Is It Better To Collect Rare Or Iconic Cards? Taking A Closer Look At Collecting Vintage Cards!!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- I'll always recommend that people should only collect cards that they LIKE. But, I know that we're all drawn towards different things and different types of cards get us more excited than others. Some people want to collect players like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth. Others prefer collecting guys like Eddie Mathews or Ernie Banks. We talk about the concept of rare vs iconic cards and the combination of the two. As always, your comments really made me think, as there were some really interesting comments from a variety of collecting perspectives.
If you're interested in submitting your favorite pickups from the month of May, to be included in the upcoming MidLife Community Show and Tell video, please use this link: forms.gle/SCR1fAq6UqNkoqJr5
Some of my other recent videos:
PSA's CEO Shares Big Changes at PSA: • Several Big Changes an...
Multiple Pickups at an Epic Card Show: • The Best Card Show I'v...
Has the Card Collecting Community Lost Their Minds: • Have Card Collectors L...
Avoid this Common Card Collecting Mistake: • Card Collectors Can't ...
Why to Buy the Card and Not the Grade: • The Best Advice: "Buy ...
Buying HOF RCs Before they're HOFers: • Buy Their Cards Before...
A Recent May 2023 Card Show Vlog: • Rocklin Card Show Vlog...
Going back in time to see what vintage cards were worth in 1986: • Baseball Cards Have Go...
Why We Should Be Buying PSA 1s: • Here's Why I Think You...
Better understanding the supply and demand of sports cards: • How to Predict the Fut...
A Recent Card Show With Tons of Vintage and t206 Cards: • This Card Show Was Loa...
My Analysis on whether Rookie Cards are Overrated: • Are Rookie Cards Reall...
My Dad's Estate Sale Find of a Lifetime; A Shoebox of Vintage Cards: • Finding a Shoebox of V...
Why PSA is Still Beating SGC: • The Reasons Why PSA is...
Top 5 Undervalued Vintage Rookie Cards: • Why Are These 5 Vintag...
Consider following me on other platforms:
Twitter: @MidLifeCards
Instagram: @MidLifeCards
TikTok: @MidLifeCards
Email me at: MidLifeCards@gmail.com
#vintagecards #baseballcards #sportscards #thehobby
All statements and opinions shared in this video (and all of my videos) are for entertainment purposes only, and are not investment advice. I consider Sports Cards to be a hobby, and not an investment. If you're interested in investment advice, I recommend connecting with a certified financial planner. 
Спорт
Great topic Graig! The winning formula for me is often rare/obscure CARDS of iconic PLAYERS
For some reason I had a feeling you're into "iconic" cards. :-)
@@MidLifeCards lol i’m really not a fan of iconic CARDS. For me, its about the PLAYER. IMO the subject is what makes a card important.
Hi Graig,
Thank you for your video about rare vs iconic cards. Personally I like to collect iconic cards within my budget. Rare cards by definition are usually more expensive.
Anyway I wish that my budget was bigger and I don’t have any rare cards.
Have a relaxing evening, and take care of yourself.
Peter
I wish my budget was bigger as well, Peter!!
Definitly the rare stuff is where its at!
Rare is cool, for sure.
There is no "better" because you cant go wrong either way. It's basic supply and demand and there will always be a demand for iconic cards, and there will always be a demand for "rare" cards....Of course it all depends on the era, I mean a 2024 Topps /10 of a common player is technically a "rare" card, however there is virtually no demand for it outside of team/player collectors, or those that focus on serial numbered cards.. Of course serial numbered stars and HOF'ers are always in demand, so padding your collection with low pop (less than /999) serial numbered cards is an excellent investment - not only that - but in my opinion I think serial numbered stars and HOF'ers are tremendously undervalued at the moment - especially those from the 90's and early 00's.
