@craig44 said:
there have been a number of 1986 Tiffany Bonds in psa 10 sell for between 13k and 16k
very strong prices
I know the '87 has been going between $5,000-$6,000, too.
I think the issue here is a much larger one that applies to this era of collecting: we need to re-calibrate what we think of "low pop" and, more importantly, what is a population report that is high enough that would prevent a card from reaching a market value of $500-$1,000.
I've long predicted the wave of hobby boom kids returning to the hobby as adults with disposable income and eagerly anticipating what that would do to the hobby. But we've seen much more than that. We've seen a perfect storm where a floodgate of new buyers have entered the market, yes, some as returning to the hobby they participated in their youth but also a serious contingent of Wall Street people who have seen the gains cards have brought over the last 30 years.
We've seen Wall Street make moves on the hobby before but they were always smaller, pump & dump moves because the amount of people involved was smaller. What we have now is an enormous amount of people from the financial sector entering with the intention of becoming seriously involved long-term. They're looking to educate themselves about the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of the market and, in turn, we're not seeing P&D activity reflected in the sales histories.
The fact that cards that just a year ago you could buy for $200 became $4,000 cards and have now settled into a $2,500 value is a good sign that what we're seeing is not a bubble. This is how everything behaved shortly after COVID hit: cards exploded and hit record highs. People, convinced this was the peak, put their own cards up for sale, which diluted the market and they sold out as fast as they could. Prices dropped a little due to market dilution.
Then it came roaring back. The card I bought for $150, which I was happy to sell for $700, is now worth $2,500. You can see the exact same activity with the '87 Topps Tiffanys. They scorched to the top and then fell back a little bit. Now they're breaking new ground again. Same with '87 Leaf and other sets from that period.
It's impossible for us to know what the actual demand is for a card. Are there 20 buyers, 200 buyers, 2,000 buyers? But we definitely need to stop looking at a card with a 1k PSA 10 count and think "there are more than enough to go around." Because there aren't. Not even close.
Arthur
There has been a lot of excitement over the recent 1987 Leaf gains; I notice that the 1986 Leaf PSA 10 McGriff has been making some impressive climbs lately too.
I know I saw one end at $1500. Has there been a higher sale?
Arthur
I'm not saying he is the best HOF candidate that has ever been considered during voting, but I definitely put him above some players who have already been elected. If he ever eventually gets in via veterans committee, there should be a heck of a bump on that '86 Leaf at that point. Maybe the increased sales prices on that one are relative to speculative buying for that potential?
I strongly agree, but here's the thing: there are literally hundreds, maybe a thousand, of players who are definitely above some who have already been elected. If we were to put everyone in who is better than, say, High Pockets Kelly, we're bound to make mistakes. The "most similar" players to Kelly are Bob Watson, Frank McCormick, Bill White, Carl Furillo, and Bob Meusel. Are some or all of them better than Kelly? I don't know, but probably, but what if we enshrine one who isn't? Do we go through the whole process again?
The other point is that I rate McGriff the fifth best first baseman from the late '80s through the '90s who is not in the hall. Palmeiro, McGwire, Olerud and Clark were all better. I know there are off the field reasons why the first two are excluded. When you consider that Bagwell is already in and that Thome and Thomas also had considerable overlap, I think it is asking a lot to put the eighth best first baseman of a fairly tight era into the HoF. It's the same argument, except even stronger, against Mattingly and Grace (who were also both far, far better than Kelly).
@craig44 said:
there have been a number of 1986 Tiffany Bonds in psa 10 sell for between 13k and 16k
very strong prices
I know the '87 has been going between $5,000-$6,000, too.
I think the issue here is a much larger one that applies to this era of collecting: we need to re-calibrate what we think of "low pop" and, more importantly, what is a population report that is high enough that would prevent a card from reaching a market value of $500-$1,000.
I've long predicted the wave of hobby boom kids returning to the hobby as adults with disposable income and eagerly anticipating what that would do to the hobby. But we've seen much more than that. We've seen a perfect storm where a floodgate of new buyers have entered the market, yes, some as returning to the hobby they participated in their youth but also a serious contingent of Wall Street people who have seen the gains cards have brought over the last 30 years.
We've seen Wall Street make moves on the hobby before but they were always smaller, pump & dump moves because the amount of people involved was smaller. What we have now is an enormous amount of people from the financial sector entering with the intention of becoming seriously involved long-term. They're looking to educate themselves about the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of the market and, in turn, we're not seeing P&D activity reflected in the sales histories.
