Error Cards...Help or Hurt Vaule

[jdowg84]

Hey guys, I'm not an expert on card rarity by any means, so I figured I would post a general question just to get some of your thoughts on the subject.

Yesterday, Chris from the Hobby Box pulled a playbook auto #9/5.

A few months back, he pulled a 2007 Bowman's Best Auto of John Maine for me that had Josh Barfield's signature.

I am just curious if there are any general features that make mistake cards more valuable, such as player involved or type of mistake.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Therion]

Are you sure that "9" isn't an oddly shaped "4"? As a math teacher, I am constantly amazed how indistinguishable some people's 4 and 9 are.

 

[joeya2001]

Picture?

Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[jdowg84]

Nah, it is definitely a 9. I can't remember the player, but Chris did a close-up on the numbering.

 

[jdowg84]

looking for the video now

 

[jdowg84]

Look at 11:15.

2012 Playbook 10 Box Case GB 1 ONE - YouTube

 

[highphat]

I pulled this one in 2007...not sure if it's worth more to a Nick Swisher or a Matt Cain collector?

 

[MansGame]

I pulled this one in 2007...not sure if it's worth more to a Nick Swisher or a Matt Cain collector?

IMO neither.


---
Looking for Albert Belle cards! PM me!

 

[petMonster]

That's a tough question to answer because there are so many variables when it comes to errors. In the examples you mentioned, I would HAVE to have that jacked up #9/5 serial number (as long as I collect the player), just because I've never seen anything like that in my life. Because the card depicts the one player and has no ties to any other player (like wrong name or picture on it, or a wrong back or something), it feels like a rare, 1/1 variation to me. I know people argue about what makes a card a 1/1, but IMO, the #'d 9/5 is a 1/1 until I see another mis-numbered card just like it.

As for the Barfield/Maine card, or the Cain/Swisher card, I don't know that I would care to have it, regardless of which player I collect (the signer or the player pictured on the card). I might bid on it at a few dollars, but not much more because it feels like a distasteful screwup, NOT an unusual and rare print flaw that makes the other error kind of alluring. Someone else might disagree with me on that, but I've never liked those errors that basically confused players pictures or misprinted the wrong backs onto cards (or in this case, placed wrong auto). It would be like going to the ballpark and asking Adam Dunn to sign a Paul Konerko card or jersey...it's just confusing and weird.

 

[Waxov]

I pulled a 89 Griffey rookie with a green laser error on the center thats a small circle. 1 other random had it too... nobody was interested but I didnt ask too many.

 

[mjbuchanan80]

For the love of God, can we stop calling cards 1/1 that are not literally stamped 1/1?! Can we think of some other term? "Singularly unique" or something like that.

1/1 already has a meaning in the hobby - cards with an actual stamp 1/1. Lets not make it harder for new people getting in to collecting.



Sent from my LG-P999 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[kerryfan5]

I pulled this one in 2007...not sure if it's worth more to a Nick Swisher or a Matt Cain collector?

I like it.

 

[Waxov]

For the love of God, can we stop calling cards 1/1 that are not literally stamped 1/1?! Can we think of some other term? "Singularly unique" or something like that.





Sent from my LG-P999 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Exactly... false 1/1 bother me more and more.

What I see a lot of these days are ebay listings with cards that are /999 that say "psa 10 1/1" .. thats funny, how do you know that there will never be a pull from the other 998 that is a psa 10? This sales trick seems to happen often on specific modern sets that consistently produce 9.5+.

Also, the "first one made 1/1!!" or "last one made!!" stuff bugs me. I once saw a Jeter /3 plain grey jersey want extra for being "the first ever made 1/1" ... a while later someone pulled the 2/3 and hiked a price due to it being the players number.. . eventually 3/3 will get pulled and some idiot will want extra for it being "1/1 last one ever made dont miss it" ::facepalm::::facepalm::::facepalm::.

When you think about it, every 1988 Fleer under a microscope is probably unique. Plus, the worse the cut/surface damage, the more uniquely distinguishable it is from the rest of the grouping. Maybe I should just take a sht on a Ernier Riles card and then mix it with some medium-spicy taco bell sauce that was discontinued 9 years ago to ensure that mine is a "1/1" more than your 30 copies are.

 

[MansGame]

For the love of God, can we stop calling cards 1/1 that are not literally stamped 1/1?! Can we think of some other term? "Singularly unique" or something like that.

