These cards are elusive and I don't exactly understand why

 

The theme for this post might be a bit out of date considering the crazy prices some previously commonly available cards are going for in the year 2022.

But before the last year or two, I separated hard-to-find, too-expensive cards into two categories: the ones where I understood the reasons for their elusiveness and the ones where I didn't.

I get why '50s and '60s rookie cards of future stars and Hall of Famers are elusive and expensive. I get why high-number cards from the '60s and '70s are, too. Same with short-prints from the last couple of decades. They just aren't that plentiful and the card is usually a star player.

But there are a few famous examples of expensive, high-demand cards that I've never fully grasped the reasons for the prices charged.

The 2011 Update Mike Trout is one of them. I've repeated myself on this numerous times. The best argument for me questioning the price and exclusivity of this card is that someone like little ol' me pulled this card from a regular pack purchased from a Target card aisle in 2011. It wasn't difficult to find, no more difficult than, say, Tim Stauffer or Yuniesky Betancourt from the same set.

I put the 1952 Topps Andy Pafko card in the same category. As card No. 1 in the set, it is not a high number. Back in '52, kids pulled this card out of packs just as often as anything else in the pre-300 number range. Yet, through old collectors' tales of Pafko cards repeatedly ruined by rubber bands wrapped around a stack of '52s, the price soared beyond similar cards from that set.

There's no real reason to justify these prices for those two cards. Yet everyone accepts them as the going rate.

(A slight detour into bizarre price tags like those high numbers from the 1966 Topps set in which a limited number of collectors hoard as many of a certain card as they can find, creating a demand on them. That's even more frustrating than a Trout or Pafko).

Fortunately, I own both the Trout and Pafko cards so I don't have to worry myself over the ridiculous prices.

But there are a select few cards still out there that I want but hold prices I can't reconcile.

 

I still don't own the 1992 Fleer Update Mike Piazza card, it's the only Dodger that I need from this set and the only rookie Piazza that I need, too.

It's generally understood as the most elusive of the rookie Piazzas from this time. I don't get why. Was '92 Fleer Update difficult to find? If I want to land this card I will have to spend between $50-$70, according to a quick run through ebay. Also, I noticed the majority of '92 Fleer Piazzas are graded, which is the No. 1 dumb reason why people have to pay more for cards that should be much more available.

 

Another Fleer Update set.

The 1984 Fleer Update set is definitely the peskiest from my formative collecting years. Today, it's known as a set that was issued in more limited quantities than similar Traded sets.

 

Do I believe that? I don't know, I hear all kinds of stories over the years that I suspect were made up by sellers. I know that if I was actively collecting in '84 (I limited my collecting that year to buying the complete Topps set and a few packs each of Donruss and Fleer), I would find '84 Fleer Update or send away for it or whatever you had to do. My guess is I wouldn't have had that much of a problem. But I don't know for sure because I wasn't an active collector like I was earlier in the '80s.

So now, 84 Fleer Update sets are like $400 or something and each of the above pre-rookie cards, whatever that means, are around $100 (Gooden seems to be a bit cheaper).

And, so, I'm finally at the reason behind this post.

The 1954 Topps Tom Lasorda arrived at my doorstep today. It's been a long time coming.

I needed just three Dodgers from '54 Topps to finish the team set. One of them I need is Jackie Robinson. I get that. Lasorda, I've had a hard time figuring out.

Sure, this is Lasorda's rookie card and sure he is in the Hall of Fame, both good reasons for paying a bit more. But that much more? Lasorda's claim to fame is as a manager. That's why he's in the Hall of Fame. His playing career was barely worth mentioning. He didn't have the playing career of other managers like Frank Robinson or Gil Hodges or Yogi Berra. Yet, YOU.WILL.PAY to land this card.

Why?

Is it his personality? I would think that would only be a factor in Southern California maybe. Maybe it's the Bob Uecker effect, but at least some of Uecker's cards are high numbers. This Lasorda isn't a high number.

Other Hall of Fame managers do not have rookie cards that cost this much, unless it's one of those who played long ago, pre-1950s. So what's the reason? Is it just all of those things I mentioned combined together?

I guess none of it matters because this card -- after too many years -- is MINE.

I got it from Trevor in a Twitter sale thread (@Tec872). I probably could've found a similarly conditioned Lasorda for 10 or 20 dollars cheaper but this is in the ballpark for a fairly reasonable '54 Tommy. I could afford it anyway.

A little paper loss but every '54 Topps card should have paper loss.

So this card will no longer lead to any more sleepless nights. I guess that will be the '92 Fleer Piazza now.

It's probably going to be a long time until a grab the Jackie Robinson from the '54 set. And about that other Dodger card I need from that set? It's Rube Walker. And it's in my cart right now.