This kind of shows how far this hobby has grown

Yikes, of only...

Ryan

I have might have more commons than Topps made total in any year 1950's

Using an online inflation calculator, the two series worth of 58 T cards (less than 200 total) would be equal to $47.32 in today money. That seems rather steep for a partial set of the newest issue cards to me. It's all in perspective. Would you pay almost $50 for about 1/3-1/2 of a 2016 Topps set?

mrmopar said:

Would you pay almost $50 for about 1/3-1/2 of a 2016 Topps set?

Click to expand...

things are quite different today - the print runs are probably larger and there are multiple brick-mortar, mail and online avenues to persue cards that gives lots of options and competition to try to hold prices on basic and other not as desirable cards.

I bet in the 1950's, you were lucky to find trading card ads in the newspaper or maybe a classified ad in a national sports magazine/newspaper. I doubt price guides and hobby-only mags choke full of buy/sell/trade ads existed back then. You were likely to find cards at the department store and then had limited avenues outside of friends at school on your neighborhood to try to flip or trade your unwanted cards.

bike spokes got the extra cards

Obviously there were people selling in the secondary market as we see here. It may not have been to the extent we see today but if you were not a kid who was lucky to spend his allowance for a few packs a week or month at most, you probably knew how to find and obtain full series of sets and could afford to do so. Still seems high for the times to me. I guess we'd need to see what other goods cost to really compare. What would that same $47.32 buy you then in groceries, gas, etc.

mrmopar said:

Obviously there were people selling in the secondary market as we see here. It may not have been to the extent we see today but if you were not a kid who was lucky to spend his allowance for a few packs a week or month at most, you probably knew how to find and obtain full series of sets and could afford to do so. Still seems high for the times to me. I guess we'd need to see what other goods cost to really compare. What would that same $47.32 buy you then in groceries, gas, etc.

Click to expand...

What needs to be considered also is not just looking at the inflation rate to see what the sale price is equivalent to, but the big thing is the inflation of the value of the cards. Yes, many factors play into this, but $5.60 of cards then are worth 100s/1000s++ now and $47 worth of 2016 Topps in 58 years is worth, well...

Ryan

In 1958, people in general were not investing in cards. I would bet the majority of the card buyers were still kids. The intent was to build a set for fun. Cards were originally the secondary reason to buying the gum. I don't know for sure as I was yet to be born, but by the 50s I believe cards were starting to stand on their own, but I bet some people were still buying the packs for the gum. Now, it is all about the cards and the gum died out years ago. The biggest reason older cards are worth so much today is because they were not regarded so highly as a future investment, not well maintained in good condition and not saved in general as they are today. If cards today were still treated like they were in 1958, then you could expect similar valuation in 50+ years, but that will never happen again. The percentage on non Near mint cards today is beyond tiny. Soft sleeves, top loaders, card boxes and the like ensure that cards will survive, unlike the past methods of rubber bands, shoeboxes, bike spokes and back pockets.

We see an ad like this and consider the possibility of "what if", but we are thinking with our 2016 minds about current value only, what these cards would be worth today. The person selling in these ads was not selling a collectible, he was selling a commodity. The biggest reason why this ad doesn't relate to 2016 is this: 3 cents per card! I assume 3 cents probably got you Mantle or Hoeft, but you were probably buying Mantle because you needed it to finish the set, not because it was a better player/card. Just as many people may have been wanting/needed Hoeft. I'm sure there were probably some people in 1958 that were cherry picking, but the percentages were likely much, much lower then.

There is a post right now over on Net54 that recounts Lionel Carter's experience on one day of the 1974 Convention. It is a fascinating read and I recommend you check it out. it gives you an idea of how the "hobby" was beginning to change into a business more and more and some people (Carter) didn't like the direction at all because he was truly in it for the love of collecting.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=217706

I find it interesting that the error cards in 1955 Bowman were being singled out as pricey variations that early. I would have assumed that sort of thing didn't start till the 70s.

Didn't see that part. Wonder if they were actual errors that are still recognized today or an uncorrected error. I guess I don't care enough to seek out the info though...

mrmopar said:

There is a post right now over on Net54 that recounts Lionel Carter's experience on one day of the 1974 Convention. It is a fascinating read and I recommend you check it out. it gives you an idea of how the "hobby" was beginning to change into a business more and more and some people (Carter) didn't like the direction at all because he was truly in it for the love of collecting.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=217706

Click to expand...

Nice read, thanks for sharing.

Interesting how his wife was humored by the kids who purchased his cards at a penny each and sold them two tables over for 2 cents each and yet he 'failed to see the humor in it'. Seems a lot like the mixed reactions people get on these boards when they mention getting great deals/taking advantage of others lack of knowledge.

Also, can't beat all you can eat KFC for $1.50!

AFAIK, there are seven known corrected variations/errors in the 1955 Bowman set. But that makes it even more interesting that even two years after release there were still some things to discover. Some are more rare than others, although I never really cared about them, but maybe I should.

I also like how they knew in March that the 1959 set would have seven series. Somehow I always thought they made it up as they went along, based on sales of the previous series, which sounds dopey now that I think about it.

Ah, the Pailca would be the only one I'd care about. Will have to see if I have both.