The fact that cards that just a year ago you could buy for $200 became $4,000 cards and have now settled into a $2,500 value is a good sign that what we're seeing is not a bubble. This is how everything behaved shortly after COVID hit: cards exploded and hit record highs. People, convinced this was the peak, put their own cards up for sale, which diluted the market and they sold out as fast as they could. Prices dropped a little due to market dilution.
Then it came roaring back. The card I bought for $150, which I was happy to sell for $700, is now worth $2,500. You can see the exact same activity with the '87 Topps Tiffanys. They scorched to the top and then fell back a little bit. Now they're breaking new ground again. Same with '87 Leaf and other sets from that period.
It's impossible for us to know what the actual demand is for a card. Are there 20 buyers, 200 buyers, 2,000 buyers? But we definitely need to stop looking at a card with a 1k PSA 10 count and think "there are more than enough to go around." Because there aren't. Not even close.
Arthur
There has been a lot of excitement over the recent 1987 Leaf gains; I notice that the 1986 Leaf PSA 10 McGriff has been making some impressive climbs lately too.
I know I saw one end at $1500. Has there been a higher sale?
Arthur
I'm not saying he is the best HOF candidate that has ever been considered during voting, but I definitely put him above some players who have already been elected. If he ever eventually gets in via veterans committee, there should be a heck of a bump on that '86 Leaf at that point. Maybe the increased sales prices on that one are relative to speculative buying for that potential?
I strongly agree, but here's the thing: there are literally hundreds, maybe a thousand, of players who are definitely above some who have already been elected. If we were to put everyone in who is better than, say, High Pockets Kelly, we're bound to make mistakes. The "most similar" players to Kelly are Bob Watson, Frank McCormick, Bill White, Carl Furillo, and Bob Meusel. Are some or all of them better than Kelly? I don't know, but probably, but what if we enshrine one who isn't? Do we go through the whole process again?
The other point is that I rate McGriff the fifth best first baseman from the late '80s through the '90s who is not in the hall. Palmeiro, McGwire, Olerud and Clark were all better. I know there are off the field reasons why the first two are excluded. When you consider that Bagwell is already in and that Thome and Thomas also had considerable overlap, I think it is asking a lot to put the eighth best first baseman of a fairly tight era into the HoF. It's the same argument, except even stronger, against Mattingly and Grace (who were also both far, far better than Kelly).
Agreed. That's why he's not in, and I'm not counting on him getting in later either.
@ReggieCleveland said:
I think the play now is to nab some 9s if they slide by cheap. The PSA 9s on the '87 Leafs have already started upward moving but I don't think the Tiffanys have done it yet.
The Canseco Tiffany, while still probably the toughest 10 in the Tiffany set, had the lowest pop for many years. When I was working on my worksheet in ~2014 there were only 20 PSA 10 Tiffany Cansecos. It's up to 41 now but it's still the only heavily-submitted card in the set that even comes close to me arbitrarily designated mark for condition sensitivity: 5% PSA 10 strike rate.
Public service announcement: Please, please, please be extra vigilant when buying a Tiffany set online. The overwhelming majority of the ones for sale have been searched and resealed, probably multiple times, and probably not by the current seller. Make sure you get clean pictures of EVERY side of the box, including the bottom, and do not buy any sets in boxes that show even the tiniest bit of wear.
Arthur
I’ve learned this the hard way. I just opened my third Tiffany sealed set I bought off eBay and the centering in all three was so bad as to be practically worthless.
@ReggieCleveland said:
I think the play now is to nab some 9s if they slide by cheap. The PSA 9s on the '87 Leafs have already started upward moving but I don't think the Tiffanys have done it yet.
The Canseco Tiffany, while still probably the toughest 10 in the Tiffany set, had the lowest pop for many years. When I was working on my worksheet in ~2014 there were only 20 PSA 10 Tiffany Cansecos. It's up to 41 now but it's still the only heavily-submitted card in the set that even comes close to me arbitrarily designated mark for condition sensitivity: 5% PSA 10 strike rate.
Public service announcement: Please, please, please be extra vigilant when buying a Tiffany set online. The overwhelming majority of the ones for sale have been searched and resealed, probably multiple times, and probably not by the current seller. Make sure you get clean pictures of EVERY side of the box, including the bottom, and do not buy any sets in boxes that show even the tiniest bit of wear.
Arthur
I’ve learned this the hard way. I just opened my third Tiffany sealed set I bought off eBay and the centering in all three was so bad as to be practically worthless.
