Tell me if you agree with this strategy....
theump
Posts: 634 ✭✭
Back in the early to mid 80's I used to collect heavily for about 10 years. I had a lot of crap but had some nice cards as well. When I got married in 1992 (yes, I am old) I pretty much piecemealed my collection out over the period of about a year. I did pretty well. Now keep in mind this was way before the day of graded cards.
Anywho, flash forward to about last year when I decided to tip my toe back in the hobby, and I do mean tip. I started buying cards of stars "who could one day" be something. Nothing major just buying cheap numbered cards (i.e. 3/5, etc.) whenever I see them. Nothing that could hurt me if (when?) these players don't make it.
I refuse to put up the RIDICULOUS prices of the big money cards. In fact, this past summer, I spent $45 at Walmart on some Dunruss 2021 and maybe got $3 worth of cards. Never again.
Ok, here is the strategy.
I was on Wall Street for 28 years (enjoyed 18 of those years, but that's another story) trading my own money and being a financial advisor. I had found over those 28 years, I would buy the stuff nobody wanted but I thought that had value. I am slowly taking that strategy into card collecting. I have been picking up any PSA (or equivalent) graded card from the 60's up until the early 80's of at least a PSA 7. (I try to buy at least PSA 8) I'm talking paying around $5, $6, Obviously the higher the grade, the higher the cost.
I have not gone crazy and I compare prices. I just feel this is an extremely undervalued part of the market. Here I am buying high grade cards that, IMO, have no where to go but up. And, if I'm wrong, my expenditure is not that great. But, I think hockey and basketball cards are way undervalued compared to baseball.
To date the most expensive card I have purchased is a 1971 Topps (2nd Year) Bobby Clarke PSA 8 for $50.
Am I wrong thinking this way?
Comments
Not clear if you are buying stars or commons (other than Clarke, of course). In any event, there is no wrong way to collect.
If you are not collecting but attempting to invest, remember that the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
Thanks,
Remember I was on wall street for 28 years, I have the scars of those irrational battles.
I do not buy graded cards, but I do spend a lot of time on eBay checking out cards from the late 60's and early 70's. Here's my opinion.
1) There are no graded cards that are "equivalent" to PSA. They sell for the most and are the easiest to unload. Stick to PSA graded cards only if you're viewing it as an investment.
2) Stick to stars and HOFers only. Graded PSA 7 and 8 commons from 1969 (for example) are worth jack squat. I've seen many 7's get no bids with an $8 starting bid and many 8's that get no bids at $12 a pop. No one wants to pay $8 to $12 for a card of Casey Cox just because it's graded.
3) Hockey and basketball cards are undervalued because those sports are not as popular as baseball and football. No one wants commons from those sports because so few people are actively collecting hockey and basketball sets. Stars and HOFers. maybe, but does anyone really want a graded card of Henry Finkel?
4) "Here I am buying high grade cards that, IMO, have no where to go but up." Wrong, they can go down, especially if the economy tanks. Anyone who buys sports cards with the theory that cheap cards have nowhere to go but up will lose a lot of money in the long run.
Just my opinion on the subject...
I guess my point was, if the market goes down, I'm not gonna get hurt. I am plenty aware of how markets work. But, it's not like I'm spending tens or hundreds of thousands on modern cards, which I think will get CRUSHED in a economic turn down.
And I respectfully disagree on with your opinion on hockey and basketball cards. Just take a look at Soccer and WNBA cards. (But, yes, for those two sports, stars are on the move.)
It's a great strategy!
Buying low is never a bad idea.
I agree with this (and with your strategy). Modern cards will be vintage cards some day and, IMO, most of them are visually hideous and the gimmicks that make them so - refractors, etc. - will give way either to some other hideous gimmick or, if there is a God, back to actual, you know, baseball cards. I don't expect a 1969 Casey Cox to make you rich, but I expect it to hold its value better than some shiny, purple, numbered, plastic-coated card of someone considered a "star" today but who will be no more famous than Casey Cox in the long run.
/end old man rant
Actuary- I don’t know. Don’t throw refractors under the bus. Modern prizm silvers, purple, blue, you name it, sure. But 1993-2010 finest and chrome refractors have produced some of the most iconic cards in the hobby.
