1990 Bowman Art Sweepstakes

[todeen]

Does anyone own any of the lithographs advertised on the bottom of my box?


Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[todeen]

bump, still looking for info

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[JustinD]

I personally do not own any as it’s a little outside my window of collecting but I have seen them pop up fairly regularly.

They are 11”x 17” as I remember. Were you looking for a specific litho?

Adding the checklist, I figured TCDB would have it -

https://www.tcdb.com/Checklist.cfm/sid/402004

[JustinD]

Took a couple minutes to find one, this seems a little overpriced. I feel like these go in the 25-30 dollar window.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/33516347677...Bk9SR87Ej8jaYw

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Took a couple minutes to find one, this seems a little overpriced. I feel like these go in the 25-30 dollar window.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/33516347677...Bk9SR87Ej8jaYw

Artist Signed, how many are still trading on the open market. If anything that $50 may be too cheap as on offer to sell. I get the low demand part of this BTW

Rich

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Artist Signed, how many are still trading on the open market. If anything that $50 may be too cheap

Rich

The issue is that they have zero demand.

Also, the usual junk wax issue of multiple runs of everything. They did 500 of the run advertised, which created 5500 prints. Then in true Topps fashion they created other “hobby sample” runs to water the initial run down by at least double.

You can find many for sale for hundreds, but you won’t find many sold over twenty bucks. At my estimate of 25-30, I was giving the listing a premium because it was in the initial run and I feel that is a better example to have.

Samples

https://www.ebay.com/itm/23550138661...Bk9SR-Dr16fbYw

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14512263693...Bk9SR-Dr16fbYw

[Rich Klein]

I'm going to begin this by saying I was the one who actually priced these for the Beckett price guide/Alamanc back in the day. So, I wanted to see how good my instincts were on the price. After doing a little research and seeing what exampled you pulled I feel just as comfortable as saying the Yount is probably too cheap at that price

I will also state it's been about 20-25 years since I came up with those prices.

I do understand the little demand issue but there has to be a premium for HOFers as Yount as compared to Dwight Gooden (much as I loved watching him pitch for the Mets in 80s as I was living in the NY area) and Jerome (one year wonder) Walton.

So if the $20 pricing is accurate for those players and I don't see any reason why not since I priced those players at $25 back in the day. Then Yount as a HOFer has to be a higher price and I'll use a 2x from the common price so my instinct was a tad high but not super high.

Also looking at your examples I can see you are not considering the shipping cost of the item. It appers the cheapest shipping is about $6 for the item.

And yes, if I had one for sale, I would be $50-60 OBO on Ebay for that Yount item

Rich

[G1911]

If the Yount was a bargain at $50, it would not be sitting unsold.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

If the Yount was a bargain at $50, it would not be sitting unsold.

When did I say it was a bargain? I said that's the price IMHO it should be offered for. Now a bargain is like $15 DLVD

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

If anything that $50 may be too cheap

Rich

I mean I don't know a meaningful difference between considering it too cheap and a bargain. Those mean the same thing.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

I mean I don't know a meaningful difference between considering it too cheap and a bargain. Those mean the same thing.

The $50 as too cheap should have been more noted as a retail price. I'll update that verbiage.

Rich

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

The $50 as too cheap should have been more noted as a retail price. I'll update that verbiage.

Rich

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Artist Signed, how many are still trading on the open market. If anything that $50 may be too cheap as on offer to sell. I get the low demand part of this BTW

Rich

I'm not sure how "too cheap as an offer to sell" or "retail price" changes it. The great thing about sold and unsold listings is it gives us real, actual data instead of something made up by a price guide. If something is listed correctly and publicly called out, it will sell very very quickly if it is priced too low. Nobody is biting on the Yount. Thus, it is probably worth less than the $50+$12 price. If $50+$12 was too cheap as an offer to sell, wouldn't it sell?

