Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

[Featured Thread] Why is there a price disparity for vintage cards that are first/last in sets?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

mchenrycards

Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
While watching a case breaker on YouTube recently I noticed that pack opening has changed quite drastically from when I was younger. While I am not old enough to be the old man who yells at kids to stay off of my lawn, I do remember the days when card packs were actually made with wax and the only grading I cared about what was my teacher was going to give me on my report card. While watching this breaker the first thing I noticed was that he had latex gloves on. Now I fully understand the need for these gloves, especially when dealing with chrome-like cards but I found myself shaking my head with a mocking smile on my face as I watched the guy take great care not to ruin the cards he was cracking in hopes of providing his customers with a nice return on their investment. The next thing I noticed was that the breaker had a stack of semi-rigid holders by his side and would slide these cards into the holders to once again, avoid damage and hurting the customer’s ROI. As I watched this “event” I thought back to the days when my friends and I opened packs outside the local drug store and wondered how our cards ever survived.

As kids, we never had semi-rigid holders and plastic sheets to hold our cardboard treasures. A return on investment was never something we considered as we wrapped our cardboard with rubber bands and tossed them in a Velveeta cheese box, sorted in numerical order. While many kids collected their favorite teams or player, there were those die hard collectors like me who attempted to assemble complete sets each year and keeping them in order was high priority. Without knowing it, these die hard set collectors created a modern day scarcity for us vintage collectors many years later.

We have all probably heard of the infamous 1952 Topps Andy Pafko card that is card number one in the wildly popular baseball card set. This card, for many years, set records for prices in high grades and was at the top of wish lists for those collectors who were assembling a high grade PSA registry set. One has to ask themselves why this Pafko card has generated so much interest because Pafko, while a decent player and all star, was never one that anyone would blow a large amount of money on to own his card. There seemed to be no other reason for the high value on his cards except that he had the good fortune to be chosen as the first player in the set with his cardboard being numbered as number one.

In vintage cards, it is generally accepted that the first and last card of the set will hold a much higher value if the card is in better condition because many of them were destroyed with rubber bands. Being at the very front and the very back of the set, these cards undoubtedly bore the brunt of the rubber band damage from collectors back in the day causing a shortage in high quality examples today. Cards like the Pafko, when found without this type of damage will always command a much higher premium over their lesser condition counterparts. For example, a number of Excellent-Mint condition copies in a PSA 6 holder have recently sold on Ebay for upwards of $1700 with a gem mint copy being sold for $85,000 a number of years ago. In comparison, lesser grade Pafko’s graded by PSA will either fail to be sold on Ebay or be sold for around $250 for a PSA 3 or $425 for a PSA 4. There is quite a contrast in pricing for lower grade Pafko cards when compared to higher graded examples.

I was curious as to how the prices of the Pafko card compare with other “commons” in this landmark set so I looked up pricing for card number 46, Gordon Goldsberry. In the interest of full disclosure, I looked up Mr. Goldsberry because I used to work with him and he was the first player that came to mind. In comparing sales against the Pafko card in a PSA 6 card, recent sales on Ebay show the Goldsberry card, in the same grade as the Pafko sold for between $45 and $65. In looking for sales on a PSA 8 Goldsberry, a recent Goodwin auction shows that a Goldsberry failed to sell with a PSA 7 being sold in a Mile High auction a few short years ago for around $250. Sales for a common card in the 1952 Topps set, when compared to the Pafko card #1, fails to measure up and shows just how important a high grade card number one card is for vintage collectors. Comparisons such as these can be made for most vintage sets that lead up to the modern era of card collecting. We see the importance of high grade first and last cards start to taper off in the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s when card collecting, and card protection became an important part of the hobby.

