Skewed hockey card value. What SHOULD they be worth?
- Thread starter tjcurrie
- Start date
ted2019
History of Hockey
Also, don't forget that those prices in Beckett are for ungraded cards, not graded cards. Big difference in prices when dealing with the two.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Yes, things go in cycles. Well who knows, I guess. You know how it is popular to wear the thick rimmed glasses now for whatever reason? Well, 10 years ago you would have associated that with the 1960s and assumed THAT style would never make a comeback.
Does this mean people should hang onto their bell bottoms?
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
tjcurrie
Registered User
It somewhat does, yes. It's kind of a way to compare players of each era. It kind of takes popularity in to account as well. Like where would a Lindros RC be sitting at? Close to a Gretzky? A Messier? A Trottier?
Figured card enthusiasts as well as maybe former enthusiasts would find it interesting to sort out who would be worth what and why.
Ah well. It's on page 2 so far. More traffic than some threads
Of course, half the posts are mine
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,779
- 16,222
Yes, things go in cycles. Well who knows, I guess. You know how it is popular to wear the thick rimmed glasses now for whatever reason? Well, 10 years ago you would have associated that with the 1960s and assumed THAT style would never make a comeback.
Does this mean people should hang onto their bell bottoms?
haha. i remember in the late 90s, my mom busted out the old bell bottoms when they became hip with teenage girls. one look at her in those old things and my girl friends declared the trend over, of course.
last year, my wife broke out her old doc marten boots from the 90s for the same reason. we're not that old quite yet, but i still wonder if she helped or hurt the trend...
back to the topic of cards, to me hockey cards were more interesting when we had no idea they were worth anything and played games chucking them against the wall in the school yard. once upper deck came around and we started treating them like works of art, i think that was more the beginning of the end for me than when they literally lost their value.
Well, there are a lot of factors here that play into card values.
The problem with the early 90's cards is that they were mass produced. Pro Set, UD, Parkhurst, Score, OPC, Topps, Pinnacle were all mass produced in the early to mid 90's... The funny part is that the rookies from that mass production era hit peak value right after they came out. I remember Selanne's UD rc maxing out at 20 bucks after his monster rookie season, Lindros' Score rc maxed out at about 20 bucks as well, now you can get both for a buck each... Of course this was the "collectors boom" era and a lot of people were willing to shell out good money for mass produced cards somehow believing that they would be worth something in the future.
As a kid in the early 90's I always preferred vintage cards pre-1990 so I usually traded my newer cards Selanne, Modano, Fedorov, Bure, Brodeur etc rookies or stars from that era for vintage cards of HOFers (or whatever I wanted) from the 60's 70's and 80's... I would buy a pack of UD, pull a Gretzky, Hull or Lemieux and trade that card for a Dryden, Mikita, Esposito, Bossy, Dionne etc...
The reason why the vintage cards are worth more (especially in mint condition) is because a) they weren't mass produced, b) many got destroyed or thrown away, c) many were beat to hell and d) the quality control back then was awful, so even pulling a mint card from a vintage pack (pre-1985) these days is difficult.
So yeah, a PSA 10 Orr rookie is 2000-3000 x more rare than a PSA 10 Lidstrom rookie hence should be valued that way and it is.
Also, another mistake collectors made and make all the time is running out and buying rookie cards of players right before or after they break records - that sends the cards sky rocketing and then 6 months later they fall back down to earth. McGwires RC is a perfect example, Bonds as well. Before those guys broke their records McGwires 85 topps rookie was 50 bucks then it shot up to 250, Bonds 86 TT, Donruss, Fleer etc RC was 10 then it shot to 100+ overnight.... Of course you can get them now for 10 bucks each all day....
Of course the reasons I listed are the reason why card companies are limiting their production these days and making cards that are 1/1 or 1/5 or 1/10.... IMO if they put flaws in their cards it would make the hobby even more interesting considering everyone wants a mint card, presently when they buy a pack they're guaranteed the cards are flawless, but I suppose that's why there is a small market for error cards these days.
The problem with the early 90's cards is that they were mass produced. Pro Set, UD, Parkhurst, Score, OPC, Topps, Pinnacle were all mass produced in the early to mid 90's... The funny part is that the rookies from that mass production era hit peak value right after they came out. I remember Selanne's UD rc maxing out at 20 bucks after his monster rookie season, Lindros' Score rc maxed out at about 20 bucks as well, now you can get both for a buck each... Of course this was the "collectors boom" era and a lot of people were willing to shell out good money for mass produced cards somehow believing that they would be worth something in the future.
As a kid in the early 90's I always preferred vintage cards pre-1990 so I usually traded my newer cards Selanne, Modano, Fedorov, Bure, Brodeur etc rookies or stars from that era for vintage cards of HOFers (or whatever I wanted) from the 60's 70's and 80's... I would buy a pack of UD, pull a Gretzky, Hull or Lemieux and trade that card for a Dryden, Mikita, Esposito, Bossy, Dionne etc...
The reason why the vintage cards are worth more (especially in mint condition) is because a) they weren't mass produced, b) many got destroyed or thrown away, c) many were beat to hell and d) the quality control back then was awful, so even pulling a mint card from a vintage pack (pre-1985) these days is difficult.
So yeah, a PSA 10 Orr rookie is 2000-3000 x more rare than a PSA 10 Lidstrom rookie hence should be valued that way and it is.
