MJ's: Fleer #57 vs Star #101

[Starman101]

Originally Posted by mc1

The 1984 Star Has always been more valuable than the Fleer but it hasnt been the more desired of the two.

In the modern hobby more money= more desirable and visa versa

I'm not saying I agree with it

I'm just saying how it now is

[hermanotarjeta]

I don’t like how star was not distributed nationally in a randomized wax pack form by a major reputable card producer.

I’ve always considered them a regional/oddball set for niche collectors and easily replicated.

[pcptrade]

Originally Posted by mc1

The 1984 Star Has always been more valuable than the Fleer but it hasnt been the more desired of the two. Dont assume or state that as fact. The 1986-87 Fleer set is iconic and the Jordan RC is probably the most iconic basketball card of all-time.

Star 101 is considered the Mona Lisa of Basketball cards, the equivalent of Mantle 1952 Topps in Baseball. Even if both the Star 101 and 86F were priced equally in similar grades, collectors would still go for the Star 101 due to desirability

On a serious note, Star 101 is scarce and not rare. It is not that rare to make it more desirable than the 86F. One can always buy a copy of either of them in low grades at any time they want because they are always available for sale. Let's say a collector is in the market looking for a MJ card and has ~15K to spend on one. What would be the first MJ card he would go after? Will it be a 86F PSA 9 or Star 101 PSA 6 or something else?

[rms13]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

I don’t like how star was not distributed nationally in a randomized wax pack form by a major reputable card producer.

I’ve always considered them a regional/oddball set for niche collectors and easily replicated.

It seems that's an outdated argument for a lot of people. People are paying a lot of a money for Wemby Topps Now autos. And it doesn't seem to hurt pre war cards before packs existed.

[2010GBPackers]

Yes, there are there a handful of pumpers/investors pumping the Star 101. However, many of them have been true believers for years, though, and felt that once PSA finally (and correctly) decided to begin grading them again, they deserved to tell the hobby, "I told you so." For years, there was a narrative about how many fakes there were in the hobby (there are) and that they were hard to distinguish from authentic copies (they're not).

It also feels disingenuous for Fleer 57 guys to start a pumping discussion about the Star 101 when the Fleer 57 PSA 10 continues to be artificially propped up by the investor groups who hold an outsized number of copies. If you're going to tell folks it's pumpers who led to the $925k sale of a (POP 3!!) Star 101 PSA 9, then what the hell is the reason for Fleer 57 PSA 10 copies to continue to be hovering around $150k a piece, with a POP of 324?! Pure demand?! LOL!

Each card is great in its own way and each serves its purpose in our hobby for different collectors. I've never understood the anger directed at the 101. Its entrance to the hobby was a product of the time in which Jordan entered the NBA. Oh, and by the way, that image on the beloved Fleer 57 is most likely a Star image (i.e., rookie year jersey; photo taken in the Meadowlands) and Star definitely f'ed up not using it.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by rms13

It seems that's an outdated argument for a lot of people. People are paying a lot of a money for Wemby Topps Now autos. And it doesn't seem to hurt pre war cards before packs existed.

This is exactly how topps now and panini instant investor bois think.

[Cardsandcoffee]

Originally Posted by rms13

It seems that's an outdated argument for a lot of people. People are paying a lot of a money for Wemby Topps Now autos. And it doesn't seem to hurt pre war cards before packs existed.

FWIW I don’t think that’s an outdated argument. Everyone has access to purchase Topps Now cards if they choose to do so.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by Cardsandcoffee

FWIW I don’t think that’s an outdated argument. Everyone has access to purchase Topps Now cards if they choose to do so.

Everyone has access to buy Star cards now if they choose to

[Cardsandcoffee]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Each card is great in its own way and each serves its purpose in our hobby for different collectors. I've never understood the anger directed at the 101. Its entrance to the hobby was a product of the time in which Jordan entered the NBA. Oh, and by the way, that image on the beloved Fleer 57 is most likely a Star image (i.e., rookie year jersey; photo taken in the Meadowlands) and Star definitely f'ed up not using it.

I believe the Star creator himself said the Star image was the best available to him for use from a group of photos he purchased the rights to so the Fleer 57 is not a “Star image”. He never had access to it.

For me personally, the Star card has always been weird. From its regional team baggie distribution that reminds me of the Topps Team sets you can get at Target, to a simple design that gets reused over and over again. Aesthetically it’s just subpar. Even the card back design is lacking. Needless to say, the cards aren’t for me but to each their own.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by rms13

Everyone has access to buy Star cards now if they choose to

Was that the case in the mid-80s for the Star releases?