The hobby has seen a modern card number one that has caused a stir in the Upper Deck Griffey rookie but that has less to do with the condition and more to do with the the first rookie card of a future Hall of Famer in a modern landmark, premium quality set. While card prices no longer support the card number one theory for this Griffey rookie, there was a time when the card was thought to be much more scarce in higher grades. Since Upper Deck issued many of these cards as a complete set, the Griffey card was of course the first one packed into the box causing it to be less protected from shipping wear and corner dings and more susceptible to production damage. If Upper Deck’s management team had not let the presses run on the Griffey rookie and printed thousands upon thousands more of these rookie cards in a later printing, we might still see the card number one effect on his cards. But since they flooded the market with high quality cards that were not packed out or placed into sets but delivered in stacks to their hobby friends, they removed the card number one quality factor as there were so many high quality cards that came to the hobby, making those that were actually packed out left for the lower grade PSA plastic tombs.

While the first and last card phenomenon is lost on most modern collectors, most vintage collectors are well aware of the importance of a high quality example of these cards. Modern collectors who are opening their packs with latex gloves and who quickly entomb their treasures in semi-rigids will want to remember that the better investment may be in purchasing higher grade vintage cards that are numbered either the first or last card in these older sets. These cards, while maybe not Hall of Famers, can potentially serve you a higher return on your investment than many of the modern rookies you are chasing. Unlike the shiney new rookie cards, these vintage treasures all have a proven track record and will continue to spark collector interest and draw their dollars for higher grade examples as more collectors with disposable income discover their love for vintage collecting.

Pafko 10.jpg
PSA 10 $85,000

pafko psa 6.jpg
PSA 6 $1700

pafko 3.jpg
PSA 3 $220
 

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
I've always thought the premium given to first and last cards is much too high, mostly based on myth.

The general reasoning goes that most kids put their cards in alphabetical order.
Why do collectors assume that? My dad, his friends and most older people I've spoken to say they put their cards in order of teams, or they put their favorite players on top.

And those who were building sets did not always keep the cards in rubber bands as the set was obviously too large for a rubber band, so they kept the set in a shoebox or other box.

Kids kept cards in rubber bands mostly to carry around in a small stack, to bring to school or take to the park or a friends house to trade or play flipping, tossing or other games.

And the artificial value of first and last cards also assumes that most kids (those who did keep them in alphabetical order in rubber bands) actually pulled the first and last cards from packs. Unless a boy had nearly the complete set, it's just as likely that a kid has the second or third card at the top of his rubber band stack. So why is the second card in a set not given a premium value, compared to say the tenth card (assuming they're commons).

Sorry for the rant. The extreme values placed on first and last cards if they're in great condition has just always seemed out of whack. Even in the '80s, Beckett Magazine placed a premium on the first and last cards, which predated graded cards. I just think a lot of the reasoning came from urban legends or hucksters like Al Rosen trying to generate hype in the early '80s.
 
Last edited:

mchenrycards

Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
I've always thought the premium given to first and last cards is much too high, mostly based on myth.

The general reasoning goes that most kids put their cards in alphabetical order.
Why do collectors assume that? My dad, his friends and most older people I've spoken to say they put their cards in order of teams, or they put their favorite players on top.

And those who were building sets did not keep the cards in rubber bands as the set was obviously too large for a rubber band, so they kept the set in a shoebox or other box.

Kids kept cards in rubber bands mostly to carry around in a small stack, to bring to school or take to the park or a friends house to trade or play flipping, tossing or other games.

And the artificial value of first and last cards also assumes that most kids (those who did keep them in alphabetical order in rubber bands) actually pulled the first and last cards from packs. Unless a boy had nearly the complete set, it's just as likely that a kid has the second or third card at the top of his rubber band stack. So why is the second card in a set not given a premium value, compared to say the tenth set (assuming they're commons).

Sorry for the rant. The extreme values placed on first and last cards if they're in great condition has just always seemed out of whack. Even in the '80s, Beckett Magazine placed a premium on the first and last cards, which predated graded cards. I just think a lot of the reasoning came from urban legends or hucksters like Al Rosen trying to generate hype in the early '80s.

