Postwar Vintage vs Modern ?

[gustomania]

When was the last time the dial changed? Will it change again.

I’ve heard some consider vintage pre-70s, pre-74 or like this message board it’s pre-80s. I’m just curious what people think.

I grew up collecting in 1985 but to me it’s pre-81 but I could see it Shift to pre-85 just because I could see 1981 through 1984 Topps being vintage.

What I can see is anything after 1985 being vintage at least right now. I do get stuck though with 1981 to present having numerous brands.

Thoughts?

[todeen]

The dial will change soon, seeing as players with 1989 rookies are being elected to the hall of fame. Adrian Beltre's retirement was the death knell for players playing in the 90s. So the dial should move to pre-1990. Albert Pujols debuted in 2001.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Eric72]

The junk wax era may become the new "generally accepted" line of demarcation before too long.

[swarmee]

Some people have already moved it to 1989 Upper Deck as the start of "modern." However, I still think the overproduction and new techniques of Donruss and Fleer will forever exclude it from "vintage" despite the 30-year demarcation lines of classic cars and other collectibles. At least in my mind.

[drcy]

The answer is there no set definition or universally accepted rule and never will be. Realize that someone who is 18, 25 or 30 will see past time differently than someone here who is 50 or 60. 1985 may seem like yesterday to some of us, but it's almost a generation before someone was born.

The simple way is to catalog by years: Pre-WWII, 1970-80s Topps, etc.

[cesarcap]

Why can't we just leave the junk wax era in it's own separate category?

[SPMIDD]

Originally Posted by cesarcap

Why can't we just leave the junk wax era in it's own separate category?

Are you saying that my 200 Juan Gonzales rookie cards will never be worth anything?

[cesarcap]

Are they graded PSA 10??????

[gustomania]

Good point and I suppose that would be fine, just curious how people felt with cards like 83 Yaz and bench. To me there starting to feel like vintage.

Or like a 87 Ryan and Rose?

Originally Posted by cesarcap

Why can't we just leave the junk wax era in it's own separate category?

[SPMIDD]

Originally Posted by cesarcap

Are they graded PSA 10??????

No...I was just trying to be funny. My apologies.

[rgpete]

Live and Let Live , I grew up in the 1960's buying baseball cards and started collecting and saving them in the mid 1970's Im 59 yrs old and still collecting but only pre war and post war my modern cut off is 1985

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by SPMIDD

No...I was just trying to be funny. My apologies.

He was being sarcastic too... ;-)

[swarmee]

I think it's fun listening to young kids these days talk about "vintage" being 1999-2000 Pokemon and 1993-94 Magic cards.

[cesarcap]

I indeed was trying to joke around about the PSA 10 grade although I do find it absurd that 86 fleer hoops (same era essentially) in PSA 10 buys houses currently.

[swarmee]

There are a lot of pictures of the Federal money supply charts being shared by my Facebook friends which makes it look like there is a lot of money out there compared to 20 years ago.

[cardsagain74]

I gave up on fighting any of this the moment I first heard a Bon Jovi song from my childhood on the "classic" rock station about 5 years ago

[mintacular]

I have begrudgingly accepted vintage being pushed from 73 up to 80, but I really don't like it being push 81 and higher, going to hold the line there as long as I can...

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by cesarcap

I indeed was trying to joke around about the PSA 10 grade although I do find it absurd that 86 fleer hoops (same era essentially) in PSA 10 buys houses currently.

A year ago, a set of those PSA 10s would've gotten you a shack in a real small town. Now it'll buy a nice 2-3 BR in the suburbs.

What's even crazier is it's far from just the best football/basketball/hockey "new vintage" cards of the '80s that have appreciated that way. Most other '80s PSA 9s and 10s of Gretzky, Lemieux, Jordan, Bird, Magic, etc have done just as well. Stuff totally in the background like an 84 OPC Gretzky or '88 Fleer Bird in those grades has gone up just as much.