Artificial scarcity is driving the price of the Star cards. A simple matter of supply and (fake) demand.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by Cardsandcoffee

I believe the Star creator himself said the Star image was the best available to him for use from a group of photos he purchased the rights to so the Fleer 57 is not a “Star image”. He never had access to it.

For me personally, the Star card has always been weird. From its regional team baggie distribution that reminds me of the Topps Team sets you can get at Target, to a simple design that gets reused over and over again. Aesthetically it’s just subpar. Even the card back design is lacking. Needless to say, the cards aren’t for me but to each their own.

Do you have a link?

It is known fact that 25% of 1986 Fleer photos were used previously in Star issues. In fact, zero 1986 Fleer cards have photos from that year; the photos were all pre-1986 and most, if not all, of them were purchased from Star Co.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Do you have a link?

It is known fact that 25% of 1986 Fleer photos were used previously in Star issues. In fact, zero 1986 Fleer cards have photos from that year; the photos were all pre-1986 and most, if not all, of them were purchased from Star Co.

The 86-87 Fleer Jordan Photo was taken by Noren Trotman. Was he a Star employee? I dont think so. Photographers are usually freelancers.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by mc1

Was that the case in the mid-80s for the Star releases?

Artificial scarcity is driving the price of the Star cards. A simple matter of supply and (fake) demand.

What is artificial? There are 3 of them unless you don't believe pop reports. But there discussions are stupid. Everyone can buy what they want and pay whatever they want.

[Cardsandcoffee]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Do you have a link?

It is known fact that 25% of 1986 Fleer photos were used previously in Star issues. In fact, zero 1986 Fleer cards have photos from that year; the photos were all pre-1986 and most, if not all, of them were purchased from Star Co.

cllct.com/sports-collectibles/sports-cards/move-over-1986-fleer-another-michael-jordan-rookie-card-is-now-most-valuable

Not the exact article I recall but it's similar. The Fleer image is not a "Star image". Also, interestingly enough this article does state that the age gap between the Star and the Fleer isnt as wide as some people insinuate.

“I contracted a photographer to take pictures at games,” Levin said. “But I somehow wound up with the scraps. That photo I had of Jordan for that card was the best one I had!”

[Cardsandcoffee]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Do you have a link?

It is known fact that 25% of 1986 Fleer photos were used previously in Star issues. In fact, zero 1986 Fleer cards have photos from that year; the photos were all pre-1986 and most, if not all, of them were purchased from Star Co.

I dont say this in jest but do you have a link?

[YouTheManNick]

First off. I have no personal stake in this. Never owned a Star MJ and don't want one. Owned a Fleer MJ and traded it with no intention of getting another.

Personal opinion - I hate Star cards (I've owned a few non MJs from the set). HATE the low quality flimsy paper stock. Makes them novelty cards in my eyes.

Now, Onto this "sale." When I see this...

"The buyer and seller wish to remain anonymous."

I see nothing but red flags.

Reminds me of the WATA Super Mario manipulating that went on a few years ago.

If the buyer and seller are anonymous then you flat out can't trust it.

"Hey. Wanna manipulate the Star MJ?

"Sure. How?"

"I'll 'pay' you $925,000 for yours. We'll do a real transfer and everything. Then we publicize it while remaining anonymous and away we go."

Some references to the WATA SMB I'm talking about. Feels like the same playbook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvLFEh7V18A&t=20s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzKd7_GyxM

There's more. But these are great places to start.

Do not believe in an anonymous private "sale."

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by rms13

Everyone has access to buy Star cards now if they choose to

When you can buy single cards directly from a manufacturer, it reduces its collectability in many hobbyist's eyes. The card is not worthless, there will be some demand for it, but it's not worth as much as it could have been had it been nationally distributed and sealed, randomized pack released. Sort of like minor league baseball card issues.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by YouTheManNick

First off. I have no personal stake in this. Never owned a Star MJ and don't want one. Owned a Fleer MJ and traded it with no intention of getting another.

Personal opinion - I hate Star cards (I've owned a few non MJs from the set). HATE the low quality flimsy paper stock. Makes them novelty cards in my eyes.

Now, Onto this "sale." When I see this...

"The buyer and seller wish to remain anonymous."