The first and last card phenomenon predates Al Rosen and even Beckett price guides by many years because I remember paying a premium for card #1 in my 1970 Topps set in the mid '70's at a Chicagoland Collectors convention. I was at this convention that I first learned of the first and last card issue with vintage sets. Now granted, back then we are not talking about a lot of money but these first and last cards would cost you double what a normal common would unless of course that card was of a star player.

Yes, many kids kept their cards banded by team but a good many were set completist. How do I know this? All one has to do is look back at Baseball Digest magazines and other of these type of magazines of the day and see there were many ads to sell those cards one was missing from your set so there had to be enough of a market to make it worth the advertisers time. I can tell you all of the kids I collected with were building sets and would have loved to finish them off each year by buying packs.

I can also tell you that although I kept my cards in numerical order in a cheese box, I grouped the cards in 100's which made it easier to put away the cards I just acquired. So not only did I ruin the fist and last card of the set but the first and last card of each bunch of hundreds as well.
 

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
I grouped the cards in 100's which made it easier to put away the cards I just acquired. So not only did I ruin the fist and last card of the set but the first and last card of each bunch of hundreds as well.
Yeah, that's what I was wondering about when young set collectors kept their cards in rubber bands back then.

Only a hundred or so cards can fit in a rubber band. Which means, like how you did it, seveeral cards in the set were damaged by rubber bands, since you had several stacks of cards banded. It wasn't just the first and last card in the set, so why the crazy values?

And you didn't necessarily have the first card until a long time later after you had bought dozens of packs, so the number two or three card might have more damage than the number one card since you had them longer at the top of the stack.

There are just too many reasons not to justify the extreme price increase of the first and last cards in great condition. I guess it was just given a premium in the '70s like you wrote and it became a so-called rule, despite flawed reasoning.
 

smapdi

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
4,397
221
By the time I was 8 or 9, in 1978 or 1979, I was definitely on the "complete set" page. Except maybe when I was very young, I never rubber-banded my cards, and I always kept them in set-numerical order. No teams, no alphabetical breakdown, just strict set order. I had a couple collecting friends back then, but I can't recall how they organized things, if that was anything we ever talked about. I did keep a Phillies box, where I'd put all my Phillies doubles, but all other dupes were also sorted numerically in their own box.

Another factor, likely a small one, is the type collector who just tries to get the #1 card from every set. Also, Pakfo was a Brooklyn Dodger, so that earns a premium, supposedly.
 

mchenrycards

Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
By the time I was 8 or 9, in 1978 or 1979, I was definitely on the "complete set" page. Except maybe when I was very young, I never rubber-banded my cards, and I always kept them in set-numerical order. No teams, no alphabetical breakdown, just strict set order. I had a couple collecting friends back then, but I can't recall how they organized things, if that was anything we ever talked about. I did keep a Phillies box, where I'd put all my Phillies doubles, but all other dupes were also sorted numerically in their own box.

Another factor, likely a small one, is the type collector who just tries to get the #1 card from every set. Also, Pakfo was a Brooklyn Dodger, so that earns a premium, supposedly.

The New York factor is a discussion for a different day! LOL

There is no doubt that Brooklyn Dodger collectors as well as those who collect Yankees will see a premium for their vintage cardboard that depicts these two teams. It is odd that we do not see it as much with the New York Giants but that could be because they were not perennial winners like the Yankees or loveable losers like the Dodgers. I do remember that when buying Dodger or Yankee vintage, many times you would see a price for commons that is 1.5 to 2 times the value of the normal common card.
 

mrmopar

Member
Jan 19, 2010
6,223
4,180
33 Goudey is another that tends to run much higher than you'd expect to see.

I always wanted the Pafko, but really only because I collect Dodgers and want ALL Dodgers. However it always pissed me off that everyone wanted so much for them, even in lesser conditions. One side effect of this is that people think their beater Pafko cards should be worth big money, when in fact one of the only reasons for the huge price is the higher condition examples. My then is it so hard to find a decent Pafko in collectible condition? Because everyone thinks they have a gold mine in their off grade copies.

I eventually landed a couple decent copies, but both were somewhere between $50-100. Much more than any other common Dodger in the set!
 

mchenrycards

Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
33 Goudey is another that tends to run much higher than you'd expect to see.

I always wanted the Pafko, but really only because I collect Dodgers and want ALL Dodgers. However it always pissed me off that everyone wanted so much for them, even in lesser conditions. One side effect of this is that people think their beater Pafko cards should be worth big money, when in fact one of the only reasons for the huge price is the higher condition examples. My then is it so hard to find a decent Pafko in collectible condition? Because everyone thinks they have a gold mine in their off grade copies.

I eventually landed a couple decent copies, but both were somewhere between $50-100. Much more than any other common Dodger in the set!

This has always been the downside to the first and last card issue in that people who have their off condition cards ask a mint for them. What they fail to realize the premium is for a better condition example and a beat up card #1 or last card rarely should draw any premium price. The Pafko and the Benny Bengough from the 1933 Goudey set that you mentioned may be the exception to the rule as they are legendary first cards but rarely should any others draw a premium.

True story about the 1952 Topps Pafko card. I was fortunate to know Andy a little bit and I hired him to sign autographs for free at a show I promoted nearly 20 years ago. We had a twenty-something walk through the door with a fairly nice raw example of the card and he wanted it signed. There were about fifty people in line when he stepped in front of Andy and many of us tried to talk him out of signing the card because we all knew the value would plummet the moment pen was put to it. Mr. Pafko himself was unsure if he should sign it but after the collector insisted he was sure he wanted his card inked, Andy quickly set about adding his autograph on the front in blue Sharpie. As soon as that pen hit the card you could literally hear a gasp from the crowd who could not believe this guy would just destroy his card like he did. I will say the card looked great signed but the jury is out on the amount of value that card lost that spring afternoon.
 

mchenrycards

Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
^^^ Or you could look at it added A TON of value to someone...


Ryan

no doubt....the collector was incredibly happy when he walked away from the table but everyone else was left shaking their heads. But then again This was back before getting autographs on significant cards like rookie cards etc was accepted as a good thing.
 

mrmopar

Member
Jan 19, 2010
6,223
4,180
I would never hesitate to get a high dollar card signed if I had a chance. I regret never trying to send my Snider RC to him TTM, but I was scared it might be lost on unreturned and it wasnt worth the risk. Had I had the chance in person, HELL YEAH! In the end, they are just cards, but those that are signed will always be MUCH harder to find later down the road.

I have a 52 T Pafko that is signed myself, but this one truly may be considered as losing value, as someone erased the facsimile autograph and Pafko signed in that spot. It looks good though.





I have
This has always been the downside to the first and last card issue in that people who have their off condition cards ask a mint for them. What they fail to realize the premium is for a better condition example and a beat up card #1 or last card rarely should draw any premium price. The Pafko and the Benny Bengough from the 1933 Goudey set that you mentioned may be the exception to the rule as they are legendary first cards but rarely should any others draw a premium.

True story about the 1952 Topps Pafko card. I was fortunate to know Andy a little bit and I hired him to sign autographs for free at a show I promoted nearly 20 years ago. We had a twenty-something walk through the door with a fairly nice raw example of the card and he wanted it signed. There were about fifty people in line when he stepped in front of Andy and many of us tried to talk him out of signing the card because we all knew the value would plummet the moment pen was put to it. Mr. Pafko himself was unsure if he should sign it but after the collector insisted he was sure he wanted his card inked, Andy quickly set about adding his autograph on the front in blue Sharpie. As soon as that pen hit the card you could literally hear a gasp from the crowd who could not believe this guy would just destroy his card like he did. I will say the card looked great signed but the jury is out on the amount of value that card lost that spring afternoon.
 

mchenrycards

Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
You will find a good deal of 1952 Topps cards that have had the printed name removed and replaced with an authentic players signature. While the loss of the printed name certainly hurts the value of the card, it really does not hurt it much when compared to the addition of the signature. I think the autographs look great this way and would actually be preferred over just normally signed cards!
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top