Fun card of the day - Printable Version

Fun card of the day - Printable Version

+- Beckett Message Boards (https://www.beckett.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Hobby Talk (https://www.beckett.com/forums/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Baseball (https://www.beckett.com/forums/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Fun card of the day (/thread-1578250.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/3 - nolan5000 - 11-05-2015

(11-04-2015, 09:52 PM)djohn Wrote: Not sure which Nolan you are referring to, as he is not in this set.

Sorry. I was confusing your post with Tanner's about the 1991 Topps backs being glow-in-the-dark. And that's the Nolan that I was referring to.

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/4 - djohn - 11-05-2015

As I said before, the subtle parallel versions of insert cards can make them tough to distinguish, especially if you don't know what to look for. Some of these parallels are inserted at astronomical odds. Today's example is the 1997 Fleer Goudey Foil card. This foil parallel is distinguishable by the use of gold foil on the players name and company logo on the front of the card, by contrast the regular version simply used black ink. What makes matters worse is that they were inserted 1 in 800 packs. It is a 15 card set, so the odds of pulling a specific player are 1 in 12,000 packs. By contrast the non-foil version of the set was inserted 1 in every 8 packs. So these foil versions were not easy pulls and if you only opened a few packs and happened to get one you might not have even noticed the foil, as it really didn't stand out that well. I was lucky enough to pull a Frank Thomas foil version back in 1997 and at the time the book value was around $100. I still have the card, though sadly it's value is much less now. I have actually seen these foil versions in commons bins, as the regular insert isn't that valuable and a lot of people simply didn't know about the foil version, or didn't notice the small amount of foil on the card to distinguish it. Here is the Chipper Jones version, which I think is a nice looking card and in the picture you can clearly see the gold foil.
[Image: s-l1600.jpg]

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/4 - DrMitchJ - 11-05-2015

(11-05-2015, 08:29 AM)djohn Wrote: Based on the responses from this last post I think I am going to focus on some more rare, lesser known 90s cards for the next few posts. There are a lot of parallels of inserts that a lot of people don't know about. I already have a few in mind.

Awesome! And thanks for posting that glowing photo. Very cool! And now I know where to look for the luminescent paint.

And that Chipper Goudey, never saw one before! Thanks again!

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/5 - djohn - 11-06-2015

I mentioned glowing cards 2 days ago, and it got a lot of responses, so today I am going to feature another one. In 1997 Fleer made an insert called Soaring Stars. The cards looked really cool with background stars that were done in refractor style. In fact, I found a really cool website that shows the refractor action using an animated GIF.
[Image: piazza-stars2.gif]

While these cards are really cool on their own, there is a much tougher version where the stars actually glow in the dark. The glowing version is much rarer too, as it's estimated to be 10-20% of the print run. Beckett has never done a good job with distinguishing how to tell them apart, so most of the glowing ones are mixed in with the regular versions. In fact, the current description in the Beckett database says, "The cards seem to 'shine' which is why they are considered glowing." This definition is not really accurate and can cause much confusion, since the regular version actually refracts light (which most people would consider to be shining). There are 2 ways to tell them apart. The first way is the light method, similar to the 1997 Score Franchise cards, where you hold the card up to a light for a few moments then take it to a dark spot to see if it glows. The second is more subtle as you have to carefully look at the stars on the card. On the regular version the outline of the stars is very clear, however on the glowing version the stars are much more difficult to make out. This method is easy if you have 2 cards to hold up next to each other, but can be difficult if you don't. Look carefully at the cards below, and you will notice the one on the bottom left looks slightly different and the stars don't really stand out. That is the glowing version, and gives you the best idea as to how it looks in hand.
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=128&d=1163087303]

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=128&d=1163087303]

Since COMC scans their cards it is even easier to distinguish the glowing from the regular cards. The top card is the regular version, and the bottom is the glowing version.
[Image: Juan-Gonzalez.jpg?id=8816275b-bf17-4e69-...e=original]

[Image: Juan-Gonzalez.jpg?id=8816275b-bf17-4e69-...e=original]

[Image: Juan-Gonzalez.jpg?id=1eda8d63-fad8-4d21-...e=original]

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/5 - nolan5000 - 11-06-2015

(11-06-2015, 10:51 AM)djohn Wrote: I mentioned glowing cards 2 days ago, and it got a lot of responses, so today I am going to feature another one. In 1997 Fleer made an insert called Soaring Stars. The cards looked really cool with background stars that were done in refractor style. In fact, I found a really cool website that shows the refractor action using an animated GIF.