I see nothing but red flags.

Reminds me of the WATA Super Mario manipulating that went on a few years ago.

If the buyer and seller are anonymous then you flat out can't trust it.

"Hey. Wanna manipulate the Star MJ?

"Sure. How?"

"I'll 'pay' you $925,000 for yours. We'll do a real transfer and everything. Then we publicize it while remaining anonymous and away we go."

Some references to the WATA SMB I'm talking about. Feels like the same playbook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvLFEh7V18A&t=20s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzKd7_GyxM

There's more. But these are great places to start.

Do not believe in an anonymous private "sale."

I also have no personal stake. I don't collect Jordan cards and I definitely don't have the money to buy any of these cards. I heard the guy from Card Ladder on a podcast a few days ago talking about this. He said that Card Ladder verified the sale. He said they know who both parties are and have bank records for the money between them. And I believe Rovell also knows the people and verified the sale. It's possible that everybbody making money in the hobby is a scammer. Rovell could be a scammer and Card Ladder...and PSA and Goldin and Fanatics and Geoff Wilson etc and I wouldn't be surprised. To me it's very plausible that someone who is very wealthy and Jordan super collector would spend that for the card knowiing there are 3 in existence and the other two belong to the same person who apparently isn't interested in selling either of them.

[YouTheManNick]

Originally Posted by rms13

I also have no personal stake. I don't collect Jordan cards and I definitely don't have the money to buy any of these cards. I heard the guy from Card Ladder on a podcast a few days ago talking about this. He said that Card Ladder verified the sale. He said they know who both parties are and have bank records for the money between them. And I believe Rovell also knows the people and verified the sale. It's possible that everybbody making money in the hobby is a scammer. Rovell could be a scammer and Card Ladder...and PSA and Goldin and Fanatics and Geoff Wilson etc and I wouldn't be surprised. To me it's very plausible that someone who is very wealthy and Jordan super collector would spend that for the card knowiing there are 3 in existence and the other two belong to the same person who apparently isn't interested in selling either of them.

I don't trust the cardladder guys. Josh tried to rip me off for an expensive LeBron card I used to own. Plus, they're owned by collectors who also owns PSA. When PSA announced they would grade Star, Nat Turner referred to it as the "real" rookie card or something like that. I know he's a collector, but when you own a grading company and have the kind of influence he has, it's unethical to say things like that.

Whenever and wherever there's money to be made, there will be people there to take advantage.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by YouTheManNick

I don't trust the cardladder guys. Josh tried to rip me off for an expensive LeBron card I used to own. Plus, they're owned by collectors who also owns PSA. When PSA announced they would grade Star, Nat Turner referred to it as the "real" rookie card or something like that. I know he's a collector, but when you own a grading company and have the kind of influence he has, it's unethical to say things like that.

Whenever and wherever there's money to be made, there will be people there to take advantage.

There is definitely reason to be skeptical. And having the same people owning parts of the entire card ecosystem makes it harder to trust then.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by YouTheManNick

I don't trust the cardladder guys. Josh tried to rip me off for an expensive LeBron card I used to own. Plus, they're owned by collectors who also owns PSA. When PSA announced they would grade Star, Nat Turner referred to it as the "real" rookie card or something like that. I know he's a collector, but when you own a grading company and have the kind of influence he has, it's unethical to say things like that.

hardly an example to cite as something in any way unethical...

Originally Posted by rms13

There is definitely reason to be skeptical. And having the same people owning parts of the entire card ecosystem makes it harder to trust then.

the boys who cried record sale

[YouTheManNick]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

hardly an example to cite as something in any way unethical...

I believe that the owner of a grading company who also has tons of influence should not be saying things like this.

I believe that it is very unethical.

Grading companies and their owners should be impartial not preferential.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by YouTheManNick

I believe that the owner of a grading company who also has tons of influence should not be saying things like this.



I believe that it is very unethical.



Grading companies and their owners should be impartial not preferential.

Nat can speak his opinion. And he's right on this.

Sent from my SM-S711U using Tapatalk

[YouTheManNick]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

Nat can speak his opinion. And he's right on this.

Can: Yes.

Should: No.

[YouTheManNick]

Also. Just wanna add. I just listened to the cardladder people discuss this on last night's show and I agree with pretty much everything they said.

Someone said earlier in the thread that they know who the buyer and seller are, but they said on the show that they do not. They are trusting the word of the Darren Rovell and whatnot.