Now of course you have rare vintage, and that's always going to hold value and go up in value - especially anything high-grade and perhaps surprising to some, commons.. Vintage commons have ALWAYS been good to me, because there are a lot of set collectors out there looking for the ideal card that fits the theme (grade) of their set, and they'll pay good money for the right card if it fits their set. I mean commons are essentially their own "sub-industry" in the hobby because not many collectors think $$$$ when it comes to commons, but that's what makes the "niche" so lucrative, very few dealers are taking the time to weed-out commons that are desirable for vintage set collectors. Then of course you have the vintage high-numbers and other commons that are extremely rare, regardless of the grade.. Point being - if you know what you're doing, you know the hobby and know what sells - ANYTHING can be on par with an "Iconic Card"...
Also, let me point out that some of these iconic cards only hold value because of the "iconic" part - I'm talking more modern cards tho like the 89 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr.. That card is one of the most overrated cards in the hobby, and look at the PSA 10 population - that card is NOT investment material - and in my opinion only is valued at what it is because everyone loves it, and everyone has to have it - especially those like me that grew up collecting in the late 80's and through the junk-wax era, so I think nostalgia certainly adds to it's value... Obviously I've acquired quite a few of them over the years, because you know - you must have one because it's law - but in reality I would rather have a 1971 Topps PSA 10 common rather than a PSA 10 Upper Deck KGJ rookie because there are what, 50,000+ PSA 10 UD Griffey Rookies?? while a 1971 Topps common in PSA 10 in the majority of cases is less than 10, a lot are less than 5 - not because collectors aren't having them slabbed, but because it's a condition sensitive set..
IDK, that's just my 2 cents after 35 years in the hobby, lol.... But like I said - there is no "better". Rare cards - especially rare vintage - and most "iconic" cards are great adds to your collection and great investments (depending on when you buy). But you have to be careful when it comes to the more modern "iconic" cards, like the Griffey because if you buy them at the wrong time - you're going to take a bath and will probably end up hating the card you once loved.. And I think that happened to a lot of pseudo-collectors and "investors" back in 2020/2021...
What a great response. So many great points in there, and I agree...both are great.
This is such a good response. Well done sir.
Hey Graig, this is a topic that used to really make me question my searches and purchases. What I have established as my primary process is a direct correlation to what I am collecting. I have a few different collections going (500HR and 300W's) which will force me to pick up some high dollar cards. That being said, if I get a rare card of those players for those collections i will choose that card first. Once i have those in my possession, think of the iconic cards being more of the "fun" cards to look at that EVERYONE recognizes and appreciates. I appreciate the rareness of certain cards that alot of others wouldn't recognize but the iconic cards are great pieces of history that bring great conversation of a few (or many) drinks.
Great comment!!
Great question, yes both I know. It depends on the eye of thee beholder. I think 33 goudey portrait of Babe Ruth looks beautiful, the green back ground makes it pop. I love the 73 Hank Aaron action shot of him catching a ball and I 'very heard alot of people not like, again I think it looks beautiful. All in the eye of thee beholder. Thanks and God bless
That's a great answer. There's certainly not a right or wrong answer.
To me, it's a false choice. Iconic and rare cards are great, but so are regular, everyday cards. For newbies out there in this day and age who actually have to ask, "How do I get into vintage?" the framing of that question suggests that serious collecting is really only about iconic or rare - or that those cards are the only ones that really count. Glad that some people chose neither! And I dug what the collector said about price being an obstacle to someone trying to complete a team set. And I think you know this of course, because you've shared a number of cards just for their sentimental value. So why even ask the question? Collectors today should really be encouraged to dig into the deep lore of baseball and realize that every player has a story to tell.
...and they should be taught that cards can have deep, personal meaning to a collector, for whatever reason, completely outside of any discussion of grade or monetary value - or whether it's rare or iconic.
I agree. I do appreciate that the discussion wasn't presented as "what types of cards have the best upside for future investment?"
To your point, I've followed baseball history since I was a kid in the 70's. At a flea market the other day I found a few rough 1948 Leaf cards for $5 each of commons I wasn't familiar with. One was a player named, Elmer Valo. pretty card and fun name. I went home to research my buys and found out some fascinating information about a darn good player that many of us may not be aware of. I honestly got more enjoyment out of that purchase than me spending big bucks on a rare or iconic card that everyone knows about.
Maybe a 3rd option, "hidden gems" would get a few votes.
