I am not saying you thinking that this market will correct itself is incorrect, MisterTim. My point is that all your posts I have read have been very critical of people and their collecting desires. We all spend our money on things which we enjoy. I don't think collectors appreciate being scolded or being corrected by someone who is not in the market. You are free to have your opinion, though.
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
When you went to the National in Chicago until a few years ago there was on display the foremost Hummel collection in the world. They since moved it to a strip mall in Rosemont down the street. That collection is worth a fraction of what it cost the collector to put together.
Exactly. I know collectibles and so many hobbies are dead and buried. Stamp collecting, Avon collectibles, milk glass, Noritake china, limited edition collector plates and so on. Baseball cards were dead and buried after the 1994 strike and it can happen again. I used to have at least 20 card shops in my area back then. I think there might be one or two now. That part of the hobby never came back.
Bottom line, buy for the fun of it and not as an investment. Don't think you're going to put your kids through college with the huge profits you're going to make in 10 or 20 years. Could happen, but it could also go bust in a blink of an eye. Nothing turns collectors off faster than lockouts and strikes. Hard to relate to athetes whining that 20 mil a year isn't enough to play a child' game. Or billionaire owners trying to keep as much of the profits as possible because they need anothe yacht. Very easy to sour the fans when you pull that garbage.
One thing I will never get about our beloved hobby of collecting cards (or anything else for that matter) is the extent of the fixation many have on the monetary aspect. I'm not even talking about guys fixated on the value of what they themselves collect. While value is not even in the top handful of things I think of when looking at my own cards, I do get the psychological impulse in some to want their cards to be worth money, more than they paid; I do think what myopically gets lost in rooting for that is the double-edged aspect, in that as your cards rise, so will the price of things on your want list.
Yet what I mean in this post is how often we see threads of guys focusing on what other guys are buying, and what others' cards will be worth in years to come, sometimes in decades to some. There are modern guys who hate vintage. Vintage guys who hate modern. Prewar guys who hate both. Collectors who hate Registry guys. Investors who hate collectors. Sports guys who hate Pokemon guys. And every other permutation and vector of vitriol possible. Man oh man, it's a lot of vitriol flying around the collecting universe.
Sure, there are things I certainly prefer and others I don't like for my own collection: for example I prefer cards that are valuable even in super low grades, as they have more intrinsic value in my eye than a card whose value is all in its subjective grade; I prefer signed vintage, as its rarity is created by the athlete having signed it, again as opposed to what some grader felt on a given day. Yet I'm not out to waste my time trying to change minds and get people to collect what I like. It's certainly a fine line, yet we can share cards and our reasons for liking what we each collect without seeking to evangelize or proselytize. Comparing future values of cards I don't own or care to own, it seems a useless and fruitless endeavor to me, yet it's probably the most ubiquitous topic on every platform that offers card discussions. This is a good investment. That isn't. This will be worth more in twenty years than that. Who knows and more importantly, who cares? Just collect what floats your boat. To me, a collection is more like a mix tape or playlist than it is a stock portfolio. There will be songs on your playlist others know and love, songs others know and dislike, and songs few besides yourself have ever heard— and maybe they love the song, too, when they learn of it from your playlist.
When one plunks big money for whatever budget down on a collectible, is it nice to think the item will hold value or increase in the event one has to sell? Sure. And at least in the vintage and pre war card space, the great news is they almost always will hold a good chunk of their value. Whether it is a condition rarity or a pinholed POOR grade e107 Mathewson.
That said, I've found it's even better to think of cards as a luxury good akin to a suit or car or what have you that is spent money on something that simply provides enjoyment when owned. Then the value aspect is just gravy if one ever has to sell.
I get that some use cards as purely financial instruments, to be flipped for profits just like a day trader moves stocks. But even those day trader types are about the stocks they own or care to own. Bottom line, if you wouldn't like a card as a collector or pure investor then why waste a breath even talking or typing about it? I just wasted a few minutes typing this I realize, but I've got bananas jet lag and time to kill.
@mintonlypls said:
Any idea what a 1971 Ryan PSA-9 would fetch? Memory Lane has one up for auction starting February 5th...I am interested!