93 finest Griffey refractor
96 chrome Kobe refractor
98 chrome Manning refractor
Etc etc. iconic, beautiful, condition sensitive. They will remain highly desirable.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
stick to stars/HOF. If you buy commons you will only have set collectors as potential buyers. with stars/hofers you can sell to both set and player collectors.
stick to PSA if your intent is to sell. more valuable and more liquid.
I agree that basketball/football is undervalued. football is americas game and basketball is global.
thats my 2c
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Agree on all points
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
I used to be a "value" player when it came to graded cards, but in reality the extra money I spent on a PSA 10 or PSA 9 cards have brought an exponentially higher returns than buying value.
I started doing a 1980's BB to Ken Griffey Jr RC collection in PSA 9. I read an article about Barry Hapler, and even though he was a fraud, he had good advice about buying the best quality items you can afford. I sold off what I had and started doing them in PSA 10. It cost me more money initially but in the long run the PSA 10 values increased much faster and greater than PSA 9.
I might adjust to a HIGHER LIQUIDITY strategy with lower graded HOF'er s ~ say PSA 3, 4, 5's ... instead of buying no name Choo Choo Coleman PSA 8's for example.... by buying no names you are really relying on set collectors to bail you out ~ a well centered Willie Mays in a PSA 4.5 is much more marketable IMO. I'd also stay away from qualifiers of any grade unless its a ultra rare card. Good Luck.
The way I see it, just collect what you like…
…this way if the market tanks, you still have something that you like.
Simple but effective. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I would rather not give advice. You need to decide what purpose your collecting serves. And by that I mean is the expectation to make $$$ as an investment or just assemble baseball cards the capture MLB as it was for the time. Having a Wall Street background, you obviously have models and methods to evaluate value. Look at the prices of recent auctions and the type of cards that are bringing record prices. Ask yourself if this is sustainable.
If you have a significant interest in the history of MLB and plan to collect what was representative and reflective of the times, that is a collecting strategy that is different from an investment strategy. And it may not work out well given the mindset that exists in collecting. There are several excellent players and their cards are treated as commons- let me use two examples... The 1953 topps Rookie Card for Bill Bruton has virtually zero premium... And another is the 1957 topps Walker Cooper which was his last season. Everyone knows who Mantle and Williams were. The sad reality is there was significant talent that has been reduced to a footnote instead of a rightful place in the recognition of how the game developed and changed. Another example... cards of players like Smoky Burgess and Manny Mota- two the best pinch hitters in the game but most of their cards are treated as commons- some of the early Burgess cards do have some value but not what I would anticipate. There are some collectors that look for underrated and/or forgotten players, but I have no confidence that this style of collecting will catch on. There are the cards of players like Bruton, Luke Easter and Hank Thompson that should eventually develop greater interest and support... and that may happen should the valuations of Page and Robinson cards remain high.
Best of luck with whatever path you choose to follow
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Coinkat's post touches on something I've wondered about: how much cards of popular players who are neither Hall of Famers nor near-HOFers will hold up as their fans die off. To pick just one example, Mark Fidrych's rookie card in PSA 10 averages $3049, but he was only a 29-19 pitcher with just over 400 innings -- can that card really hold its value relative to 1977 Topps PSA 10 commons 20+ years from now? (I realize the original poster might not be looking to hold on to something for that long.) That Fidrych card is almost exactly 100x the value of the average 1977 common card in PSA 10. By comparison, an earlier guy with a similar career trajectory, Herb Score, has his 1956 rookie card in PSA 9 (there are no PSA 10's) at around $1150, whereas commons for 1956 are around $200, so that's just 6x. (By comparison, the best 1956 rookie card, Luis Aparicio, averages around $4800 in PSA 9, so 24x.) His next card is $700 in PSA 9, compared to about $200 for 1957 commons, so his cards do have more demand than commons, and no doubt always will, but they probably will not gain much in value relative to the rest of the set. Similarly, in 20+ years won't Fidrych's rookie card be much closer to 6x?
Just to show off, here's the 1956 Score I, uhm, scored 30+ years ago, which unfortunately is probably no higher than a PSA 5:
Bruton is a decidedly strange example to illustrate your point, which is a good one. Bruton wasn't even considered excellent in his time, though, getting a grand total of 1 HoF vote, the same as Barry Zito got last year, and zero All Star appearances.