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm not sure how "too cheap as an offer to sell" or "retail price" changes it. The great thing about sold and unsold listings is it gives us real, actual data instead of something made up by a price guide. If something is listed correctly and publicly called out, it will sell very very quickly if it is priced too low. Nobody is biting on the Yount. Thus, it is probably worth less than the $50+$12 price. If $50+$12 was too cheap as an offer to sell, wouldn't it sell?

Simply put the number I put is in this case, a SRP or a Suggested Retail Price. Some people would call it a museum price but I do believe for the item as deliniated is an accurate asking price. We can, and do disagree as to what the item shoudl be offered or (or sell at(, but to me it's a $50 item if I had it for sale and on my table and then would look at offers from there

Rich

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Simply put the number I put is in this case, a SRP or a Suggested Retail Price. Some people would call it a museum price but I do believe for the item as deliniated is an accurate asking price. We can, and do disagree as to what the item shoudl be offered or (or sell at(, but to me it's a $50 item if I had it for sale and on my table and then would look at offers from there

Rich

I am not saying anything about what an item should be offered at or should sell at or what it 'is to you'. The subject was what the cards were selling for. When that is the subject, data points of what is and is not actually selling and at what prices are more valuable than wishes and desires and what people think should be. It can be whatever you want it to be in your mind, but if nobody is ponying up the cash, it is difficult to hold the asking price nobody is paying is too low in reality. That's all I'm saying. What a card is or is not selling for is not an opinion I have or a should; it is an ascertainable datapoint.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by G1911

If the Yount was a bargain at $50, it would not be sitting unsold.

This isn't necessarily true. These could very well be off the radar for a number of player collectors like Yount (or Will Clark or Bo). Maybe those Yount collectors in the know have long added them to their collections. Some obscure items take a while to find their audience/buyer. Most of my oddball items sit for months at a time before selling full asking price.

Also, I find the attached paperwork very interesting and of some additional value in itself.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

This isn't necessarily true. These could very well be off the radar for a number of player collectors like Yount (or Will Clark or Bo). Maybe those Yount collectors in the know have long added them to their collections. Some obscure items take a while to find their audience/buyer. Most of my oddball items sit for months at a time before selling full asking price.

Also, I find the attached paperwork very interesting and of some additional value in itself.

If it was a bargain at $50, then one of these in the know collectors would look at this correctly listed item and buy it to make the profit themselves. That none of you are is strongly indicative. If $50 was too low, somebody here would have bought it already to flip. Go make the profit!

Actual sales tell us approximate value. Items that just sit and do not sell but are listed correctly in normal places are not really bargains. This really is not complicated.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

If it was a bargain at $50, then one of these in the know collectors would look at this correctly listed item and buy it to make the profit themselves. That none of you are is strongly indicative. If $50 was too low, somebody here would have bought it already to flip. Go make the profit!

Actual sales tell us approximate value. Items that just sit and do not sell but are listed correctly in normal places are not really bargains. This really is not complicated.

Dylan collects obscure things himself and understands that when you have an item with low supply and low demand then it really does become what the seller asks for an item. Not everything is snapped up as quickly as one would think.

As I am a bottom feeder going though dime,quarter, dollar boxes at shows I can assure you some amazing cards get passed over. And then when you have an obscure item then it's even harder for the right person to find the right item,

But one other thing I will also state; Robin Yount as a HOFer is definitely a 2x or more to Jerome Walton.

Rich

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Dylan collects obscure things himself and understands that when you have an item with low supply and low demand then it really does become what the seller asks for an item. Not everything is snapped up as quickly as one would think.

As I am a bottom feeder going though dime,quarter, dollar boxes at shows I can assure you some amazing cards get passed over. And then when you have an obscure item then it's even harder for the right person to find the right item,

But one other thing I will also state; Robin Yount as a HOFer is definitely a 2x or more to Jerome Walton.