While these cards are really cool on their own, there is a much tougher version where the stars actually glow in the dark. The glowing version is much rarer too, as it's estimated to be 10-20% of the print run. Beckett has never done a good job with distinguishing how to tell them apart, so most of the glowing ones are mixed in with the regular versions. In fact, the current description in the Beckett database says, "The cards seem to 'shine' which is why they are considered glowing." This definition is not really accurate and can cause much confusion, since the regular version actually refracts light (which most people would consider to be shining). There are 2 ways to tell them apart. The first way is the light method, similar to the 1997 Score Franchise cards, where you hold the card up to a light for a few moments then take it to a dark spot to see if it glows. The second is more subtle as you have to carefully look at the stars on the card. On the regular version the outline of the stars is very clear, however on the glowing version the stars are much more difficult to make out. This method is easy if you have 2 cards to hold up next to each other, but can be difficult if you don't. Look carefully at the cards below, and you will notice the one on the bottom left looks slightly different and the stars don't really stand out. That is the glowing version, and gives you the best idea as to how it looks in hand.

Since COMC scans their cards it is even easier to distinguish the glowing from the regular cards. The top card is the regular version, and the bottom is the glowing version.

That's really cool!!

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/6 - sonic311 - 11-06-2015

This thread gets better every day. Now I'll be in the hunt for these glowing cards.
Thanks djohn

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/6 - coimbre 21 - 11-06-2015

Great thread. I recently thinned out my HOF relic collection but couldn't part w this one of Goose Gossage in shorts in 1976, also w patch of regular mid 70s polyester home uniform pinstripe.

[Image: IMG_20151106_130522_zpsa2kivsi9.jpg]

One more . . . Diron Talbert was an original member of the Redskin Hogs and is in the UT Hall of Honor. His sister was my neighbor when I was a kid. She gave her other neighbor a football autographed by Diron and Billy Kilmer and I wasn't as lucky. I picked this auto up last year and the photo of Diron seems uninteresting . . .

[Image: IMG_20151106_132954_zpsmybmfqkk.jpg]

. . . until you see who's talking to him on the other side. Picture is a bit small but it's Richard Nixon.

[Image: Nixon%20Talbert_zpsbmt2mtpn.jpg]

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/6 - djohn - 11-07-2015

In 1995 Leaf Limited came out with a insert called Lumberjacks. These cards were really cool as the cards themselves were made of wood (maple wood to be exact). The cards were serial numbered to 5000, which for the mid-90s was definitely a limited print run. However Leaf took things a step further in 1996 by making the set again and this time also making a parallel of the cards with a black border. These parallels were numbered to 500, making them 10 times tougher to pull than the regular Lumberjack cards. Even though they are 10 times rarer, Beckett has only given them a 2.5x multiplier over the regular version. So they could be a relative bargain if you can find one for anywhere near book value, however they typically sell for well over book value when they do come up for sale. Here is the 1996 Leaf Limited Lumberjacks Black card of Alex Rodriguez.
[Image: s-l1600.jpg]

I just opened a Beckett from 2001 and found that the 1996 Lumberjack cards used to book for 2-3 times what they do now, and on top of that the Black versions used to have a 4x multiplier. This is an example of where Beckett messed up pricing by using multipliers and not adjusting them properly. Not sure when the base cards started dropping in price, but at some point the multipliers dropped as well, causing a significant loss in book value. The upside is that if you are trying to sell the card, you will get way over book value. The downside is that if you use book value for trades, you will definitely get well under market value for these cards.

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/7 - djohn - 11-08-2015

In 1991 Topps introduced Stadium Club with bold photography. Topps also introduced the Members Only club for Stadium Club, which allowed members to buy unique sets not available in stores. In 1997 Topps offered the Members Only club a set that was a complete of the base set and it included most of the insert sets, all with a special "Members Only" marking on them. One of my favorite inserts that year was Instavision, which featured holographic video technology to show a player in action. Since the Members Only cards were only available in set form and only to people in the Members Only club, it was definitely limited and rare. However what makes them tough to distinguish is that the front of the cards look identical, and you can only tell them apart by the back of the cards, which feature the words "Members Only" repeated across the entire back. Today's card is the 1997 Stadium Club Members Only Instavision card of Barry Larkin. It is important to note that Beckett doesn't distinguish the inserts from the rest of the Members Only set, aside from card number, so when looking them up you have to just look up Stadium Club Members Only and find the cards with the "I" prefix on the card number.
[Image: s-l1600.jpg]

RE: Fun card of the day - updated 11/8 - djohn - 11-09-2015

In the early 90s the collecting world started to go nuts for promo cards. As they were perceived to be more limited and rare than the rest of the cards available at the time. In 1990 Donruss issued promotional preview cards to delaers, in order to try and generate more sales. In 1991 Donruss took things a step further and included preview cards for their later year releases (Studio and Leaf) in the basic Donruss factory sets. When these sets arrived and the preview cards started to hit the secondary market their value shot up and the sets were quickly bought up and opened to get the preview cards out. What made it more fun was that each set only contained 4 of the preview cards, so you would have to open several sets to try and put together a set. This was a smart move on Donruss's part as they probably sold more factory sets that year than any other year. As the 90s promo card fad started to fade, so did the value for these preview cards. I chose the 1991 Leaf Preview card of Nolan Ryan because it has a great photo of him, and is a completely different photo than the one used in the 1991 Leaf set. Aside from the different photo, the card is easily identifiable by the "1991 Preview Card" printed across the back.
[Image: s-l1600.jpg]