@@fredoblong Yes, exactly! There are so many fascinating players and stories. One thing that really helps one discover them is just to start reading the various books, biographies, compilations, etc. All we hear about are the same old cards. Great as they are, after a while, they actually start to get a little boring (gasp!) You go to shows and the same cards are featured, although of course, you can find lots of the kind of cards we're talking about too. Nice pick-up with the Elmer Valo. I've got a few of them, but not the '48 Leaf. He has some really nice cards.
I appreciate you taking the time to watch the video and leave a comment. Thanks.
Yes!!! I have so many cards of guys who don’t hit the hobby radar who are meaningful to me. I’m collecting a 1971 Topps set, and even the lower-level players evoke memories of me seeing them or their cards when I was a kid. I collect Tigers team sets because it’s my favorite team and I have a memory of most of the players.
Hi Graig. This is an interesting topic. I collect mainly Nolan Ryan cards and other items that appears on. Thanks for the video.
Nolan Ryan is one of the most iconic players of our lifetime.
Gave a video like. Always enjoy these. Thanks for sharing
Awesome. Thanks so much.
Another great choice in topic. You’re on a roll.
Thanks man. I appreciate it. I'm slowly trying to grind away to be able to pickup a couple of monsters like you have in your collection!!
@@MidLifeCards you have great stuff just continue to enjoy that. They will come.
Great responses this week Graig! Really enjoyed your perspective on the communities answers.
For next week - Portrait vs action for me, is dependent on the cards and sets. I look at it more as, do I like the image? For example, I like the T206 Cobbs and Young more as the portrait, but I like the Matty and Johnson more as in action. For more modern stuff, I like the 53 Bowman Reese, 71 Topps Munson, and 76 Topps Bench from an action perspective. I really like the 52 Topps Robinson and 34 Goudey Gehrig #37 from a portrait perspective. If I was looking to pick up one of each, that I don't already have, I'd go with the 52 Topps Robinson (portrait) and the 33 Goudey Ruth #144 (action). Fun question!
well put
You answered it like me, but better stated. Can I cut and paste it
Great point. Depends on the card makes total sense.
I like the portrait cards the best. 1958 Mantle, Mays and Aaron are three of my favorites. I love the 57 Clemente, Koufax and Brooks Robinson. the 56's with the closeup portrait and the action shots are really cool too. Mays, Mantle, Jackie's are three of my favorites there. The 58 Clemente and Cepeda are not high on my list because they are too distant.
Some great choices, Mr. Miller.
Good choices on you favorite portrait cards!!
Craig,
I began my collecting journey from 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. My dad was in the army then and our family vacations consisted on us traveling to our grandparents homes in 2 different states. So my dad would buy my brothers and I cards for the trips. We would spend the whole trip opening and looking at cards for the whole trip. After 1972, my dad got stationed in Germany so those boyhood trips ended. Those 4 years saw some great cards. So which type of card I’m I drawn too (action or portrait), I would say the action because my favorite card from that time is the 71 Thurman Munson and my favorite set is the 1972 with all those in action cards. But how could you not love portrait cards, like the 69 Reggie Jackson or the 70 Tom Seaver. Thanks always! Greg from Ohio
Wow. Thanks for sharing. So amazing how many of us have childhoods so intertwined with cards!!
Normally, I prefer cards having action shots of players but there are some great "iconic" portrait cards that capture the full gamut of youth, dignity, emotion, triumph and defeat that are hard to ignore. Such examples include the T206 Honus Wagner, the 48-49 Leaf Satchell Paige, the 51 Larry "Yogi" Berra, the 53 Bowman Color Stan Musial, the 57 Brooks Robinson, the 59 Bob Gibson, the 67 Topps Mantle, the 68 Topps Tom Seaver & the grandaddy of all portraits IMO, the 52 Topps Mantle.
In football, how can you beat portraits like the 50 Bowman Sammy Baugh, the 52 Bowman Large Tobin Rote, the 55 Bowman Frank Gifford & Joe Perry, the 60 Johnny Unitas & Forrest Gregg, the 61 Topps Alex Karras, the 64 Philadelphia Merlin Olsen & Paul Hornung, the 65 Philadelphia Jim Brown, the 66 Philadelphia Dick Butkus & Bart Starr, the 71 Topps Terry Bradshaw, and the 76 Topps Walter Payton.