@daltex
Thanks for recognizing the point...
Bruton was a good player. He lead the NL in stolen bases for three straight years 1953-55. He was a good hitter- not close to HOF numbers- but 102 career triples which places him above several HOF players of his era. had speed and excellent athletic ability. Keep in mind that he was 27 in his rookie season with the Braves in 1953. You correct in that he was never selected as an All-Star, but that should not diminish his accomplishments. Look at the competition in term of who selected during the height of his playing career. The players I referenced have been overlooked. These players are part of the game. Their stats in part illustrate the level of competition that existed and elevate other players. We can and should recognize and appreciate the.
As for another overlooked player, add Andy Pafko to the list. Most of his cards are overlooked as well -with exception of the 1952 topps which is topps #1 when he was with the Brooklyn Dodgers. While his best seasons were with the Cubs, he was a teammate of Bruton in Milwaukee.
My point is there there are cards of many players that deserve and warrant attention that simply have no chance at being in the HOF or even had a strong enough following to be selected as an All-Star. They are part of the game that is of equal importance if the history of MLB is going to be accurately recorded... its about more than stats or the HOF. There is something to be said about what is difficult to measure or quantify which is the determination, leadership, contributions and natural ability of many players that at best is a vibrant memory for those that experienced and followed the game... And at worst... has been forgotten or reduced to a footnote that is ignored.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat I think you're missing my point about Bruton. My point is that there are dozens of really good players from any era who are forgotten, but Bruton really isn't one of them. So of the years that Bruton was active, 1953 to 1964, Bruton was second in triples and fourth in stolen bases. But neither number is historically high. He's tied for 337th all time in stolen bases, just behind Billy Doran and Jerry Remy and just ahead of Damaso Garcia and Rodney Scott. I'd wager you'd find all four of those players in the commons boxes. With triples he's tied for 157th with Juan Samuel, just behind Gary Templeton and just ahead of Larry Bowa.
If I were to compare Bruton to a current player, I'd do the following: note that Bruton was a poor hitter, an above average, but not great, centerfielder, and a very good baserunner. So if you take Kevin Kiermaier on offense and AJ Pollock on defense, you'll have someone very close. Unfortunately, he'd be hanging out in the cmmons box, if there is such a thing these days.
Better to consider Joe Adcock or Ray Boone from the 1960 Braves and Norm Cash, Frank Lary, or Vic Wertz from the 1961 Tigers. Note that I omit Colavito and Freehan from the latter team because there is some slight mention of them being considered for the HoF.
My point is that there are a ton of players who were stars in their day, but have become commons now, and there is no need to stretch it to as marginal a player as Bruton.
Just an addendum to my post up above...
I've been studying prices for 1962 Topps, since I've returned to trying to put together a G/VG set I began when I was around 20 (about 30 years ago), and I noticed something in the high number series of rookie cards, #591-598 (which each combine 4-5 rookies). Here are the PSA 9 prices for the priciest ones: Bob Uecker ($4500), Jim Hickman ($3000), Joe Pepitone ($1750), Sam McDowell ($1500), Jim Bouton ($850). (The cheapest of those eight cards are in the $300-$350 range, for comparison.) As memory of Bob Uecker fades, will his card really be 1.5x Hickman's and 3x McDowell's? Yes, I know Uecker's in the Hall of Fame as a beloved broadcaster, but how many people collect cards of retired major leaguers who made the Hall that way? Personally, if I were investing/speculating in 1962 cards over the long term, I'd sell my Uecker and buy a Hickman and a McDowell, or three McDowells...
I'll add that the original poster may wish to look at these 1962 high series cards, both the rookies and the Bob Gibson.
Future generations may still see films like "Major League" or on Nostalgia type TV channels view repeats of Mr. Belvedere.
Not to mention "Just a bit outside" is part of Pop Culture lexicon.
No offense to Jim Hickman or Sam McDowell but they simply don't have the same legacy as Uecker and that's the reason they are 1/3 "the value"
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0879902/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
You may be correct, more about "Major League" than "Mr. Belvedere" being known in future decades.
We can probably agree that Joe Garagiola cards might not be the best long-term investment.
I don’t think the difference between Uecker and Hickman is anywhere near as important as whether or not registry set collecting remains popular going forward. That’s the main thing that bolsters the values of non superstar cards in high grade.