The fact that an '88 Fleer Magic Johnson PSA 9 costs $50 now (when you could barely give them away for $10 a year ago) might say even more about the $ coming into the hobby than the gains in the headline cards.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

I gave up on fighting any of this the moment I first heard a Bon Jovi song from my childhood on the "classic" rock station about 5 years ago

Don’t give up! We gotta hold on, ready or not. You live for the fight when it’s all that you’ve got.

[cesarcap]

I also find it somewhat shocking that some of these Fleer 86 new money folk seem to have little/ no idea about the potential for highly graded but possibly trimmed 86 Fleers MJ's out there. The FLIP and $$$ is the drug not necessarily the card...

[ALR-bishop]

With the exception of one set all my cards were issued between 1948 and 2020. I do not care where anyone draws a line between old and new. (The SCD Standard Catalog, when still being issued, quit listing new stuff after 1980)

All I know is I am getting old and have gone from mint to fair...but not yet encased,

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

With the exception of one set all my cards were issued between 1948 and 2020. I do not care where anyone draws a line between old and new. (The SCD Standard Catalog, when still being issued, quit listing new stuff after 1980)

All I know is I am getting old and have gone from mint to fair...but not yet encased,

In the last five years, there's been an OC qualifier for too much on my stomach side. Which needs to stop before it's MC

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Some people have already moved it to 1989 Upper Deck as the start of "modern." However, I still think the overproduction and new techniques of Donruss and Fleer will forever exclude it from "vintage" despite the 30-year demarcation lines of classic cars and other collectibles. At least in my mind.

Agree.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by todeen

The dial will change soon, seeing as players with 1989 rookies are being elected to the hall of fame. Adrian Beltre's retirement was the death knell for players playing in the 90s. So the dial should move to pre-1990. Albert Pujols debuted in 2001.

Your viewpoint is totally valid.

My argument would be that the definition has more to do with what was going on in the card hobby at the time than just what was happening only on the ball field. By the calendar, all dates will be "vintage" at some point by a dictionary definition. But the card hobby changed dramatically in the 1980's vs. how it had worked for 30+ years before, one because of the loss of Topps' monopoly, and two due to the fact that the hobby exploded mainstream; card shops appeared on virtually every corner, and even people who didn't collect cards now knew they were at least supposed to be "worth something." I think the landscape of the hobby has to count for something. Junk wax then later in the 80's was another difference. Cards in the 1960's and earlier were perceived as scarce because nobody knew they were supposed to be worth anything, and threw them out. They were temporary ephemera. By the mid-80's, card manufacturers were overproducing everything one because it was selling, but two - it could be argued to counter what had happened earlier. Either way, history has shown us a dividing line between "junk" that hit it's apex in the early 90's and cards that came before it. The "junk" is not scarce by a longshot - even 30 years later.

When I was growing up in the hobby (1986 - about '94), many dealers considered "vintage" pre-1974, because that was when Topps went from packs in series to one single series. Later in the 90's, the definition kind of pesudo shifted to 1980, since that was the last year of Topps monopoly dominance.

Again, there is no one 100% correct definition. My point is that in 1976, many kids were still buying packs and flipping cards and carrying them around rubber-banded in their pockets. By 1986, many packs were being opened with the cards going straight into plastic, because by then everyone knew they were supposed to be worth something. That's a huge difference in hobby self-awareness. Today the more-or-less accepted definition of "vintage" on the internet and in trading groups seems to be 1980 and earlier. I would agree with that, and then keeping the "junk era" it's own separate thing, because the philosophy and facts about the cards of that era are just so unique. "Modern" to me refers to a time starting around the early 2000's or a bit before maybe, when card manufactures had realized their folly of the junk era, and had moved on to producing things like shiny numbered autos and parallels, making use of deliberate scarcity, and (also importantly) when they decided it was no big deal to totally price kids out of the hobby.

[ASF123]

I, for one, fully support the expansion of "vintage" to include junk wax - maybe the cards I have from my childhood collection will be worth something again! Let's make this happen, people!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by ASF123

I, for one, fully support the expansion of "vintage" to include junk wax - maybe the cards I have from my childhood collection will be worth something again! Let's make this happen, people!