Collecting all these portrait & quasi-portrait player cards is like trying to pick out just a dozen donuts at Krispy Kreme--it's nearly impossible & definitely hard on the wallet but I think you have a good compromise solution. Collect the players you like from the portrait/action combo sets like the 54/55/56 Topps baseball sets & the 57 Topps football set and you'll get a bit of both. ;-)
Those are some absolutely beautiful cards and such great examples!!
I divide the action cards into two categories staged and game action. I really like the staged action shots from the 1950’s because they often have great background views of the old ballparks. I also like the game action cards such as 1970 topps from the 69 AL playoffs game 2 “Powell Scores winning run” Who doesn’t love “the catch” Mays in the 54 Series?!
However I love some of the portrait cards I couldn’t imagine a collection without them. For me both are must have
Steve
Fair point about staged vs game action.
My answer for this weeks question: I don't actually have a preference for action or portrait cards. I do like both, so either is great. I find that I collect the Player (Normally Rookie Card) and not the picture. If the rookie card I am targeting comes with an action picture I am happy. If that card comes with only a portrait, I am equally as happy. If it comes with both, that is awesome.
I can't argue with that. At times, both are really awesome.
I love in game action shots ! Reggie jackson 1974 topps 130. 1978 topps 200.are just two examples of batters.
1973 160 ,74 40 1976 450 all of jim palmer are great examples of a pitcher in action.
Any batter with a bat is always a great shot. Most of the iconic cards show them with a bat on their shoulder. 52 Mantle,89 Griffey Jr ,78 Eddie Murray. All are examples .
My least favorite are just head or profile pics.
The Pete Rose rookie, Nolan Ryan rookie, Bench Rookie .these are great cards that would have been much greater has a solo card. Also I absolutely think the 1976 #300 johnny bench is one of the best cards ever, in game ,great full length shot in catchers gear with no mask, dust flying.
Thanks Graig. P.S. My favorite profile card is the Miller autographed MidLife Card.
Great response and I appreciate you sharing examples of the cards you like best!!
Graig, it just so happens you are both rare (in fact, a 1 of 1!) and iconic! 😊
Regarding portrait shots versus action shots:
I like both, but what really takes cards to the next level for me are the cards that I consider vintage art! These are sets like 1949 Leaf, 1950 through 1952 Bowman, and 1953 Topps, where black and white photos were colorized (often with much artistic liberty taken when creating the background for the player's image) to create vintage art that is off-the-charts nostalgic and glorious to me! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
LOL. Thanks, bud.
I definitely prefer action poses. I just find them more aesthetically appealing and like to see the full uniform.
Any cards in particular you like the looks of?
@@MidLifeCards One of my favorite looking cards is the 1958 Topps Don Newcombe. Also 1952 Topps Johnny Mize.
Ill try to answer your question. Im somewhere in the middle i guess. 1950 bowman are mostly works of art. The Thurman munson action card is iconic. The football action cards of the 70's and early 80's are air brushed to death, so they usually fall short for me. The creators took their best shot every year. Some are better than others. Its in the eye of the buyer. Darren answered it better than i could.
Darren did give a really good response!!
I like the action shots the best!
Any in particular?
@@MidLifeCards Baseball Thrills!
I love iconic vintage cards but can't really afford them, so I get reprints if I can. I have a bunch of Mantles, the '54 Monte Irvin, and a '58 Hank Aaron. All for a couple bucks each and with great color.
I know a lot of people like reprints. I don't mind low grade copies of originals.
When it comes to vintage cards, I don't have a favorite overall style, action or portrait, but I do have an answer for the question. If the background on the card is a single, solid color, I like the portrait cards. If the background is at the ballpark, then I prefer action shots. For example, the 1958 Willie Mays is an awesome portrait card with the solid blue background, and for the action card, I really like the 1976 Topps Johnny Bench.
