Pujols Rookie Cards

[rocketfat]

Been out of the baseball card collecting market for oh, about 15 years....Will anybody who is still in the know tell me what the most valuable Pujols rookie out there is? Thanks.

[Saint Louis]

Originally Posted by rocketfat Been out of the baseball card collecting market for oh, about 15 years....Will anybody who is still in the know tell me what the most valuable Pujols rookie out there is? Thanks.

None, they should all be burned in a sacrificial manner.

[tierre_brown]

Are you talking base rookie or are you including rookie year...like Chrome is considered RC but Chrome Refractor is considered a parallel...not to mention the cards that have lately become limited to print runs of 100, 50, 25, etc...

[rocketfat]

Originally Posted by tierre_brown Are you talking base rookie or are you including rookie year...like Chrome is considered RC but Chrome Refractor is considered a parallel...not to mention the cards that have lately become limited to print runs of 100, 50, 25, etc...

jesus, you got me....sounds like you know what your are talking about though....what is the coveted pujols card on the market? maybe if you could provide a link or two. thanks again.

[The Real Shady]

This one looks pricey.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2001-Bowman-Chro...QQcmdZViewItem

[bladeage]

poo holes.

[Supermac34]

Questions like this are why I stopped collecting cards big time and settle for a few cards a year now.

15 years ago the answer would be something like this.

"His best rookie card is his Topps Chrome" or something like that. Heck you might even say "His All-rookie team subset card from Topps or Fleer or whatever."

Easy enough, go get that card, or buy some boxes and try to pull one or two. Heck, get one from each good set. Most are about even in the quality stuff.

Now, out of the 5 different sets each company puts out, there are the base rookies which are normally short printed now. Or you can get the subset rookie card. Or the gold base cards. Or the refractor subset card. Or the autographed base card. Or a di-cut card. Or a di-cut gold card. Or a di-cut gold, refractor card. Or the di-cut, gold, refractor, autographed, jersey 1/1 card.

It seems like there are an infinite amount of different versions of every card.

Now if you can sort through all that and find a quality card that you want to get, there is the whole grading craze out there. And does this affect your decision? Do you get a graded 8 subset rookie card that is rare, or do you get the base rookie card graded a 9.5? Do you care about grades at all? Do you buy one and get it graded yourself in hopes of hitting a jackpot on a highly graded card?

So any combination might be his best rookie card. The base rookie card graded a 10 might be just as good as the super-awesome 1/100 card graded an 8.5.

So here is what I do. I don't collect too many cards anymore, but I like to have a card or two of the best players just to have them.

If I wanted to get a Pujols rookie card, I set a nice price point...perhaps $25 or $35 or even $50. Then I browse Tuff Stuff or Beckett at the store to get an idea of what is out there. Then I browse Ebay for a little while looking at selling histories to get an idea of what things are selling for. Pick out the card I like the most (design, stats, set, company) for the price point I set, and pick one up. It might not be the best, or ultra rare, but at least I'll have a decent base rookie of a great player. I tend to ignore grading on newer cards anyways, just get a good NM condition one from a reputable dealer/seller (most new cards are in NM condition out of the pack anyways) and put it in my album.

It works great in two ways. You get a decent, base rookie card of a stud up and coming player PLUS if said player blows out a shoulder or knee and his stuff dives to nothing you don't get screwed out of a bunch of money.

I'd hate to buy a 1/1 ultra rare Pujols card for $1000 and have him rip up his knee sliding into second and end his career. Now I'm stuck with a near worthless card I paid $1000 for.

Another thing that seems to happen that even if he's the hottest thing since sliced bread and goes on to have a fantastic career, around the 7-10 year mark of his career, all his stuff will naturally go down in price anyways as new up and coming players take the spot light. They will then go back up as he approaches records or HOF status or whatever.

So don't spend too much. He might end up being Jose Canseco. Hot for the first 5 years of his career, now his stuff is worthless.

Even if he ends up being a Cal Ripken Jr type player with memorabilia and fans (sought after), in the middle of his career, you'll be able to pick up his stuff at a discount, then ride the wave as he nears the end of his career.

This is especially true of baseball players, since the better players are judged more on playing at a strong level over many years more than other sports.