Also, another mistake collectors made and make all the time is running out and buying rookie cards of players right before or after they break records - that sends the cards sky rocketing and then 6 months later they fall back down to earth. McGwires RC is a perfect example, Bonds as well. Before those guys broke their records McGwires 85 topps rookie was 50 bucks then it shot up to 250, Bonds 86 TT, Donruss, Fleer etc RC was 10 then it shot to 100+ overnight.... Of course you can get them now for 10 bucks each all day....
Of course the reasons I listed are the reason why card companies are limiting their production these days and making cards that are 1/1 or 1/5 or 1/10.... IMO if they put flaws in their cards it would make the hobby even more interesting considering everyone wants a mint card, presently when they buy a pack they're guaranteed the cards are flawless, but I suppose that's why there is a small market for error cards these days.
Beckett lists vintage graded cards (at least they used to)...
Truth is Beckett's values are useless. The best guide these days is ebay because a card is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
Beckett was only a good resource before the internet. I'm shocked anyone even uses Beckett as a reference anymore.
It really depends on the grade of the card.
A PSA/BGS 10 Roy rookie can be $1,000-1,500 while a card graded a 7 will be 75 bucks.
IMO, I don't mind the big swing in value because if you just want an authentic rookie card of a player and don't care about grade you can get one for pretty cheap these days... I'm sure you could get a Gretzky rookie in "poor" condition (graded 3) for 5% of its book value.. IMO, I kinda like old beat up cards - it gives the card personality and history....
Yeah, couldn't disagree more.
It's like chopping up a classic Ferrari and then giving out inch-squared chunks of the quarter panels. Out of context and not as the complete item, it means absolutely nothing. And it's ruining something that did.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Agree wholeheartedly. Theyve done it to seats from the Forum to old Chicago Stadium; game worn original goalie pads from the likes of Johnny Bower to Glenn Hall, just on & on. Once destroyed its gone forever. I fail to see the attraction in owning a tiny piece of whatever but I guess it does satiate a certain segment of the collectors market. Was quite surprised when I first saw it on-line some years ago.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Card Sharks by Pete Williams
Suggested reading:
http://www.petewilliams.net/blog/?p=748
and you will realize a few things about cards from the post Upper Deck era.
Suggested reading:
http://www.petewilliams.net/blog/?p=748
and you will realize a few things about cards from the post Upper Deck era.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
true.
Beckett's values were made up. They weren't based on actual sales being made... like a stock's price on a stock market, for example.
Ugh. Makes you furious just thinking about it.
It's like smashing up sculptures from Michaelangelo so amateur historians can own a little piece of white rubble.
Beckett "claimed" they assessed card values based on prices paid at card shows but the problem using that logic is that at card shows everyone is using Beckett prices to buy and sell.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Old Claim
Old claim used to explain source of the original pricing in the first Beckett Price Guides that were annuals. In other words prices at card shows "before" the initial price guides were created.
The claim hung around.
Old claim used to explain source of the original pricing in the first Beckett Price Guides that were annuals. In other words prices at card shows "before" the initial price guides were created.
The claim hung around.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It was at lest good for knowing the "relative" value of cards, so that in trades with friends you'd make sure you weren't being hosed. (Or, when using with card shops, giving them the 2:1 rate they demanded)
Pominville Knows
Registered User
Yeah, the non-millionaire segment. Get over it fellas. So you wont be the exclusive holders of this stuff, collect for your own sakes, not becouse your collection is better than everybody elses.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
...
Im only ok with cutting stuff up if in say the case of a jersey or hockey equipment, even a stick if its just so totaled that its integrity is shot as a stand alone piece. Then sure. Cut whatever up & attach small pieces to cards or plaques, frame them etc. Im good with that. Gives everyone a chance to own a piece of it. I noticed its been done with seats from a lot of old buildings long since gone as well & again, with something like that Id actually prefer a piece nicely mounted in a frame with a picture or certificate of authentication. But if its an item thats in great shape then no, definitely not.
EagleBelfour
Registered User
I think Beckett is a good guide to trade cards with friends, as although none are worth what is written down, the prices are all equally boosted.
I was collecting cards for a hobby as a teenager. I definitely lost some money in the process, but I don't regret it; it was a very nice time waster. Another thing I don't regret? Selling all of them (except my Belfour collection) to travel Australia. Best decision ever
....
Cutting Sidney Crosby's stick and gluing it on a card? Great idea! The guy use hundreds of stick in a season anyway.
Cutting Jacques Plante's goaltending pads to put it on a hockey card? Now that's terrible. You want everyone to enjoy this piece of memorabilia? Put them in a museum, don't destroy them.
Pominville Knows
Registered User
Jaques Plante pads? How does Eddie Shores pants and gloves sound to you? Now that's some nice cuttin!
Rorschach
Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
I read the blog. It's incredibly biased.
For example, it talks about re-printing cards unethically...Topps is the company who did that with 89-90 O Pee Chee, before UD was even in hockey. It also absolves the speculators, including dealers and collectors and hobby outsiders who ordered cases just to sit on them.
It's not reporting, it's just hating.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,779
- 16,222
i don't really collect anything, but it's an interesting phenomenon. like at what point does the enjoyment of owning something supersede the enjoyment of the thing itself? i have no idea what some "millionaire" who threw down $300-500 for a jersey that sundin once wore does with it other than hanging it on the wall. but i tend to imagine there are ways to enjoy things that would probably not be possible if you cut it into 50 little pieces and then stitched it inside a piece of cardboard.
which is not to say i condemn jersey cards, just that it's a very weird phenomenon. but then i guess, objectively speaking, collecting things that some guy who's good at hockey once wore is a pretty weird phenomenon too.
Pominville Knows
Registered User
What's weird with it? I think one would have to be real weird for not wanting a game-used jersey of a player on their favourite team.