That makes a lot of sense. A solid color background being better with a portrait and busy backgrounds being better for action. I like that.
Like it or not, Graig, you influenced me. I am gradually selling off my high-end cards and not-so-gradually accumulating cards I like in lower grades with good centering and eye appeal. My browsing on eBay has persuaded me that centered vintage cards are being hoarded and even if I'm wrong I'm trying to grab my share.
There are so many great cards out there, it's super hard to narrow it down, isn't it!!??
Yeah I wouldnt say I collect either for those as driving reasons, but I have some of both
That's pretty much where I fall, as well.
Another great video.
Thanks Orlando. I love hearing the perspectives of other collectors on topics like this.
I love portrait shots. I’m trying to get one card of every player with 20+ war from 1903-today and want them all in portrait type shots, waist or breastbone up shots are my favorite, not really into the super close-ups. I say this because I like seeing the players face and the jerseys/caps. I think portrait cards side by side will make a beautiful display one day as I break them up by team.
Wow. That will be quite a collection!! waste up like the 33 goudey Ruth cards!!
@@MidLifeCards yes! I wanted a lifetime project (I’m 33), some cards are very expensive and others I have on my want list are just very rare. But that’s the fun. Love your channel and I hope you have a great weekend
I do want some portraits so I know what they look like up close. But I love the action shots, like Thurman tagging a runner sliding into home, or Ted leaping to snare a line drive, or Pee Wee jumping high over a sliding runner to turn a double play, or the Babe connecting at Yankee Stadium. I love them even if they're staged for the card.. But porraiits are vital, even if they sometimes don't do the player any favors, like Brooks Robinson's 1958 Topps card.
A mix...I can't disagree.
My answer to next weeks topic is action shot especially in game action shots one of my favorites is the 1973 Johnny Bench. I am a huge Bench fan being form SW Ohio he was my guy as a kid. Portrats are cool but give me the action shot all day.
Great choice, and great example.
Would I love to see the cards I see all over RUclips? Of course. The cost keeps me out of that lane. I focus on Tigers team sets mostly to get a piece of every Topps (and some others) set. The Tigers are fairly inexpensive to collect. The Kaline rookie is the toughest in the Topps era. High numbers are the biggest obstacles to completion after that.
That Kaline RC is one of the all time best looking cards in my opinion.
@@MidLifeCards If I had the means to put together any Topps set and put value to the side. it would be 1954 with the Aaron, Kaline and Banks rookies. I love the two-picture cards and the no-border look.
Tony Kubek is one of the players I PC. I think the 58 Topps is the best looking set of the era. The 58 is my least favorite Kubek because you can’t see his face. Compare the 71 Nolan Ryan card to his other early cards. It’s a great card, but you couldn’t recognize Nolan based solely off that photograph. Part of the greatness of 83 Topps baseball set is that it has both a game action and portrait shot for each player. A lot of the more modern cards have action shots that are zoomed in and could also be considered a portrait. The 87 Donruss Greg Maddux is an example. Football cards almost need a portrait shot to get any kind of look at the player’s face. I’m not saying I dislike action shots, some of my favorite cards are action shots. I do prefer portrait shots especially in vintage and football cards.
The 58 Topps has so many terrific portrait cards.
Graig, i have a question for your weekly Q&A. Will modern Starting Pitchers and modern Running Backs become irrelevant in our hobby because their positions have changed drastically in the past 10 years?
The days of Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and Adrian Pederson are over in the NFL as it’s a passing first league now. The days of 300 Win pitchers (maybe even 200 wins) are over once Scherzer, Kershaw and Verlander retire. Gerrit Cole is the next up in career wins with 145 and he hasn’t pitched a game this year.
Someone asked a similar question about starting pitchers 2 or 3 weeks ago. I think the numbers that are used for starting pitchers will be different...ERA will be more important, WHIP and other analytics will be more important, swing and miss ratio will be more important.
