more than most vintage stars. I am glad I stuck to Cobb and Mathewson which at the time was about the same price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Yeah, but the Griffey UD rookie card is so important!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just so...seminal!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

They've only picked 10 cards so far. You act like they should have covered the full spectrum of cards. It just can't be done in 10 cards. I actually have more problems with their vintage selections than I do the modern ones. I drop the m101 Ruth and CJ Jax. Yeah, they are hot cards today, but that hasn't always been the case. I'd replace them with the t206 Plank and Magie.

When I got heavy into the hobby in the early 80s, no one was talking about the CJ Jax or the m101 Ruth, but they were talking about Plank and Magie. They have been more significant to the hobby than with the Jax or Ruth card.

Cards like the t207 Lewis, Miller and Lowdermilk along with e90-1 Mitchell, which were huge in the 80s, have lost thier luster.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Jeff did you collect newer cards in the 80s and 90s,if not you have no idea of the popularity of the Griffey.If you did then you must be bitter about not getting one and pretending to diminish its importance to make the cards you collect more seminal.

If you want to keep pretending its not one of the more important cards then go right ahead but youre just making yourself look worse each time.For people who collected 1989 cards in 1989 and have knowledge of a current price guide ever since that time,they can tell you just how wrong you are on this subject. People were paying $12 a pack daily for a chance to get Griffey rookies as late as 2001(I was at a show and a guy sold 3 boxes of packs and 2 full boxes and people werent buying them for the Sandy Alomar rookies).Its one of the,if not the most submitted cards for grading.If you need more proof try looking up stories online or getting back issues of beckett(the company that made this poll and should know a thing or 2 about the subject) and look for stories,try the July issue and see how many times you see experts name this card as one of their top picks

You also might forget how popular Griffey was whe he was setting HR records for certain ages thru the years and his 50 HR seasons. That might be why he was popular at this time.There werent price guides in the 50s so how could you say one specific hall of famer is more significant if none were more popular than others the last 25 years.For a long time Griffey was THE card to get,thats what makes it significant.Current value could be $1 now it doesnt matter,the card had too much of a past to be discounted and you would know that if you lived it

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Hasve the '84 Fleer Updates lost their appeal? Clemens is a rather important guy, for all time, no?

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

The 84 fleer updates skyrocketed in price before they had a chance to become popular unlike mosr cards which start low and go high based on popularity not rarity.I know when i was a kid and found out about the 84 Fleer Update prices/rarity it wasnt possible for me to buy one at anytime.I wouldve had to wait for 10 years before i could afford a Clemens,Gooden or Puckett.

Cards like the Griffey rookie started around $10 so if you acted quickly you couldve got one if you were a kid then.Same for McGwire's 85 topps which went from a common to $6 one month to $17 the next.Being 12 at the time of these price increases i was pretty happy to have 2 of them

Its funny,right after Canseco's 40/40 season his rookie cards at $60 each were called a safe investment.Now you can buy them for $2-3 each on ebay.Think if anyone took the advice of that magazine and stocked up on them

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Remember the reason for these surveys in magazines--to get people to search for and acquire these cards--good for the advertisers in the magazines. With maybe a few exceptions these are not great cards, just available good cards. Take for example the M101-4/5 Ruth. Five years ago these cards were easy to pick up for a few thousand dollars. They are not scarce--they are available. However, the price has been driven through the roof by dealers and auction houses hyping the card. The Baltimore News Ruth is a great card; the M101 Ruth is a good card. However, there is little reason to hype the Baltimore News Ruth since there are so few out there (you only hype what you can acquire and profitably sell). Anson in uniform is a great card, Kelly Four Base Hits is a great card, Ewing Kalamazoo Bats is a great card, Just So Young is a great card. Where are these cards on the list? Nowhere--no reason to hype them. Personally, I think the list is a joke.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

There is no way that this list is to search for and acquire these cards. The list is about cards that have played a role in shaping the collecting society. No way did a Ewing Kalamazoo Bat card ever do so and I don't think Andy Madec is getting five hundred phone calls if this card was on the list.

This list provides a "filler" for the magazine, something fun that we can talk about and debate. No different than these Hollywood or Movie lists that come out yearly rating the top films.

It wouldn't make any sense to eliminate the Ryan, Rose and the Griffey as these cards, believe it or not, played an important role in shaping the collecting society. I'm a pre-war guy that has no use for cards like the Ryan, Rose and Griffey but totally understand their places on this list.