I won't have a problem with this for long if it happens, but understand it's just less descriptive. The term will become less valuable because it will have been broadened. There is an incredible difference in the history of a common Fleer card from 1991 when compared to a common Topps card from 1972. And expecting that your junk era cards might suddenly become valuable due solely to a terminology change is probably wishful thinking...

[todeen]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

My argument would be that the definition has more to do with what was going on in the card hobby at the time than just what was happening only on the ball field.

I understand, but they are entangled. I started collecting in 1991, and of all the brands I was most aware that Upper Deck had nicer cards. If I was going to set a line of demarcation in the 1980s, I would choose pre-1989, with the arrival of Upper Deck. All the other companies followed suit not long after, and then due to nicer paper, they could incorporate refractors. Thicker and nicer cardstock was a game changer.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

And expecting that your junk era cards might suddenly become valuable due solely to a terminology change is probably wishful thinking...

Oh, I know - I was joking. I agree with your views.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by ASF123

Oh, I know - I was joking. I agree with your views.

LOL sorry. I sometimes have been known to take things way too seriously.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by todeen

I understand, but they are entangled. I started collecting in 1991, and of all the brands I was most aware that Upper Deck had nicer cards. If I was going to set a line of demarcation in the 1980s, I would choose pre-1989, with the arrival of Upper Deck. All the other companies followed suit not long after, and then due to nicer paper, they could incorporate refractors. Thicker and nicer cardstock was a game changer.

It's true, that's just another dividing line. But the junk era also started before premium cards. I remember too being impressed with Upper Deck as a 12 year-old in 1989. Those cards were like nothing we'd ever seen before.

Maybe it's simpler just to refer to some things more generically as "old cards." That's what we called 1950's cards in the 1980's. The term "vintage" didn't really even come into play to my knowledge until I was an adult in the hobby. I thought it was silly at first myself.

[Tere1071]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

It's true, that's just another dividing line. But the junk era also started before premium cards. I remember too being impressed with Upper Deck as a 12 year-old in 1989. Those cards were like nothing we'd ever seen before.

Maybe it's simpler just to refer to some things more generically as "old cards." That's what we called 1950's cards in the 1980's. The term "vintage" didn't really even come into play to my knowledge until I was an adult in the hobby. I thought it was silly at first myself.

Back in 1972-73 when at the ripe age of 11, I got my first older cards ranging from 1951-1964 we'd refer to them as "old-time cards." I knew someone who had one 33 Goudey common and that was one of the most amazing items that I'd ever seen. To be young once again...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Tere1071

Back in 1972-73 when at the ripe age of 11, I got my first older cards ranging from 1951-1964 we'd refer to them as "old-time cards." I knew someone who had one 33 Goudey common and that was one of the most amazing items that I'd ever seen. To be young once again...

Yep. The first card I owned that I thought of as truly "old" was a '66 Topps Sandy Koufax. This was in 1987 or '88, so the card was barely 20 years old, LOL.

[G1911]

The 1980 cutoff makes no sense to me outside of a calendar. I think there are 3 reasonable lines one could draw:

Pre-1974 - the end of Topps issues by series and the beginning of the 'modern' hobby starting to emerge where cards had some value outside of a few pre-war ones.

Pre-1981 - the end of the Topps monopoly.

Pre-1988/1989 - When mainstream generally-issued cards grew more advanced and objectively of higher quality (which doesn't mean overall better). 1989 Upper Deck is the famous peak of this shift, but 1988 Score was a big step up in quality over 87 Donruss/Fleer/Topps and does not get enough credit these days.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

The 1980 cutoff makes no sense to me outside of a calendar. I think there are 3 reasonable lines one could draw:

Pre-1974 - the end of Topps issues by series and the beginning of the 'modern' hobby starting to emerge where cards had some value outside of a few pre-war ones.