OK, preference, Mary Ann or Ginger? Oops, wrong question. Action Shots or portraits? I always preferred action shots. I love the Topps 1971 set because it was their first set to include game action photos on the cards. When I buy T206’s, I always tended to buy the action photos (although investment wise that was a mistake). I collected the complete T202 set because they had 2 portraits on the ends similar to the T205’s plus a black and white action photo. Many done by Charles Conlon. I like the 72 Topps and their attempt to capture nice action shots. Today’s cards are practically all action shots by Bryan good photographers using very good equipment. I do buy a box of Stadium Club every year just because of the great action shots. By the way, Mary Ann.
LOL. Ginger for me.
My collection is a mix because I have so many different cards but I must say I prefer the portraits with the rich colored backgrounds especially my T206s which are all portraits including Hall of Famers and Commons. I went out of my way to buy a 1909 E95 Philadelphia
Caramel Eddie Plank since I could obviously not afford the T206. My favorite sets that I own emphasize Portraits including the 1955 Topps, 1959, and 1960 set. For the last 30 years I have attempted to put an autographed 1958 set together which portraits go incredibly well with the autographs. But consistency is not there as I love my 1949 Leaf Musial, Dimaggio, Williams cards all swinging bats. My collection I guess is diverse.
It's so interesting because some people have said how they love the t206 portraits and others have said how much they hate them. I'm with you. I love them.
Action cards for the win. Portrait photos are for family members. I want my cards to show a player for what he's known best for...actually playing the sport! lAnd don't get me started on the 1960s and early to mid 70s Topps cards with up close face shots with no hat. I love Warren Spahn but will never buy his 65 Topps card. Give me a 53 Topps Mays over his 52 Topps. Or the 53 Topps Hal Newhowser over the 53 Johnny Mize. This is why i love 1971 Topps cards that have the in game action shots. It was a revolutionary set. Regarding iconic cards, i understand the appeal, but it's also a lazy approach to just pursue "iconic" cards. I think they can add some glamour and glitz to any collection but to me, there's got to be a deeper meaning and education that leads to adding a variety of not-so-iconic cards for a more complete collection. If it's all about dollar value and resale potential then it will be a very limited collection IMO. But I'm not here to judge how anyone else collects.
Good comment. Really interesting and thought provoking stuff in there. "Portrait photos are for family members" had me LOL. :-)
Portrait > Action but both can be cool depending on the card
Also Pedro > Roger IMO 😊
LOL. Good stuff.
Its 1030 @m here in ny im buying martin dihigo cards im cuban and im crazy lol
That’s awesome. He’s an important Cuban player.
I prefer the action shot hands down. The portraits are boring. I do however feel both are necessary. A true rookie card in my view should be a portrait bc the player technically hasn’t played in a professional game. I want an action shot to be a photo/art from an actual professional game… not from the minor leagues. It is a little different with modern day prospecting and action cards/SP/SSPs. Non-action/portraits seem to be the standard for older vintage cards. True action shots of vintage cards are unofficial short prints to me like the 1953 bowman Reese (I’ve heard this pose was not from an actual game, but love it). T206 portraits look and remind me of obituary photos so I can’t get myself to collect em, but I respect em.
Totally can see that perspective!!
Can u send me the link to send my June pick up
It’s in the description of this video.
All card collectors who love the hobby should purchase and own at least one very rare (and expensive) card they can be proud of. The rest should be a fun mix of iconic and favorite players. But we all should eventually have at least one WOW card.
Obviously, this is subjective. What is considered rare and expensive?
I think that's a good description of what a lot of people aim for.
For collecting I like rare. For investing I like Iconic.
That's interesting.
Super interesting....what's your reasoning for each?
From my experience sportscard investors concern themselves with supply more than they should and demand less than they should. If demand wanes 10-20% on an iconic card, the demand will still be high. If demand declines by 10-20% on a rare card that can destroy the market. Collecting regional issues, minor league cards, errors/variations and other rare vintage cards is fun and I like to own the unique cards, but when I invest give me a rookie of a hall of fame player all day long.
Here's a question, psa president said there is no continuanty in grading. Two senerios you send a card in and grader # two grades it at a four, you crack and resend it in and grader#five grades it as a six, 2nd senerio grader one grades it as a five, you crack it and resend it and grader ten grades it as a three , question is which is the legitimate grade in both senerios.