Ken Griffey Jr. was the best player in baseball for 10 years and his stuff is weak. Cal Ripken Jr was an ironman for 20 and people want his stuff. You get the drift.

Basketball is kind of in the middle of this. A player can be the best player in the league for 10 years and his legacy is set.

In football, its even more short term. There is probably a slightly better advantage of picking up a football player's stuff when he's young. They don't have that long of a "middle career" where they are still great, but people lose interest in there stuff until the end.

[The Real Shady]

This was the card I wanted in my younger days. Doesn't seem to have the same value now.

[Supermac34]

Originally Posted by The Real Shady This was the card I wanted in my younger days. Doesn't seem to have the same value now.

That is hilarious. I remember when that card and its 4 or 5 different versions were so hot in the card industry.

People were paying so much for those. I remember at a card show, I traded one for a decent Willie Mays Card that is in pretty good shape. I don't remember what year it is, its at my parent's house, but the Willie Mays books for something like $350 today and that card is worthless.

[IROC it]

I trade you a Todd Van Poppel rookie. :D

[BigM]

supermac that was a damn good post... i stopped collecting cards for the exact same reasons. it's just not the same.

[jeff from vandy]

I got you guys beat...

I once paid like 30 bucks for a pro set andre ware rookie card.... he had just won the heisman.. i was like 15...

[ArtV]

I paid $12 for a Shaq rookie card. And I think I paid $15 for a Cecil Fielder rookie. The good news is that they wanted $125 for a Jose Canseco rookie and I passed on that one.

I stick to Hall of Famers now - the ones that are in - mostly relic cards or auto cards. They cost more after the fact but I've spent too much money speculating on sure things - like Griffey and Bonds. At this point there isn't too much they can dig up on Babe and co that would effect the value.

I am 1 card short (Charles Gehringer bat. I have a PSA/DNA auto card of him but I'm looking for relics if they have them.) of having 1 relic card for each HOFer that has ever had a card made. Then I have extras like various autos on pictures, cards, balls, hats, etc.

Next year, Cal Ripken Jr, Tony Gwynn and Mark Mcgwire are on the ballot. I speculate that all are getting in - even Mark.

[Raven Lunatic]

Holy crap...it's been well over a decade since I've collected baseball cards. I had no idea it had become so complicated.

[VesceySux]

Originally Posted by Supermac34 In football, its even more short term. There is probably a slightly better advantage of picking up a football player's stuff when he's young. They don't have that long of a "middle career" where they are still great, but people lose interest in there stuff until the end.

Yep. Rookie cards in football are king. That's what drives the business. (Ask Sage.) The rest is just filler (unless they're chase cards).

BTW, Jimmy (main baseball editor at Topps) is very proud of his Bowman Chrome Pujols rookie card. He's always been ridiculously good at picking top prospects.

[Supermac34]

If I'm not mistaken, Bowman was the best set for a while to pull baseball rookies. I think they would put a card out of every prospect there was the earliest possible. Some would hit and be good, some would never make it, but the Bowman rookies of some of the best players today are their "true" rookies in a lot of cases.

Is this correct?

[VesceySux]

Originally Posted by Supermac34 If I'm not mistaken, Bowman was the best set for a while to pull baseball rookies. I think they would put a card out of every prospect there was the earliest possible. Some would hit and be good, some would never make it, but the Bowman rookies of some of the best players today are their "true" rookies in a lot of cases. Is this correct?

Bowman is "The Home of the Rookie Card" and usually contains more rookie players than any other set, competitors included. (Topps is not subject to certain rules that other companies are due to grandfather clauses in its contract with MLB.) With around 165 rookies in Bowman, you're going to have your share of hits and misses. You try filling a Bowman football set with 165 rookies (that have signed a GLA, or general licensing agreement). It's freaking hard! Especially when your top rookies are earmarked for autograph or relic base cards. Can you say F-I-L-L-E-R? But hey, gems do show up. I remember hitting successfully on Randy McMichael in Bowman when no other competitor put him on a card. Yay for me.

[Supermac34]

I remember some of the early and mid 90's baseball sets from Bowman having rookie cards of players 1-2 years before anyone else.