1986 Fleer Basketball... Worth Collecting?

[lampertb]

Wanting to know the opinions of others here.
The big '86-'87 Fleer Basketball set, with Jordan's RC, Ewing's RC, Barkley's, etc... there are SO many high-graded cards out there, plenty of 8s, 9s, and even 10s, that there's honestly not much of a chase, just a need for deep pockets.
Do you all see this set retaining or growing its value long term? It would be a unicorn in the junk wax era if so.
Thoughts?

[Exhibitman]

Well, given that most of the big rookies are on earlier Star cards that PSA now grades, I do not think I would pursue the Fleer set now, except if I could get it cheap. Better to allocate the funds to the Star rookies. Unless you like the set and just want to go for it.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Well, given that most of the big rookies are on earlier Star cards that PSA now grades, I do not think I would pursue the Fleer set now, except if I could get it cheap. Better to allocate the funds to the Star rookies. Unless you like the set and just want to go for it.

Usually I would agree with this, but aren’t the Star cards rife with issues? I’ve never collected them, but if I remember correctly there were all types of concerns with not only fakes but cards that were made over various years for one set (e.g. the 84 MJ XRC could’ve been printed in 84 or 93). I could have this completely wrong but I thought that was the main concern with them and why 86-87 Fleer was so much more popular. Also, imo there are way too many subsets to keep up with, there must be 20+ different Jordan cards made over that 2 or 3 year period… just seems to water the cards down, albeit the 84 MJ will always be chased.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

Usually I would agree with this, but aren’t the Star cards rife with issues? I’ve never collected them, but if I remember correctly there were all types of concerns with not only fakes but cards that were made over various years for one set (e.g. the 84 MJ XRC could’ve been printed in 84 or 93). I could have this completely wrong but I thought that was the main concern with them and why 86-87 Fleer was so much more popular. Also, imo there are way too many subsets to keep up with, there must be 20+ different Jordan cards made over that 2 or 3 year period… just seems to water the cards down, albeit the 84 MJ will always be chased.

Complete hobby myth and easily avoided. Yes some Shop at Home sales sold misdated new issues. The reprint myth you cite is easily disproved and there are libraries of good info to explain this. Other than third party counterfeit cards, there is zero proof the original designs were reprinted by Star. I deem this nonsense that heavy investors in 86 Jordan’s put out to protect their 3rd year cards.

I can’t stand Geoff Wilson, but this interview has a good expert on the subject - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7CpI1qiRvo&t=1774s

Simply put, reproduction of the Star cards without a vast difference as a completely new issue was made up and the major graders looked like a joke buying in. They are just now correcting that inept mistake.

[lampertb]

The discrepancy reminds me of 2 other "rookie cards" from big, national issues, neither of which was actually the player's true rookie card.

Option #1) The 1938 Goudey cards were Joe DiMaggio's first cards in a major national set. They are, however, currently worth less than the 1934 Zeenuts Pacific Coast League cards and the 1936 Canadian World Wide Gum card, both of which obviously predate the Goudey.

Option #2) Mickey Mantle's true rookie was the '51 Bowman, which was in fact a national issue. However, that card doesn't come close in equitable value to the '52 Topps Mantle card. Chicken or the egg... this might be due to the overall popularity of the '52 Topps set, or conversely the '52 Topps set might owe so much of its popularity to this particular Mantle card's iconicity.

Regardless, same situation as the Jordan '86 Fleer vs. earlier Star rookie. Option #1 is LESS valuable, while Option #2 remains MORE valuable.

Which do you think the '86 Fleer Jordan more closely resembles... and more importantly WILL resemble moving forward? This is obviously a large part of predicting the '86 Fleer Basketball Set's investment value, but not the whole picture.

[Peter_Spaeth]

People have been waiting forever for Star Basketball to go to the moon and for the pseudo rookies in 86 Fleer to collapse. Not happening even with PSA now grading them. One problem is that the centering on some issues like the 101 Jordan sucks so many pristine cards are going to grade no higher than PSA 7. That said, if you want to debunk the myths, basketballgold.com is a nice site.

The 86 Jordan is here to stay. That said, I would not presume to predict the overall market. Anyone who so presumes is just guessing.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Well, given that most of the big rookies are on earlier Star cards that PSA now grades, I do not think I would pursue the Fleer set now, except if I could get it cheap. Better to allocate the funds to the Star rookies. Unless you like the set and just want to go for it.

This is exactly how I feel about the 86s, I think the growth is going to be in Star issues and 86 will continue to slowly drop.

[vthobby]

Originally Posted by lampertb

Wanting to know the opinions of others here.
The big '86-'87 Fleer Basketball set, with Jordan's RC, Ewing's RC, Barkley's, etc... there are SO many high-graded cards out there, plenty of 8s, 9s, and even 10s, that there's honestly not much of a chase, just a need for deep pockets.
Do you all see this set retaining or growing its value long term? It would be a unicorn in the junk wax era if so.
Thoughts?

It is a classic set. If you can find pack fresh cards that you know are real, this set is a fun venture.

There have been some dealers quietly buying these lately. Commons and stars alike. Just fyi.