There is no such thing as a "legitimate" grade, because grading is subjective.
If cards are jumping two grades in both directions, I think that would be evidence that grades are just opinions....which I've been saying for a couple of years.
@@MidLifeCards if grades are just opinions, then a ten shouldn't be any more valuable than a five,
@@Brian-pf7qq That's why many claim grading is a scam. It's also why I only buy original photos and limited production cards by card manufacturers. Nothing about grading makes any sense. A recent PSA 2 1989 UD Griffey sold as much as a PSA 9. Why? Because it's rare with a crease, so population count is low. In my opinion, this will eventually be the demise of grading companies.
@@vintagecollector5340 I totally agree, I only collect raw.
I'd say I'm more interested in action shots. Portrait shots remind me of a yearbook picture or a family photo. I'd rather see the athlete being an athlete.
#TheHobbyist
LOL. Yeah...at times they can look like a yearbook photo.
In general I mostly steer away from portraits, but there are certainly some that still look great (34 Goudey Gehrig for example). That said, and this might be unpopular but when it comes to T206 cards, I despise the portrait cards. I think the Cobb and Cy Young cards are beyond ugly. And the Cobb looks nothing like any likeness of Cobb I've seen. If I had never seen that card before and you showed it to me and asked me who it was, I would never guess it. Compare that to the bat off shoulder T206 Cobb which looks exactly like the image of the person I have in my head when I think of Ty Cobb. I'd take the action cards of Cobb, Young, Lajoie, Mathewson, Johnson, Tinker, Evers, Chance etc. over the portraits every single time.
Appreciate your super thorough explanation and preference. Makes a lot of sense.
I think your in that sweet spot outside rare and iconic more than you realize. You bought a Molly Miller card. You like Graig Nettles cards. That recent t206 HOFer. It happens to be rare, but is that why you bought it? I think it was at strongsvile that you bought a yankee captain card. It may be rare, but you just want yankee captains. If you ever buy that Ernie Banks card you want, that would be iconic.
Well said, for sure.
Rare doesnt always equal valuable. You have to have demand before anything else. The term "rare" is also often overused, so with that being said; most cards are not actually "rare" and were never truly intended to be.
I agree.
@@ACD1994 I personally think people get too caught up in PSA pop reports and mistake that as "rare".
@@vintagecollector5340 I don't even know how valid or accurate those pop reports are. Cards are cracked out of slabs often, for hopes of collectors, investors and flippers receiving a higher grade. A flawed system as subjective metrics tends to be...
@@ACD1994 Unless a card manufacturer has stated a limited production run, it's probably best to assume there are millions of each card printed. By simply looking at the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey, you'll see the PSA pop report being over 100,000 copies. Regardless of how many PSA 10s exist or how many were cracked and resubmitted, we can safely assume over a million in print. Theres over 30,000 in PSA 9, but how many of those could easily qualify as a PSA 10? I don't let PSA tell me how many cards exist, because I know that its simply artificial scarcity. They're simply selling a piece of plastic with a subjective numerical grade on it. Card manufacturers set the print run...not PSA. It's surprising to see so many people still ignorant to this fact. As I stated, most cards were not intended to be rare, and the 1989 UD Griffey is a prime example of that. However, I do like the Topps Tiffany and Star Company Griffey rookies, since those were known to be limited production. Those cards are the exception.
@@ACD1994 Here's how I see it: unless a card manufacturer has stated a limited print run, it's artificial scarcity. For example, Topps Tiffany and Star Company are all limited production sets. The rest of it doesn't matter to me, because it's all mass-produced cardboard. People don't seem to understand this. They continue to let PSA tell them what's rare. Once you get to the truly rare stuff, the grade starts to matter less and less.
It's better to collect Game Used cards or oncard autos... Those types of cards actually have history with the actual player... All the other types of cards are just cardboard made and printed by some random dude. 🤫
I compltely agree.
This started for kids now it's for people with money. Kinda sad
There's a fair amount of truth in that. I wouldn't say it "started for kids" when the first cards were inserted into packs of cigarettes. But, I get what you're saying and mostly agree.