Pre-1981 - the end of the Topps monopoly.

Pre-1988/1989 - When mainstream generally-issued cards grew more advanced and objectively of higher quality (which doesn't mean overall better). 1989 Upper Deck is the famous peak of this shift, but 1988 Score was a big step up in quality over 87 Donruss/Fleer/Topps and does not get enough credit these days.

The 1980 cutoff is as you say, the last set of the Topps monopoly. It makes sense both from a calendar and hobby perspective.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The 1980 cutoff is as you say, the last set of the Topps monopoly. It makes sense both from a calendar and hobby perspective.

1980 as the last year makes sense, not "pre-1980", which groups up through 1979, and counts the 1980 Topps set, when they still had a monopoly, as the first year of modern. It does not make sense from a hobby perspective.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

1980 as the last year makes sense, not "pre-1980", which groups up through 1979, and counts the 1980 Topps set, when they still had a monopoly, as the first year of modern. It does not make sense from a hobby perspective.

"1980 and earlier" is how I should have termed it. I would consider '80 itself vintage.

[gustomania]

Great conversation

I’m kinda like the idea of pre-81 for me (yes a little shift from earlier statements).

When I look at the Henderson, Ryan and others it feels vintage to me.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yep. The first card I owned that I thought of as truly "old" was a '66 Topps Sandy Koufax. This was in 1987 or '88, so the card was barely 20 years old, LOL.

My first two "old" cards were 1961 Sandy Koufax and Duke Snider, purchased around 1995. I felt triumphant holding those cards in my hand. King of the Hill. My mom has always been a Dodgers fan. When I asked her for those I thought she would say no, but she said yes! I still remember the feeling of excitement as an 8/9 yr old.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by todeen

My first two "old" cards were 1961 Sandy Koufax and Duke Snider, purchased around 1995. I felt triumphant holding those cards in my hand. King of the Hill. My mom has always been a Dodgers fan. When I asked her for those I thought she would say no, but she said yes! I still remember the feeling of excitement as an 8/9 yr old.

It never gets old. That feeling is why many of us are here on N54 today, I think. Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by G1911

The 1980 cutoff makes no sense to me outside of a calendar. I think there are 3 reasonable lines one could draw:

Pre-1974 - the end of Topps issues by series and the beginning of the 'modern' hobby starting to emerge where cards had some value outside of a few pre-war ones.

Pre-1981 - the end of the Topps monopoly.

Pre-1988/1989 - When mainstream generally-issued cards grew more advanced and objectively of higher quality (which doesn't mean overall better). 1989 Upper Deck is the famous peak of this shift, but 1988 Score was a big step up in quality over 87 Donruss/Fleer/Topps and does not get enough credit these days.

Greg, upon reading this thread, I was about to type essentially what you did. That sums it up perfectly. Which of the three lines one draws is purely generational. For me, it's always been the end of the Topps monopoly. For those older than me, it would most likely be pre-'74, and for those younger than me it is probably marked by the arrival of Upper Deck in '89.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pre-1988/1989 - When mainstream generally-issued cards grew more advanced and objectively of higher quality (which doesn't mean overall better). 1989 Upper Deck is the famous peak of this shift, but 1988 Score was a big step up in quality over 87 Donruss/Fleer/Topps and does not get enough credit these days.

Fun thread.....

I vote for a shift in card style which occurred "mostly" around the 89 ud as noted .

I seem to recall that 89 ud was the first pack of cards I ever saw that cost $1. That felt like a threshold to me even back then. Also, it was close to the first set with multi colored photos on the back. Someone mentioned 88 score which I do believe had full colored photos on the back, and I did like those cards as well,

but to me something about the 89ud combination of $1 per pack, multicolored photos, and the cardstock didn't feel like classic "baseball card" cardstock. It ushered in the 90's and "shiny stuff"

A small handful of sets held onto the relatively drab back design in the early 90's, but I definitely feel like early 90's when multicolored backs and improved cardstock became the norm it truly ushered in "modern" and left "vintage" in the rearview.


