We're getting close to the Top 20 of this 60 card countdown. And the closer we get to #1, the closer we get to 2011 Topps Series One. Onto the countdown.
Here are card #'s 29-34 "on Topps 60 Greatest Cards of All Time":
- #34: 1955 Topps #2 Ted Williams
- #33: 1955 Topps #164 Roberto Clemente
- #32: 1985 Topps #3 Dwight Gooden Record Breaker
- #31: 1969 Topps #260 Reggie Jackson
- #30: 1953 Topps #82 Mickey Mantle
- #29: 1963 Topps #537 1963 Rookie Stars Pedro Gonzalez/Ken McMullen/Pete Rose/Al Weis
Thoughts: Sure enough, the Roberto Clemente Rookie card ranked higher than his second year card, but not by much. And to the anonymous poster questioning MY LOGIC? This is just my opinion only. Yes, maybe "book value" or rookie cards matter. But for as long as I have collected, they ALWAYS have mattered. I'm still wondering why the record breaker card was selected over Doc's regular card. But hey, I didn't pick the 100. More rookie cards are prevalent heading up the countdown, seeing that Clemente's, Jackson's, and yes, #29 is considered Pete Rose's rookie card, even though it is shared with three other players.
Card #28 on the countdown will be announced tomorrow, or on the weekend, depending on when it shows up on the website.
Sincerely,
JayBee Anama
3 comments:
Of course being a RC shouldn't be the only factor about how good a card is. However, I think it could often be the biggest factor for an individual card. Like you say, since I've been collecting, it's always been a big deal, so maybe I don't have the perspective that collectors from the 70s or 60s do.
There's something to a guy's first card. Many kids growing up dream of someday being on a baseball card. This dream is true for many baseball fans who grew up to be an insurance salesmen or those who grew up to be MLB All-Stars. So even for someone who is a baseball star, it's cool to see their first card.
My guess is that collectors who abhor the "RC craze" are mostly against the idea of prospecting on guys who haven't done much yet. And I can certainly understand that - plus with Strasmania it seems particularly absurd. So the card companies are trying to make money about that.
But is it really that bad that Jose Bautista's 2006 RC garners more interest now that he had a great 2010? Or Joey Votto's? I don't think so. I think its neat to see them on their first card.
Another thing, I think there are some cards like Record Breakers that are really cool / important and could go into the "best card" category. Pete Rose's RB for all-time hits. The Hank Aaron "All-time Home Run King" from 1974. Roger Maris's card #1 from 1962 Topps after breaking the HR record.
Dwight Gooden becoming the youngest to win 20 games (IN MODERN HISTORY ONLY) does not quite fall into those categories. Maybe that card represents the hype that followed Gooden at that time, but so does his 84 Topps Traded.
You would have loved collecting cards in the 1970s, it was a lot more fun. Nobody called it an investment game like they try to do nowadays.
I have never understood the fascination with rookie cards. Sure the 'first' card of a player, or one that depicts them looking young and fresh during their rookie season, is kind of cool, but why should it command such a huge price multiple over other cards of that player? Sometimes the rookie card of a player is rather unaesthetic, such as the 1963 Topps of Pete Rose you mentioned, which Pete has to share with three other players.
The rookie card phenomenon arose in the 1980's partly out of a speculation game (fueled by those who stood to cash in first): you buy cards of a player when they first arrive in the big leagues, and then later reap the benefits of your foresight and talent recognition skills when the player goes on to have a great career. I remember back then people even tried to buy hundreds of copies of a single card; maybe they still do. The problem is that the supply of modern cards is essentially infinite (plenty of unopened cases still stashed away), so the price levels that these cards can ultimately reach is limited.
Post a Comment