Many cards for just ONE Penny! HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS of BASEBALL, FOOTBALL and BASKETBALL cards. First-come-first-serve. Cards are added every week.
NO SCAM! NO SPAM! NO OFFER TRAINS!
Topps,
Fleer, Upper Deck, Classic, Donruss, Play Ball,
and all subsets ARE
HERE !!!
In
NEW and NEAR-MINT CONDITION, Only a GRADED card will be noted in
MINT condition. If it's anything more or less than NEAR-MINT it will say so in the description.
Don't
underestimate the value of these cards! Many cards here have been
PRICED BELOW eBAY and AMAZON.
History
of Baseball Cards
Late 1800s- Tobacco Companies market and produce baseball cards included with the purchase of tobacco.
1870s- Goodwin Company of
New York created numbered collection of baseball.
Early1900s- Signs of baseball card collecting began.
1906- Famous Honus Wagner
Card produced by American Tobacco Company.
1930s- Bubble Gum Company puts cards in their
packages.
1952- Topps
creates first card to include player image, team logo, player bio’s
and statistics.
Baseball Card Blog Syndicate Courtesey Ben Henry Full blog and archives can viewed here
03/08/2010
Thoughts on the Last 3 Years in the Card Industry The following is pure conjecture – not fact, and should be treated as such.
I get emails from my local card shop, and in it I read today that Upper Deck canceled the remainder of its forthcoming baseball products, including Goudey (this must be what happens when you settle out of court with MLB Properties). I also read that the USA baseball stuff it was going to produce will now be produced by Topps. All of this is incredibly interesting to me, and not simply because I collect sports cards. It's interesting to me because it all boils down to one person.
In my opinion, all of this movement of the last year – official licensing, lawsuits, and the like – stems from Michael Eisner's involvement in Topps. And I'd say that Major League Baseball wants to be in bed with a big guy like him – not some small-pond guy like Richard McWilliam.
At Disney, Eisner was a big fish in one of the biggest ponds. He's a brand name all unto himself, and in the non-card universe, I'd bet more people have heard of Eisner than have heard of Topps, and certainly more than Upper Deck.
This latest development brings back the question: in 2007, why didn't Topps cave to Upper Deck's bid of a dollar more than Madison Dearborn's? Did Shorin know something about a wind of change at MLB Properties? Or was he simply looking out for the best interests of the company and the brand by a) not selling to their number-one competitor, and b) by brazenly puffing out his chest and selling the company his way (albeit not in the best interests of the shareholders) without kowtowing to the upstart? It could be a little of both. The other question is: did MLB Properties have a preference in who bought Topps?
I think Eisner has ushered in more good changes at Topps – a shift to the Web, with video and more meaningful interactions with the collector (not just customer service stuff) – than Upper Deck ever would have, or would have had reason to.
For Upper Deck to ever seriously think that Topps could be beaten in a one-on-one for exclusive MLB licensing is preposterous, especially with a heavy hitter like Eisner in the mix. So when 2010 Upper Deck debuted earlier this year, it seemed like the company was on a collision course with a court date.
Seriously, I get it that baseball is the biggest sport with the most money at stake, but why did Upper Deck produce a regular set without being able to show team logos? If they had to fill shipping quotas, keep the cash flow going until they could get rid of their baseball team, and hoodwink the public in the process, why didn't they put out a set like Studio? Or an innovative, every-card-is-autographed, prom-photo set of everybody in tuxedos? Instead, every card read like Upper Deck was thumbing its nose at Major League Baseball.
Also, it feels like Upper Deck doesn't get it that a Topps exclusivity now does not necessarily mean a Topps exclusivity in the future.
Yes, Upper Deck is losing millions now, but possibly not future millions. So why burn your bridges?
03/07/2010
Harry Caray Bobblehead Trade Challenge Forget the cards for a second. That's right, I want to trade this Harry Caray bobblehead to you. But here's what you have to do: You have to offer me a better trade than anyone else. My Keeper List is available to view (see link in sidebar at right), but don't let that hold you back. You want to trade me $80 in first class postage? How about a signed and numbered Dan McCarthy print? Or a few rare souvenir postcard folders?
Here's what I know about this bobblehead:
1) It was made in 2002 by Bosley Bobbers 2) It's still in its original box 3) The box says it's a limited edition 4) It currently retails for $79.95 on eBay (link) 5) I don't know where I got it
Here's what you should do if you want to add this bobblehead to your collection: email me with your trade idea. The best idea will get Harry and his enormous glasses, bobbling for all eternity.
03/02/2010
The Blog of the Unknown Postcard I need your help. I've been page by page through the 2009 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards, and I can't identify this. More precisely, I can't identify the player, the team, or the issue. I have a pretty good idea what era it's from (pre-1919), but even of that I'm uncertain.
Some background: I've had this postcard at least 20 years. I can't remember exactly where I got it, but either a family friend who collected postcards and knew I liked baseball stuff, or from the Big Box of Awesome Tobacco Pins I inherited from my great-grandfather. Also, it's the size of a regular postcard, not a cabinet.
That's all I know about it. My guess is that the uniform is from one of these types: industrial team, an amateur team, or some sort of low minor league. I've never seen any other cap with a number on it like this, nor do I have any idea what the "CAD" down the front of the flannel stands for. The back is almost blank, which isn't helpful, and there's no photographer's seal or trademark anywhere on the card, which isn't helpful either, but leads me to think this isn't part of a large (or any) set.