It's hard to believe that was 30 years ago

[todeen]

Originally Posted by tonyo

It's hard to believe that was 30 years ago

Ditto

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ASF123]

It ushered in the 90's and "shiny stuff"

Literally, with the holograms.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Your viewpoint is totally valid.

My argument would be that the definition has more to do with what was going on in the card hobby at the time than just what was happening only on the ball field. By the calendar, all dates will be "vintage" at some point by a dictionary definition. But the card hobby changed dramatically in the 1980's vs. how it had worked for 30+ years before, one because of the loss of Topps' monopoly, and two due to the fact that the hobby exploded mainstream; card shops appeared on virtually every corner, and even people who didn't collect cards now knew they were at least supposed to be "worth something." I think the landscape of the hobby has to count for something. Junk wax then later in the 80's was another difference. Cards in the 1960's and earlier were perceived as scarce because nobody knew they were supposed to be worth anything, and threw them out. They were temporary ephemera. By the mid-80's, card manufacturers were overproducing everything one because it was selling, but two - it could be argued to counter what had happened earlier. Either way, history has shown us a dividing line between "junk" that hit it's apex in the early 90's and cards that came before it. The "junk" is not scarce by a longshot - even 30 years later.

When I was growing up in the hobby (1986 - about '94), many dealers considered "vintage" pre-1974, because that was when Topps went from packs in series to one single series. Later in the 90's, the definition kind of pesudo shifted to 1980, since that was the last year of Topps monopoly dominance.

Again, there is no one 100% correct definition. My point is that in 1976, many kids were still buying packs and flipping cards and carrying them around rubber-banded in their pockets. By 1986, many packs were being opened with the cards going straight into plastic, because by then everyone knew they were supposed to be worth something. That's a huge difference in hobby self-awareness. Today the more-or-less accepted definition of "vintage" on the internet and in trading groups seems to be 1980 and earlier. I would agree with that, and then keeping the "junk era" it's own separate thing, because the philosophy and facts about the cards of that era are just so unique. "Modern" to me refers to a time starting around the early 2000's or a bit before maybe, when card manufactures had realized their folly of the junk era, and had moved on to producing things like shiny numbered autos and parallels, making use of deliberate scarcity, and (also importantly) when they decided it was no big deal to totally price kids out of the hobby.

After posting I went back thru the thread a little more closely. This post is well thought out and makes sense.

I just wish the term "junk wax" used a word other than "junk". Sure I don't mind calling a lot of those late 80's designs junk since IMO they are mostly fugly, but the 90's saw some of the best designs ever as far as I'm concerned..... dozens of sets that are far from junk in my eyes, but then again I'm mostly looking at them from a "do I like that card" perspective, not a "is that so over-produced that it's worthless" perspective.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tonyo

Fun thread.....

I vote for a shift in card style which occurred "mostly" around the 89 ud as noted .

I seem to recall that 89 ud was the first pack of cards I ever saw that cost $1. That felt like a threshold to me even back then. Also, it was close to the first set with multi colored photos on the back. Someone mentioned 88 score which I do believe had full colored photos on the back, and I did like those cards as well,

but to me something about the 89ud combination of $1 per pack, multicolored photos, and the cardstock didn't feel like classic "baseball card" cardstock. It ushered in the 90's and "shiny stuff"

A small handful of sets held onto the relatively drab back design in the early 90's, but I definitely feel like early 90's when multicolored backs and improved cardstock became the norm it truly ushered in "modern" and left "vintage" in the rearview.


It's hard to believe that was 30 years ago

I like both the early Score and UD issues. Upper Deck was a little more premium with the hologram, but 1988 Score had full color back photos as well and I think was the first to do so (1971 Topps was the first mainstream set with a back photo at all that I can think of). Sportflics deserves a mention in this process of quality upgrading (I think they had color backs too), as do the Mothers cookies sets, but Score brought a much more premium 'base card' first in 1988, and then Upper Deck refined it in 1989 and upped the cost significantly. The common narrative that Upper Deck came in and trounced the Fleer/Donruss/Topps sets is really leaving a lot out and ignoring the other top manufacturer. Score was quite popular in 1988 and had an outlandish print run similar to the others.