Rich

You guys have shifted from "too cheap" to "eventually I might get this price". I agree with the new point that is not at all the original. A not common item might sit for 6 months+ before finding the right buyer. But that wasn't too cheap or a bargain. If it was too cheap, one of you guys would buy it and make the free money on the flip. Go grab it!

Actual sales data is a whole lot better than this appeal to... I don't even know. There's nothing being used to set this value you want besides that you want that to be the value.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Dylan collects obscure things himself and understands that when you have an item with low supply and low demand then it really does become what the seller asks for an item. Not everything is snapped up as quickly as one would think.

As I am a bottom feeder going though dime,quarter, dollar boxes at shows I can assure you some amazing cards get passed over. And then when you have an obscure item then it's even harder for the right person to find the right item,

But one other thing I will also state; Robin Yount as a HOFer is definitely a 2x or more to Jerome Walton.

Rich

I am with you and Dylan on this as I collect obscure things myself and also bottom feed. With the silly rare stuff very few care about it can take a while to find a buyer who will more than happily pay a price many feel is silly high.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by G1911

You guys have shifted from "too cheap" to "eventually I might get this price". I agree with the new point that is not at all the original. A not common item might sit for 6 months+ before finding the right buyer. But that wasn't too cheap or a bargain. If it was too cheap, one of you guys would buy it and make the free money on the flip. Go grab it!

Actual sales data is a whole lot better than this appeal to... I don't even know. There's nothing being used to set this value you want besides that you want that to be the value.

Let me clarify by saying that $50 "sounds cheap" considering the variables: Yount (HOF), semi-rare/unusual, even the art aspect. If I push that up, eventually I get someplace before $100 that "seems" a bit much. I really have no idea how cheap $50 is.

What I do know is that there very well may be a handful of Yount collectors who have no idea that this exists or any urgency to obtain it. But once they do, and they shop around and see just one example available online and its $50, they may not pause to purchase it. Just because some flipper (who also happens to be a Yount collector) hasn't attempted to do so does not negate this point.

You are correct too, in that a lack of sales data on this item means a lack of ability to properly say what it is "worth."

[swarmee]

More importantly, does anyone know who the artist signature is from? Were all the images painted by the same artist in the set?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by swarmee

More importantly, does anyone know who the artist signature is from? Were all the images painted by the same artist in the set?

They are all Craig Pursley in the set.

He is a trade artist and not well known to me. He was likely just hired by Topps as he is a portrait artist for the task.

[todeen]

Really love this conversation. I wish the checklist had been a bit more elite, though. No one I'm interested in is included. The artist prints are interesting. Thanks for everyone who chimed in.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Rich Klein]

Looking at the checklist. Topps picked 5 of the biggest names in the game at the time and Yount/Mitchell were included as MVPs, Saberhagen/Davis were included as Cy Young award winners and Olson/Walton were included as ROY's

And that's why the checklist has some non elite status as only Yount finished with a great career of those 6 players

We can discuss if they got the 5 biggest names going into the 1990 season correct but that was Topps logic as much as I can deduce. But looking at the other 5 I think with hindsight they had a pretty good clue as to whom they chose in that group.

Rich

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Looking at the checklist. Topps picked 7 of the biggest names in the game and Yount/Mitchell were included as MVPs, Saberhagen/Davis were included as Cy Young award winners and Olson/Walton were included as ROY's



And that's why the checklist has some non elite status as only Yount finished with a great career of those 6 players



We can discuss if they got the 5 biggest names going into the 1990 season correct but that was Topps logic as much as I can deduce. But looking at the other 5 I think with hindsight they had a pretty good clue as to whom they chose in that group.



