General Forum

I was curious to see what people's opinions are on Serial Numbered cards. How low of a serial number would you have to pull to be excited? Some cards are serial numbered so high that it doesn't really seem to make much of a difference. What would you say the cutoff number would be for a valuable or exciting serial numbered card? I tend to think 25 or lower is pretty cool. 

SN100 and lower for me is pretty much it, all the others just seem pointless really.

I agree that high population serial numbers are pointless.  There's some neat sets that are serial numbered to the year they were issued in, but realisticly anything numbered of over 1,000 is "Guaranteed Common".

Sets that are numbered of 100 used to be really tough, back before memorabilia and autographs got out of control, but lately a SN100 parallel set has been acheivable for the reasonably motivated collector (in Racing anyway, they may be harder fought in other sports).

I think SN50 is the cusp, anything lower than that is definitely an exciting pull.

-Tom 

I think the proliferation of insert sets in various products has made it a lot easier to pull a lower serial numbered card. For example, the 2016 Topps Archives Signature Series has who knows how many players in it. I researched only one player (Darren Daulton). There are at least 46 different cards of Daulton. The highest SN is 50. There are 993 total Daulton cards inserted throughout the run. The average print run is about 21. Basically, in a product like that, you're guaranteed a low SN card in almost any pack you open.

Other products, have the same type of thing happening - there are so many inserts that you're bound to get "a good one" because there are 100s (if not 1,000s) of "good ones" to get.

That said, I am happy pulling the Gold parallels out of each pack. At Star, we didn't SN our cards, but we did SN the sets before anyone else was doing that. And I forget who was the first to SN a card. IIRC, it was actually a football product (Elway was the advertised card). I thought that was very cool that they were doing that. Serial numbers are cool in my opinion.

Well, I'll come in and say get off my lawn. I admit to not fully understanding them, but I'm really not into SN cards. I like "natural" rarity, not manufactured rarity. It's cool for me to have a 1971 Munson because everyone seems to want one. They're more expensive because of actual desire for the card and player.  

But now companies take an average card and stick a gold number on the back and limit the printing, and I'm supposed to want it more. Yeah, I just don't care. 

I can see the attraction in autographs or memorabilia cards. I suppose if there were 100 super special "golden ticket" cards inserted, it might be nice to have one? Not sure. And how is having number 10 better than having number 127? There aren't fewer of them, right? They're both one of one, really. There's one number 10 and one number 127. Equally rare. Am I missing something? 

Somehow it all feels manufactured and illogical. But if people like to chase them, have at it! 

V3

i agree on both sides.. on the older cards, not so much- i'll take what i can get because of the possible rarity. but on the new sets, i don't care much for the base cards, always try to get the #'d cards. i currently have about 300 "SN1 of xxx" cards on one person alone and few of the very last "SNxx of xx". Anything that is SN5 or less, i try to get all of that one person as well. 

I love serial numbered cards. It's one of my favorite 1990s introductions. I would rather pull a serially numbered parallel than an autograph or relic. I don't much like when they are included as part of the base set, but that is because I'm a set collector. Since they began putting serially numbered cards in the base set in 1998-99 I've only completed one of those sets (2002-03 SP Authentic)

The first SN card in NBA history was in 1991-92 Hoops. Amazingly, serial number 1 of 10,000 has been uploaded to the Database...meaning that the first ever serially numbered card is shown here for the sport. Is it truly the first one made or just the first one numbered? Nobody really knows, but I view it as the first one made. Of course, I also view 1948 Bowman #1 as the first card made even though they were truly all made at the same exact time. 

I have more than 3000 SN cards in my collection, but I don't have an exact total because I have not entered them all into my Excel charts yet. I've already added 7 to my collection in 2017, including two SN to 25. I plan to upload scans of both of them to the Database later today. 

SN50 is my cutoff point for storing cards in toploaders (with some exceptions for really old cards or ones that I had a devil of a time tracking down). And actually, I've changed my collecting habits for cards of active players so that I'll only pay a premium (generally) for SN25s and lower. I can't afford to keep up with trying to collect current players anymore so I'll just try and snag a low serial numbered card at a reasonable price and then once the dust has settled on "new" sets I'll look at finishing off the cards I need of active players. I'm really working more on trying to complete player collections of retired/no longer active people since their checklists are typically set at a finite number (or at least, have very few new cards anymore).
If I'm opening packs, I still get a little thrill for any SN under 500, but I really only get excited for SN50's and less. I did pull a 1/1 once and that was pretty neat.

My personal collection goals include every single former Ohio State Buckeye, no matter the sport.  SN cards are on my list to collect, but if the card count is under 50 I will not consider it a failure of my collection to not have it.  Anything over 50 I expect to eventually aquire, and under that I would consider to be bonus to my collection.