Bowman Chrome non-auto or Contenders auto?

[MallCopKJ]

Im considering collecting another player and am trying to figure out what I want to buy up. The player has a non auto Bowman Chrome but also has an auto in Contenders. Would you rather buy the non auto Chromes or the Contenders.I like the Contenders but I know that even though it isnt autod Chrome is king.

Is there always the chance anyone with a base Chrome could end up with a Chrome auto? It wouldnt be the First Year either way so I probably wouldnt want it.

 

[Jays_Cards]

Not only is chrome king, but in my completely honest opinion, Contenders are the absolute ugliest cards I have ever seen. I would rather have Just Minors or Tristar if I was collecting than Contenders..

 

[All The Hype]

Not only is chrome king, but in my completely honest opinion, Contenders are the absolute ugliest cards I have ever seen. I would rather have Just Minors or Tristar if I was collecting than Contenders..

I think Contenders aren't the absolute ugliest cards, but they're definitely not my favorite...chrome definitely gets my vote too.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

The whole "one and done" record for Contenders probably won't help Contenders in the long run. Sure, short-printed autographs are nice, but not a lot of people are clamoring for Leaf Limited autographed rookies like they are of other brands.

 

[The_ReverendAct2]

Not only is chrome king, but in my completely honest opinion, Contenders are the absolute ugliest cards I have ever seen. I would rather have Just Minors or Tristar if I was collecting than Contenders..

there is no way a base chrome card will be more valuable then a auto from the same year. I know that chrome might be king, but I have a guy who has a base non-auto chrome and they sell for 3 buck while his auto regularly sell for 15-20. No contest. Chrome base card are not that sexy. it is only when you get into the parallels that the difference narrows.

 

[mredsox89]

[quote="Jays_Cards":22dpv9ae]Not only is chrome king, but in my completely honest opinion, Contenders are the absolute ugliest cards I have ever seen. I would rather have Just Minors or Tristar if I was collecting than Contenders..

there is no way a base chrome card will be more valuable then a auto from the same year. I know that chrome might be king, but I have a guy who has a base non-auto chrome and they sell for 3 buck while his auto regularly sell for 15-20. No contest. Chrome base card are not that sexy. it is only when you get into the parallels that the difference narrows.[/quote:22dpv9ae]

But will ROI be greater, that is what really matters.

 

[Jays_Cards]

[quote="Jays_Cards":30uquitp]Not only is chrome king, but in my completely honest opinion, Contenders are the absolute ugliest cards I have ever seen. I would rather have Just Minors or Tristar if I was collecting than Contenders..

there is no way a base chrome card will be more valuable then a auto from the same year. I know that chrome might be king, but I have a guy who has a base non-auto chrome and they sell for 3 buck while his auto regularly sell for 15-20. No contest. Chrome base card are not that sexy. it is only when you get into the parallels that the difference narrows.[/quote:30uquitp]

I didnt see base chrome stated anywhere in the thread before your post....I would assume he was talking about spending similar $$$ just trying to decide between Chrome or Contenders..

 

[The_ReverendAct2]

[quote="Jays_Cards":1z5jty37]Not only is chrome king, but in my completely honest opinion, Contenders are the absolute ugliest cards I have ever seen. I would rather have Just Minors or Tristar if I was collecting than Contenders..

there is no way a base chrome card will be more valuable then a auto from the same year. I know that chrome might be king, but I have a guy who has a base non-auto chrome and they sell for 3 buck while his auto regularly sell for 15-20. No contest. Chrome base card are not that sexy. it is only when you get into the parallels that the difference narrows.

But will ROI be greater, that is what really matters.[/quote:1z5jty37]

good point. I have bought in on my guy @ avg of $7. @ $20 that almost triple or $13 profit. Unless you buy in @ $1 and sell for $5 then it will require lots to equal the dollar amount. Some prospect ROI and some bigger profits. I just don't have the space to have multiple 10 chrome lots of multiple players to turn a profit.

 

[The_ReverendAct2]

[quote="Blue Hodges Reverend":3ufzt39p][quote="Jays_Cards":3ufzt39p]Not only is chrome king, but in my completely honest opinion, Contenders are the absolute ugliest cards I have ever seen. I would rather have Just Minors or Tristar if I was collecting than Contenders..

there is no way a base chrome card will be more valuable then a auto from the same year. I know that chrome might be king, but I have a guy who has a base non-auto chrome and they sell for 3 buck while his auto regularly sell for 15-20. No contest. Chrome base card are not that sexy. it is only when you get into the parallels that the difference narrows.[/quote:3ufzt39p]

I didnt see base chrome stated anywhere in the thread before your post....I would assume he was talking about spending similar $$$ just trying to decide between Chrome or Contenders..[/quote:3ufzt39p]

non-auto chrome was the poll title so that was my assumption. $100 in bowman chrome vs $100 of Contenders. Let's say you buy in @ $1 per chrome and buy in @ the $5 level for Contenders. If the Chrome triple $3 equal $300 that's a $200 profit. If the Contenders triple $15 equal $300 that's $200 profit. More cards with Chrome, but same profit and most people will be looking for the autograph of the person vs. base card.

 

[MallCopKJ]

a quick bump for anyone else who wants to voice their opinion.

 

[darocker80]

Not only is chrome king, but in my completely honest opinion, Contenders are the absolute ugliest cards I have ever seen. I would rather have Just Minors or Tristar if I was collecting than Contenders..

Yay not your last post?

And I def. agree.