Rich

I'm not disagreeing with the players, per se. I'm a Reds collector, and the Reds were left out. Eric Davis was absolutely a huge name by 1990, comparable to Bo Jackson. Chris Sabo had a monster year in 88, but got injured in 89... so I understand why he wasn't chosen. I also question leaving Griffey Jr out of this set, as he was a mega hype machine immediately. Will Clark & Kevin Mitchell represents the Giants, who were in the 89 World Series, but there are no Athletics (Canseco and McGwire), no Dodgers (Valenzuela, Gibson, Hersheiser). I'm sure the artist was commissioned before the 89 WS, but it just seems they are missing players who would drive sales. Not having two Giants players could have helped a lot.

Anyway, I still think the artists proof is a cool junk wax idea.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm not disagreeing with the players, per se. I'm a Reds collector, and the Reds were left out. Eric Davis was absolutely a huge name by 1990, comparable to Bo Jackson. Chris Sabo had a monster year in 88, but got injured in 89... so I understand why he wasn't chosen. I also question leaving Griffey Jr out of this set, as he was a mega hype machine immediately. Will Clark & Kevin Mitchell represents the Giants, who were in the 89 World Series, but there are no Athletics (Canseco and McGwire), no Dodgers (Valenzuela, Gibson, Hersheiser). I'm sure the artist was commissioned before the 89 WS, but it just seems they are missing players who would drive sales. Not having two Giants players could have helped a lot.

Anyway, I still think the artists proof is a cool junk wax idea.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

Bo had TV Commercials and was a far bigger name than Eric Davis, that one is not an issue to me

Could you have subbed someone for Dwwight Gooden or Don Mattingly? Probably but remember Topps was a NY based company and those were the key figures in baseball for NY and frankly for other parts of the country

As you pointed out Will Clark was considered by some at that time the best player in BB and had just played in a WS and Nolan Ryan became a legend in 1989

But, as I pointed out, Topps logic may not be the logic someone else used so your comments especially about Big Mac (remember Canseco was hurt and missed much of 89) is relevent. Griffey -- well yes in retrospect but he was not ROY and while we all thought he was going to be great, there were already 2 1989 rookies in an 11 card set

I will also point out that my verbiage there was quite clear that we can and should hve different feelings about who should have been in this set

[bnorth]

Would have loved to seen a Wade Boggs in there and Kirby Puckett was also huge then.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Would have loved to seen a Wade Boggs in there and Kirby Puckett was also huge then.

There's quite a few Boggs lithos of the time from sports artists. I always thought the artist signed and player autoed Boggs/Gwynn lithographs looked good for a man cave.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JustinD

There's quite a few Boggs lithos of the time from sports artists. I always thought the artist signed and player autoed Boggs/Gwynn lithographs looked good for a man cave.

I just want to see a Boggs in most things. I have never collected baseball lithos. I did get an email from a fellow member with this Boggs drawing attached a couple days ago and it is by far my favorite Wade Boggs drawing.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I just want to see a Boggs in most things. I have never collected baseball lithos. I did get an email from a fellow member with this Boggs drawing attached a couple days ago and it is by far my favorite Wade Boggs drawing.

Excellent!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Bo had TV Commercials and was a far bigger name than Eric Davis, that one is not an issue to me



Could you have subbed someone for Dwwight Gooden or Don Mattingly? Probably but remember Topps was a NY based company and those were the key figures in baseball for NY and frankly for other parts of the country



As you pointed out Will Clark was considered by some at that time the best player in BB and had just played in a WS and Nolan Ryan became a legend in 1989



But, as I pointed out, Topps logic may not be the logic someone else used so your comments especially about Big Mac (remember Canseco was hurt and missed much of 89) is relevent. Griffey -- well yes in retrospect but he was not ROY and while we all thought he was going to be great, there were already 2 1989 rookies in an 11 card set



I will also point out that my verbiage there was quite clear that we can and should hve different feelings about who should have been in this set

I forget that Topps is based in NYC. That makes sense. Eric Davis was tied to Nike by 1988. I know Bo Jackson was huge, but Eric Davis wasn't hiding, he was going after endorsement deals too. Anyway, I just want a Reds player in sets like these.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk