Hobby Price Guides - Historic Overview

Pro Set marketing to the non traditional hockey card markets was an innovative move made somewhat out of necessity since the serious card market moved away from their product after the debacle of 1990-91.
Pro Set kicked it all off in 1990-91 with the POM cards, first of which was issued in December (Nov POM was Pete Peters). Prior to that, the first cross into the non-traditional market was done by Parkhurst in the mid-50s when they teamed with Quaker Oats.
It should also be noted that UD began their arena and other sheets in 1990-91. Score, for their part, tried a unique marketing approach to kids, with their 100 Superstars set, which was included with a book paralleling the same players. I believe the book was made available through Scholastic and other streams, as had their baseball cards previously. Topps/OPC once again missed the boat.

91-92 saw a further explosion of this. Aside from the aforementioned Pro Set cards, Score did a set with Kellogg's and had cards produced with Eric Lindros's book and UD ushered in perhaps the most anticipated set year-in and year-out - McDonald's. Topps and OPC again did nothing, save for the multi-sport Charter Member and Members Only sets.

Starting in 1984 Topps produced a Tiffany or Glossy version of their regular BB set. Granted it was a limited boxed set but it was effectively a parallel. The method of delivery to the end user was different.Boxed set as opposed to pack inserts that had to be collected. Selling for app. eight times the regular issue but produced on white cardboard with a glossy finish.
Parkhurst was emerald stamped on the same type of cardboard which reduces expenses.

I wouldn't call it a parallel, the same way I wouldn't call Pinnacle Premium Stock a parallel set, nor would I call the UD Gold Reserve product a parallel. While a parallel follows the same numbering schemata of a base or shell set, it is inserted in packs, giving collectors the opportunity to get both the standard and special card at the same time (ie has parallel distribution). I'd look at that set and others as premium sets.

My company recognized the history of hockey with three issues of the Hockey Hall of Fame Collection during the eighties AND we actual did all the members at the given time as opposed to a hand full like Pro Set did. Prior to the Cartophilium issues the 1960-61 Topps and 1955-56 Parkhurst recognized hockey history to a greater extent.

It's worth noting that there were several other sets that recognized hockey's history, including 90-91 Score and the fully reprinted C55 set.
 
Quaker Oats

Quaker Oats had a NHL tradion dating back to 1938 - 39 with a 30 photo redemption, printed on cardboard, featuring the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs, They also did redemption photos and mini buttons from 1945 - 1954. The 1955-56 effort with Parkhurst was their first standard card issue.

The 1951-52 Laval Dairy QSHL, Lac St. Jean, sets preceeded them on a regional level in Quebec, as did the 1952-53 St. Lauwrence set and the 1952-53 Junior Blue Tints.
 
Parallels

I wouldn't call it a parallel, the same way I wouldn't call Pinnacle Premium Stock a parallel set, nor would I call the UD Gold Reserve product a parallel. While a parallel follows the same numbering schemata of a base or shell set, it is inserted in packs, giving collectors the opportunity to get both the standard and special card at the same time (ie has parallel distribution). I'd look at that set and others as premium sets.

Card collecting has a unique definition of parallel. Basically in Euclidian geometry parallel lines never meet(intersect). The mathematicians in the hobby (Hi Jim Beckett if you are reading this) always had a chuckle at this since the card collecting view seemed to have the regular issue and the special card parallel issue meeting in one pack.

Just another reason why we all have fun with this hobby.
 
Card collecting has a unique definition of parallel. Basically in Euclidian geometry parallel lines never meet(intersect). The mathematicians in the hobby (Hi Jim Beckett if you are reading this) always had a chuckle at this since the card collecting view seemed to have the regular issue and the special card parallel issue meeting in one pack.

Just another reason why we all have fun with this hobby.

I'll wait until you start talking about Rookie Cards to really let loose. There are some definite oddball theories there (read: Barilko, Bill)
 
Sprague, Al's no worse than others in this hobby. Look through the Charlton to see some odd labels, you'll get a good laugh.

I will say this about Al, his proclimation that the Sidney Crosby McD's card is an RC is laughable and goes against everything that the hobby dictated for years.
 
Rookie Cards

I'll wait until you start talking about Rookie Cards to really let loose. There are some definite oddball theories there (read: Barilko, Bill)

Jetsman and sprague 11,

To be fair any hobby that recognizes both the 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle cards as "Rookie Cards" is going to have problems getting beyond a very shaky start to the "Rookie Card" definition. Throw in the 1951-52 Parkhurst where you have players who were in the league for at least 5-8 seasons considered as Rookie Cards in the same light as Bernie Geoffrion and you are not going forward with the definition.
 
Last edited:
Card Issue Maturity

This is a facet of price guides that is very often overlooked and more often than not very misunderstood.

Earlier today I started a thread about the 1964-65 Topps NHL set and what it was selling for in 1965:

http://www.hobbyinsider.net/forum/showthread.php?t=158238

I have similar data for all the other sport sets that Wholesale Cards was offering dating back to 1948 and a fair number of the non-sport issues as well. I will post this data in the appropriate forums on this board as time permits and as points progress.

The most interesting point about looking at the prices from 1965 is the realization that what today is viewed as vintage in 1965 ranged from infancy to late teens in terms of a collecting market life.

This brings us to the key question. When does a card issue reach maturity?

No hard and fast answer exists BUT I would venture the humble opinion that a card issue reaches maturity roughly 25 - 30 years after its release. In some cases it may be a little earlier, in others it may be a little later but a number of important factors converge at the 25 - 30 year time frame.

As posted previously "Rookie Cards" are a phenomena that started in the early 1980's. If I was so inclined I could write a thesis about this specific topic but I am not so I will just position the "Rookie Card" phenomena in a chronological context.

The following factors converge in the window that is 25 - 30 years after the release date range. If we are talking about a pro sports issue then it is a very safe assumption that the players portrayed have retired and that their careers are clearly defined. We know which rookies fizzled and which ones surprised, which players are had HOF quality careers and various levels below. We know who set or broke important records, which teams were the great teams,etc. More important we have a historic context for everything.

The same is true for non-sport sets. we know which topics were a fad and which lasted. Which performers fizzled and which ones withstood the test of time.

Another key factor that is often misunderstood is the first set factor and beyond. People remember the first set that they collected. This point was raised about Pro Set. They remember which cards were beyond their financial capabilities. 25 - 30 years later they still have the memories BUT most important of all they have the financial ability to indulge these memories. Even if their youthful collections were disposed off they now have the financial ability to get them back. Again look at the comments about Pro Set and the nostalgic posts about the Patrick Roy autograph and the desire to own one.

The final key factor is the parent / child relationship. 25 - 30 years down the road the pre teen who collected cards may have started a family. They remember the fun they had as a youngster collecting cards perhaps they still collect so they introduce their children to the hobby - not only the new cards but the old cards as well. Conversely many parent have stored their childhood memories. One day the six year old brings home their first pack of cards and the memories are re-kindled. Slowly they drift back to collecting the cards from their childhood.

These three factors inevitably impact pricing in the long term. Some of you may have heard how Topps overproduced the 1952 Topps BB hi numbers #311-407 and wound up destroying the overstock years later. Today the same cards are amongst the most sought after issues. Granted the destruction may have driven prices upwards in the same fashion that throwing out childhood collections did. Regardless of periphial factors the fact remains that the 1952 Topps Hi Numbers started to skyrocket in the mid/late 1970's.

Disclaimer. This is not a prediction about what will happen with some of the issues from various sports in the late 1980's / early 1990's where no one turned off the printing presses. It will be interesting to see the how the collecting market views these issues when they reach the 25-30 year window.
 
Last edited:
I think it's safe to say that maturity for today's cards will not be the same for older cards. By your theory, the 1970s cards, those including the RCs of Ken Dryden, Guy LaFleur, Denis Potvin, Mike Bossy et.al would be at their highest point. None of those four players could be denied to be in the top 100, if not top 50 of all time, even in the context of players today who are passing their production numbers (though not Cups etc.)

None of those players have seen marked increases in collectability, perhaps save for the Liberal political nut who now loves Kenny D. Even their returned presence in the hobby through jerseys and autographs, again save for Dryden, have led to more collectors demanding the older product, and most of their current stuff can be had fairly resonably.

Why is this? Simple - collectors today are all about the "now" factor vs. the investment. eBay culture has led to a card's maturity, save for a precious few uberstars like Crosby and the occasional hidden gem like Martin St. Louis, coming in the period of a single year, and often one RC decreases in demand when another product hits store shelves.

There are a scant few sets that retain their value or show an increase by year's end - Upper Deck's Young Guns, SP Authentic's Auto'd RCs and The Cup RCs are virtually the only ones that maintain standing in the hobby. A Black Diamond RC at season's end is not nearly as in-demand as it is at All-Star break.

The other factor is this - everyone who collected in the late 80s and early 90s likely still has their cards; perhaps it's in a shoebox in the attic or tucked away somewhere, but the vast majority of us still have them. This was evident in two recent card rises - the 91-92 Barilko Pro Set and the 94-95 Pinnacle Sylvain Turgeon.

In both cases, there was a spike in interest when buzz was created (in the Turgeon case, it was the affirmation that one Patrick Kane was on the card). However, collectors soon dug through those long archived cards and said, "hey, I have this; cool!" Those purchased and sent value and interest skyrocketing were by the non-collecting community who wanted something unique.

For cards like the Roy auto and others, the key is not age - it's rarity. It's safe to say that there were in excess of 2,000,000 packs of Pro Set produced that year. with a run of 1,000 copies of the auto, or 1:2000. Getting the card when we were kids was an impossible dream. Now, though, that we have some money under our belt, as you say, we can now afford it and can pursue it. Thus the interest, and sales value increases.

You won't, though, see that value increase for Roy's RC, because by the mid 80s, the book value factor had been well established, and even if a kid liked a card the same way they did a Star Wars figure, they were never, ever going to part with it. They may play with it, put it in their bike spokes or shoot tennis balls against it (as I did with my cards), but they kept them nonetheless.

For these reasons, cards from the 70s, 80s and 90s will never reach the maturity levels or percentages that those of the 50s and 60s did. Whether Gretzky's records are broken or not, his cards will remain intact at their current $1,000-odd level for years to come. Whether Martin Brodeur breaks Roy's and Sawchuk's records or not, his RC will never sail higher than $25.
 
My Comments

I think it's safe to say that maturity for today's cards will not be the same for older cards. By your theory, the 1970s cards, those including the RCs of Ken Dryden, Guy LaFleur, Denis Potvin, Mike Bossy et.al would be at their highest point. None of those four players could be denied to be in the top 100, if not top 50 of all time, even in the context of players today who are passing their production numbers (though not Cups etc.)

None of those players have seen marked increases in collectability, perhaps save for the Liberal political nut who now loves Kenny D. Even their returned presence in the hobby through jerseys and autographs, again save for Dryden, have led to more collectors demanding the older product, and most of their current stuff can be had fairly resonably.

Why is this? Simple - collectors today are all about the "now" factor vs. the investment. eBay culture has led to a card's maturity, save for a precious few uberstars like Crosby and the occasional hidden gem like Martin St. Louis, coming in the period of a single year, and often one RC decreases in demand when another product hits store shelves.

There are a scant few sets that retain their value or show an increase by year's end - Upper Deck's Young Guns, SP Authentic's Auto'd RCs and The Cup RCs are virtually the only ones that maintain standing in the hobby. A Black Diamond RC at season's end is not nearly as in-demand as it is at All-Star break.

The other factor is this - everyone who collected in the late 80s and early 90s likely still has their cards; perhaps it's in a shoebox in the attic or tucked away somewhere, but the vast majority of us still have them. This was evident in two recent card rises - the 91-92 Barilko Pro Set and the 94-95 Pinnacle Sylvain Turgeon.

In both cases, there was a spike in interest when buzz was created (in the Turgeon case, it was the affirmation that one Patrick Kane was on the card). However, collectors soon dug through those long archived cards and said, "hey, I have this; cool!" Those purchased and sent value and interest skyrocketing were by the non-collecting community who wanted something unique.

For cards like the Roy auto and others, the key is not age - it's rarity. It's safe to say that there were in excess of 2,000,000 packs of Pro Set produced that year. with a run of 1,000 copies of the auto, or 1:2000. Getting the card when we were kids was an impossible dream. Now, though, that we have some money under our belt, as you say, we can now afford it and can pursue it. Thus the interest, and sales value increases.

You won't, though, see that value increase for Roy's RC, because by the mid 80s, the book value factor had been well established, and even if a kid liked a card the same way they did a Star Wars figure, they were never, ever going to part with it. They may play with it, put it in their bike spokes or shoot tennis balls against it (as I did with my cards), but they kept them nonetheless.

For these reasons, cards from the 70s, 80s and 90s will never reach the maturity levels or percentages that those of the 50s and 60s did. Whether Gretzky's records are broken or not, his cards will remain intact at their current $1,000-odd level for years to come. Whether Martin Brodeur breaks Roy's and Sawchuk's records or not, his RC will never sail higher than $25.


My point about the maturity level is very simple yet you seem to wish to complicate it by introducing issues such as "highest point", ranking in the top 100 or 50, politics, eBay and whatever else crossed your path recently.

The maturity of an issue occurs about 25-35 years down the road when for a variety of reasons collectors decide that yes this is an issue worth collecting or this issue is not worth collecting or points in between.

Using your analogy of the 1970's stars. The very simple fact remains that by now collectors have decided that yes, these cards are worth collecting. Plain and simple. Likewise collectors have in general dismissed the Eddie Sargent Stamps as issues not worth collecting, a few more have an interest in the Dad's Cookies issues while the O-Pee-Chee WHA has an above average following.

Now a buzz may be created at anytime - 1977-78 O-Pee-Chee Square Corners are a prime example. Once considered unique because they did not go thru the rounding process and were not packaged. But the novelty wore off and they are virtually ignored today.

Commenting on a few other points. The now factor existed before eBay and before the internet. The various Topps Burger King BB issues from the late 1970's come to mind. Started high, dropped then rose somewhat over time. So we can say that today the Topps Burger King issues have matured into a marginal issue that did not have that much staying power.

The following commet that you made is somewhat amazing:

For cards like the Roy auto and others, the key is not age - it's rarity.

Really. It's neither. The key is DEMAND. Pure and simple. It could be the only one ever produced BUT if no one wants it, it has very little value besides some intrinsic worth. Conversely you may have millions of an item but if billions of people want it, then the owners of the item are much better off than the owner of one unique item that no one wants.

The maturity of an issues simply qulifies demand. It makes no claim about predictability. Paraphrasing Toe Blake "Predictions are for gypsies"
 
Last edited:
Break-up Value

No this is not a post about what happens to your collection should you get divorced.

Break-up value is the difference between The selling price of a set and the total selling price of all the cards in the set if sold individually.

Using the 1965 Wholesale Cards price list posted elsewhere :

http://www.hobbyinsider.net/forum/showthread.php?t=158238

We see that the 1954-55 Topps Hocket set of 60 was selling for $5.95 while individual cards were selling for $0.10. No distinction was made for star cards, flat rate across the board. So the break-up value for the set was 60 x .10 = $6.00, a $0.05 difference between the set price and the break-up value. The 1964 - 65 Topps set of 110 was selling for $4.95 while individual cards were selling for $0.05 yielding a break-up value of 110 x .05 = $5.50, about an 11% difference. It was marginally advantageous to the dealer to break-up a set and sell it as singles.

For hockey cards this trend continued well into the 1980's. As price guides began to micro price issues the gap widened to the point where today if one takes a look at the leading hockey card monthly price guide and has the inclination to do all the basic math, the one will see that there are recent sets with a break-up value beteen 2.5 and 4 times the set price. Resulting in a situation where it is clearly advantageous for the collector to buy a set at or below book, while it is not worth the bother for the dealer to build a set since his revenues suffer while the workload increases.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
389,517
Messages
2,233,270
Members
4,147
Latest member
Robbyhav
Back
Top