What surprises me is that Fleer did not step up the quality of their base set until 1992 (Ultra in 1991), Donruss until 1992 (Leaf in 1991 I think was their first premium line), Topps until 1993 (first premium release was 91 Stadium Club, going off memory again). All 3 of the "veteran" mainstream makers completely ignored the superior quality of their upstart competitors that performed well until 1991, 3 full years before choosing to compete in the emerging "quality" market.

Stadium Clubs are my personal favorite of the early "premium" sets.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Greg, upon reading this thread, I was about to type essentially what you did. That sums it up perfectly. Which of the three lines one draws is purely generational. For me, it's always been the end of the Topps monopoly. For those older than me, it would most likely be pre-'74, and for those younger than me it is probably marked by the arrival of Upper Deck in '89.

In my head, it's pre-1974, but I think that might be because I think the late 70's issues are a bit bland and want to have a good reason to end my set building at 1973. It seems to me there should be multiple era's, if it was up to me I would split up hobby history as:

1850's-1886 - The beginning of the hobby, CDV and then cabinet domination that would continue for some years after but whose domination was supplanted by small tobacco inserts.

1887-1907 - The origins of the modern conception of a set of cards, peak of 1888-1890 and the sustained minor issues that kept cards a thing but not common.

1908-1912 - The Tobacco and caramel peak of pre-war before regulation ended commonly available cards as a constant.

1913-1931 - The hobby goes back to something generally small and irregular, major reduction in objective quality of available cards.

1932-1941 - The resurgence of commonly available cards of quality and bubble gum cards.

1942-1947 - Might as well not exist, really.

1948-1956 - The evolution and competition of post-war, laying the landscape.

1957-1973 - The classic Topps series era of monopoly

1974-1980 - The inter period, a hobby footnote really.

1981-1987/1988 - The era of competition and new ideas beginning that would lead to radical changes.

1988/1989-1998 - The upgrade in quality of cards and the beginning of chase cards that would end the hobby of children.

1999-present- The end of cards being for kids at all, the advent of relics and autographs being inserted at rates that made pulling one realistic and leading to the dominance of relatively wealthy adults and investors over 95% of the hobby

[Tere1071]

Originally Posted by G1911

In my head, it's pre-1974, but I think that might be because I think the late 70's issues are a bit bland and want to have a good reason to end my set building at 1973. It seems to me there should be multiple era's, if it was up to me I would split up hobby history as:

1850's-1886 - The beginning of the hobby, CDV and then cabinet domination that would continue for some years after but whose domination was supplanted by small tobacco inserts.

1887-1907 - The origins of the modern conception of a set of cards, peak of 1888-1890 and the sustained minor issues that kept cards a thing but not common.

1908-1912 - The Tobacco and caramel peak of pre-war before regulation ended commonly available cards as a constant.

1913-1931 - The hobby goes back to something generally small and irregular, major reduction in objective quality of available cards.

1932-1941 - The resurgence of commonly available cards of quality and bubble gum cards.

1942-1947 - Might as well not exist, really.

1948-1956 - The evolution and competition of post-war, laying the landscape.

1957-1973 - The classic Topps series era of monopoly

1974-1980 - The inter period, a hobby footnote really.

1981-1987/1988 - The era of competition and new ideas beginning that would lead to radical changes.

1988/1989-1998 - The upgrade in quality of cards and the beginning of chase cards that would end the hobby of children.

1999-present- The end of cards being for kids at all, the advent of relics and autographs being inserted at rates that made pulling one realistic and leading to the dominance of relatively wealthy adults and investors over 95% of the hobby

I think this is a very clear, concise description of our hobby. Thank you.

[vintagewhitesox]

Originally Posted by SPMIDD

No...I was just trying to be funny. My apologies.

I thought it was funny.