Yeah, I wish folks would really put in the work to understand what they're dealing with and what they should be looking for. You can go many weeks on eBay without there being a SINGLE legitimately unopened and sealed Tiffany set listed on the site. I know everyone wants to be the one that got lucky and "this seller seems completely legit" but trust your eyes.
I'm saying that most of the resealed/searched sets were resealed/searched by someone other than the current seller. The seller you're talking to may be completely honest and just be a victim themselves. The way these prices are going up I hate seeing people ripped off.
I've been sending out this warning for at least a few years now.
@craig44 said:
there have been a number of 1986 Tiffany Bonds in psa 10 sell for between 13k and 16k
very strong prices
I know the '87 has been going between $5,000-$6,000, too.
I think the issue here is a much larger one that applies to this era of collecting: we need to re-calibrate what we think of "low pop" and, more importantly, what is a population report that is high enough that would prevent a card from reaching a market value of $500-$1,000.
I've long predicted the wave of hobby boom kids returning to the hobby as adults with disposable income and eagerly anticipating what that would do to the hobby. But we've seen much more than that. We've seen a perfect storm where a floodgate of new buyers have entered the market, yes, some as returning to the hobby they participated in their youth but also a serious contingent of Wall Street people who have seen the gains cards have brought over the last 30 years.
We've seen Wall Street make moves on the hobby before but they were always smaller, pump & dump moves because the amount of people involved was smaller. What we have now is an enormous amount of people from the financial sector entering with the intention of becoming seriously involved long-term. They're looking to educate themselves about the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of the market and, in turn, we're not seeing P&D activity reflected in the sales histories.
The fact that cards that just a year ago you could buy for $200 became $4,000 cards and have now settled into a $2,500 value is a good sign that what we're seeing is not a bubble. This is how everything behaved shortly after COVID hit: cards exploded and hit record highs. People, convinced this was the peak, put their own cards up for sale, which diluted the market and they sold out as fast as they could. Prices dropped a little due to market dilution.
Then it came roaring back. The card I bought for $150, which I was happy to sell for $700, is now worth $2,500. You can see the exact same activity with the '87 Topps Tiffanys. They scorched to the top and then fell back a little bit. Now they're breaking new ground again. Same with '87 Leaf and other sets from that period.
It's impossible for us to know what the actual demand is for a card. Are there 20 buyers, 200 buyers, 2,000 buyers? But we definitely need to stop looking at a card with a 1k PSA 10 count and think "there are more than enough to go around." Because there aren't. Not even close.
Comments
I strongly agree, but here's the thing: there are literally hundreds, maybe a thousand, of players who are definitely above some who have already been elected. If we were to put everyone in who is better than, say, High Pockets Kelly, we're bound to make mistakes. The "most similar" players to Kelly are Bob Watson, Frank McCormick, Bill White, Carl Furillo, and Bob Meusel. Are some or all of them better than Kelly? I don't know, but probably, but what if we enshrine one who isn't? Do we go through the whole process again?
The other point is that I rate McGriff the fifth best first baseman from the late '80s through the '90s who is not in the hall. Palmeiro, McGwire, Olerud and Clark were all better. I know there are off the field reasons why the first two are excluded. When you consider that Bagwell is already in and that Thome and Thomas also had considerable overlap, I think it is asking a lot to put the eighth best first baseman of a fairly tight era into the HoF. It's the same argument, except even stronger, against Mattingly and Grace (who were also both far, far better than Kelly).
True but this set being so terrible made the 86 Tiffany Traded set one of the best of the decade!
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
Agreed. That's why he's not in, and I'm not counting on him getting in later either.
I’ve learned this the hard way. I just opened my third Tiffany sealed set I bought off eBay and the centering in all three was so bad as to be practically worthless.
I’ve learned this the hard way. I just opened my third Tiffany sealed set I bought off eBay and the centering in all three was so bad as to be practically worthless.
Yeah, I wish folks would really put in the work to understand what they're dealing with and what they should be looking for. You can go many weeks on eBay without there being a SINGLE legitimately unopened and sealed Tiffany set listed on the site. I know everyone wants to be the one that got lucky and "this seller seems completely legit" but trust your eyes.
I'm saying that most of the resealed/searched sets were resealed/searched by someone other than the current seller. The seller you're talking to may be completely honest and just be a victim themselves. The way these prices are going up I hate seeing people ripped off.
I've been sending out this warning for at least a few years now.
Arthur
Good take.. interesting
How can 85 K. Puckett not be on the list.. Sweet looking card too.