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Actually John, I did collect nearly every new set that has come out since 1976 -- and that included the Griffey rookie card. I can tell you now that I have gotten over my bitterness of only collecting the one that still sits in my unopened box from 1989. It hasn't been easy. Many years of analysis and 12 step programs have allowed me to work through this trauma. Unlike you, I suppose I wasn't completely wowed by a rookie card from that era no matter how seminal it may have been. Same goes with the McGwire rookie card. It was nice but not quite as compelling as cards of people that actually hit more than 49 homeruns in their career. The fact is, while the card may have been hot during that period, it never approached any kind of signidficant dollar value. While I contemplated trading my mint Griffey rookie for a new Camaro, I resisted -- and look how lucky I was because that car now is probably worth much less than my baseball card.

I apologize if my lack of enthusiasm then and now for the Griffey card makes me look bad in your eyes. Again, this will take me years of analysis and 12 step programs to work through. I hope that the rest of the baseball card collecting world will judge me not on my purported lack of interest in the Griffey card but on my other accomplishments in my life.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

The Griffey rookie never reached any significant value? Well you must be able to get over your supposed trauma with your vast wealth because theyve sold for over $3000 .I almost felt sorry for you up until i found out money is no object to you,must be nice.I also dont believe you collected cards during that era otherwise we wouldve never had this discussion unless you walked into card stores on the day new sets came out with pieces of card board taped to your face to block your peripheral vision and said "I need the new sets,dont let me see anything else tho or ill walk right out". If you did that then i believe your story, otherwise go pick up that July beckett i mentioned(i wouldve sent you money to buy one but its obvious you dont need it) and read it then comment back.

Any answer back by you within the next 12 hours will be stricken from the record and ill also be quizzing you first about something in the issue that only someone holding in front of them would know.Once youve passed this quiz we can continue this discussion if you so feel inclined to.I will not deliberate any further with an individual whos ponderings excogitated from personal preferences.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

As I look at Beckett's top 10 list immediately the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey gets my attention. I started collecting in 1987 as so many others did and the 1989 UD Griffey was the first "big money" card I can remember. That was the card my friends and I aspired to get. I never did get one. I do remember pulling a 1990 UD Griffey out of a pack and thinking it was the greatest thing ever. As far as the other 9 cards on the list, at the time they were unattainable and therefore I didn't pay much attention to them. My card collecting focus has changed now and the other 9 are within reach but they lack what the 1989 UD Griffey has, the ability to bring back childhood memories.

Bryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Hey, John, relax. Sorry I have a lot more money to spend on cards than you do. Now who sounds bitter? Let me know if you need the phone numbers of the 12 step programs that I just mentioned.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Adam J? is that you?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

No. Two differences. Adam J. actually had no money. Secondly, you accused me of having money to burn on this hobby instead of the other way around. Now spend less time on this board today and more time working 8 hours today like me and maybe you'll have some disposable income too.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have no issue with debates. Let's keep Adam J's name out of our conversations, for the most part. I won't let folks talk about folks that can't defend themselves. IF we remember Adam has taken a vacation from our site until he calls me and we talk....take care and carry on...

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

Hey, I hate the stuff as much as you guys do but I give credit where credit is due. Remember, the Baseball Card boom took place in the 1980's, not 1880's.

I don't think anyone really here is interested in the Griffey rookie. It was Bryan's Holy Grail of sorts and that's exactly what this list is all about.. I remember people going "apes--t" about this card in the early-nineties.

$50-60 for a card that was only a few years old? That was unheard of and raised the bar in the collecting world and seeing that people would now pay $4-5 for a pack opened up an avalanche of high grade cards starting with the Stadium Club in 1991 in which most can't argue would be the decline of collecting as kids would soon be priced out.

Another pioneer in the Card Collecting world was Gregg Jeffries. In 1989, his Donruss card was worth $8 based on his potential alone. This was the first time a card was so highly prized without a player having done anything on the field but priced for expectations.

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Anson in uniform, Kelly Four Base Hits, Ewing Kalamazoo Bats, Just So Young might all be great cards, but these cards had almost ZERO impact on this hobby. 99.9 percent of the participants in this hobby will not be able to identify any of these cards. 99.9 percent of the knowledgeable collectors on the Forum 54 have NEVER seen a photo of the Just So Young. Maybe it would be cool to have a list of ten obscure and esoteric 19th Century cards, but then the criteria would be different from that used by Beckett magazine.