1/1 already has a meaning in the hobby - cards with an actual stamp 1/1. Lets not make it harder for new people getting in to collecting.



Sent from my LG-P999 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

+1


---
Looking for Albert Belle cards! PM me!

 

[WoundedDuck]

As a collector I like them. However, I'm not paying a premium. They're not 1/1s, but still sort of unique collectibles that ill pick up if the price is right. There is a market, but I wouldn't call it large.

 

[autocut]

That's a tough question to answer because there are so many variables when it comes to errors. In the examples you mentioned, I would HAVE to have that jacked up #9/5 serial number (as long as I collect the player), just because I've never seen anything like that in my life. Because the card depicts the one player and has no ties to any other player (like wrong name or picture on it, or a wrong back or something), it feels like a rare, 1/1 variation to me. I know people argue about what makes a card a 1/1, but IMO, the #'d 9/5 is a 1/1 until I see another mis-numbered card just like it.

As for the Barfield/Maine card, or the Cain/Swisher card, I don't know that I would care to have it, regardless of which player I collect (the signer or the player pictured on the card). I might bid on it at a few dollars, but not much more because it feels like a distasteful screwup, NOT an unusual and rare print flaw that makes the other error kind of alluring. Someone else might disagree with me on that, but I've never liked those errors that basically confused players pictures or misprinted the wrong backs onto cards (or in this case, placed wrong auto). It would be like going to the ballpark and asking Adam Dunn to sign a Paul Konerko card or jersey...it's just confusing and weird.

although rare, it happens. I have a grant hill basketball card #3388 of 2,995.

 

[petMonster]

For the love of God, can we stop calling cards 1/1 that are not literally stamped 1/1?! Can we think of some other term? "Singularly unique" or something like that.

1/1 already has a meaning in the hobby - cards with an actual stamp 1/1. Lets not make it harder for new people getting in to collecting.



Sent from my LG-P999 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

1/1 is a relative term and has two meanings. A serial #'d 1/1 is just that...it is stamped 1/1. Most people on eBay use 1/1 as a shorter way of saying one of a kind. It saves space in the auction title which comes in handy sometimes.

If you collect Frank Thomas and you SPECIFICALLY collect his cards that are serial numbered 35 (his jersey number), then it doesn't matter if the card is serial numbered to 1999...the one #'d 0035/1999 is the only one in existence that you care about. It's a 1 of a kind to that collector, or what I would abbreviate as 1/1. If you don't collect Frank Thomas, then it's just one of a couple thousand and you'd be insulted that someone else calls it a 1/1.

If it bugs you so much, might I suggest that you modify YOUR idea of a 1/1 by calling it something like "numbered 1/1"? Because that would certainly clear up any confusion throughout the hobby forever. Nobody would ever say that a rare or unusual card is a "numbered 1/1" unless it was truly numbered 1/1.

Bottom line...its not like 1/1 is causing chaos and turmoil within the hobby. Most of the time you can look at a scan of the card or read the seller's description and all will be cleared up. However, feel free to roll with "singularly unique" and see how that goes. If it catches on and everyone uses it, then I'll be happy to conform.

Sent from my cell phone, a device which will one day make the Matrix a reality.

 

[petMonster]

Exactly... false 1/1 bother me more and more.

What I see a lot of these days are ebay listings with cards that are /999 that say "psa 10 1/1" .. thats funny, how do you know that there will never be a pull from the other 998 that is a psa 10? This sales trick seems to happen often on specific modern sets that consistently produce 9.5+.

Also, the "first one made 1/1!!" or "last one made!!" stuff bugs me. I once saw a Jeter /3 plain grey jersey want extra for being "the first ever made 1/1" ... a while later someone pulled the 2/3 and hiked a price due to it being the players number.. . eventually 3/3 will get pulled and some idiot will want extra for it being "1/1 last one ever made dont miss it" ::facepalm::::facepalm::::facepalm::.

When you think about it, every 1988 Fleer under a microscope is probably unique. Plus, the worse the cut/surface damage, the more uniquely distinguishable it is from the rest of the grouping. Maybe I should just take a sht on a Ernier Riles card and then mix it with some medium-spicy taco bell sauce that was discontinued 9 years ago to ensure that mine is a "1/1" more than your 30 copies are.

I should have quoted you in my last comment, as well.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Sports Cards by Freedom Card Board.com

 

[joey12508]

i bought this cuz i thought it was cool. not sure if theres any added value to it.