Monday, February 20, 2023

My Top Ten Most Valuable Cubs Cards

 This idea for this post comes from something that Night Owl did a couple of weeks ago.  He used the information from the Trading Card Database to determine his ten most valuable cards.  

I did the same, but I'm going to divide this up into three posts.  Today I'll show my ten most valuable Cubs cards.  Tomorrow I'll have my top ten non-Cubs.  Then on Wednesday I'll combine the two and show my ten most valuable cards.

First, a disclaimer.  The prices that TCDB shows are much higher that what I paid since I got my cards years ago.  My cards are also not always in the greatest condition.  As a budget collector I balance price and condition.

I'll be going in reverse order, from card #10 to my most valuable Cubs card.


 #10 - 1956 Topps #15 Ernie Banks - $100

#9 - 1957 Topps #55 Ernie Banks - $120

#8 - 1955 Bowman #242 Ernie Banks - $170

#7 - 1952 Topps #341 Hal Jeffcoat - $300

#6 - 1952 Topps #330 Turk Lown - $300

#5 - 1952 Topps #325 Bill Serena - $300

#4 - 1952 Topps #322 Randy Jackson - $300

#3 - 1909-1911 American Tobacco T206 Johnny Evers bat on shoulder - $420

#2 - 1909-1911 American Tobacco T206 Frank Chance batting - $630

#1 - 1954 Topps #94 Ernie Banks - $886

I wasn't surprised that my most valuable card is Ernie Banks' rookie card. Nor was I suprised to see several of his other cards n the top ten. 

The T206 prices weren't a shock either.  I do need to point out that I also have a T206 of Joe Tinker, but the TCDB does not have a price for it, nor were there any completed sales on eBay of my version of the card.  If I had a price I'd imagine that it would have also landed in the top ten. And I'll repeat this in case Mrs. WW comes here, I didn't pay anywhere near the prices shown!

It was a bit of a surprise to see all the high number cards from the 1952 set on the list.  It never occurred to me that Bill Serena or Turk Lown would be among my most valuable cards.

2 comments:

  1. '52 Topps, No. 311 and up, almost unattainable now. Not surprised. (Have I mentioned there are like 17 Brooklyn Dodgers in that range?)

    ReplyDelete