I sold mine at auction a few months back, it went for like 16k. Was a solid 9, too, that merited the grade. I thought it would've gone higher but I guess it just isn't low pop like the Munson 9 to achieve a higher sale point, and so there are enough Ryan 9s to keep the prices at that 16k-ish level.
When you went to the National in Chicago until a few years ago there was on display the foremost Hummel collection in the world. They since moved it to a strip mall in Rosemont down the street. That collection is worth a fraction of what it cost the collector to put together.
Exactly. I know collectibles and so many hobbies are dead and buried. Stamp collecting, Avon collectibles, milk glass, Noritake china, limited edition collector plates and so on. Baseball cards were dead and buried after the 1994 strike and it can happen again. I used to have at least 20 card shops in my area back then. I think there might be one or two now. That part of the hobby never came back.
Bottom line, buy for the fun of it and not as an investment. Don't think you're going to put your kids through college with the huge profits you're going to make in 10 or 20 years. Could happen, but it could also go bust in a blink of an eye. Nothing turns collectors off faster than lockouts and strikes. Hard to relate to athetes whining that 20 mil a year isn't enough to play a child' game. Or billionaire owners trying to keep as much of the profits as possible because they need anothe yacht. Very easy to sour the fans when you pull that garbage.
Baseball cards never died. They evolved. In the 1980s/early 1990's card shows, 95% of sales of vintage HOF cards from pre-1980 were Ex/Mt and below. What happened is that those types of sales died. People stopped paying the 'Beckett going rate' for a 1978 Eddie Murray rookie card.
The reality was that 95% of those Murray's were EX/MT(when considering centering too), except people didn't care as long as it wasn't creased or roughed up, so they paid the Beckett price because Beckett was the Bible, and true high grade cards were extremely difficult to find at card shows...so EX/MT was really the norm.
Grading and the internet changed all of that to what it is now. In the early 1990's at the 'height' of the craze, a raw EX/MT Murray RC was a $40-$50 card. I use that card as an example because I was specifically looking for a centered one with sharp corners at that time as he solidified his HOF resume. That same Ex/Mt card is a $15 card on Ebay now. So yes, that type of card sale died, and an Ex/Mt Murray rookie is as common as a snot in a Kindergartners' nose.
Baseball card collecting didn't die after 1994, but like in the 1990's, you can still buy card that may go down in value now. I was still selling raw Canseco rookies on Ebay in 1999 for north of $50. Raw McGwire rookies in 1999 were on fire and over $100 for centered examples. I was looking through every 1985 Topps set I had to find centered ones at that time.
I sold all those, including tons of player lots of 1980's HOF type players, and used that money to buy a good amount of pre-war Ruth's etc. So the prices were strong enough still into the late 90's for mass produced 1980's cards to finance some elite purchases that were 'underpriced'.
The market overall is as strong as ever. I would say even stronger.
A HOF 1 of 1 rookie seems pretty rare. 1971 is a very popular issue also. I do agree $138,000 seems to be a high amount. But back in 1990 ( I collected then too) everyone would laugh at you if you told them how much basketball and football cards sell for now. Especially the newer ones.
I bought a 1958 Jim Brown PSA 5 7 years ago for $200. Now they sale for nearly $3,000. 10 years from now the Blyleven may be worth twice that much.
@olb31 said:
A HOF 1 of 1 rookie seems pretty rare. 1971 is a very popular issue also. I do agree $138,000 seems to be a high amount. But back in 1990 ( I collected then too) everyone would laugh at you if you told them how much basketball and football cards sell for now. Especially the newer ones.
I bought a 1958 Jim Brown PSA 5 7 years ago for $200. Now they sale for nearly $3,000. 10 years from now the Blyleven may be worth twice that much.
Blyleven ain't the Jim Brown of Baseball but to a 71 collector with deep pockets it is 1/1. Even if today it would grade a 9 at absolute best.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@sayheywyo said:
The Blyleven is from the Dmitri Young Collection. Heritage sold it 11 months ago for 55K. From my observations it seems that Heritage has a strong customer base since they auction the same card multiple times over the years. My only reservation concerning these prices is: who's buying it down the road once all the boomers are gone...... Gen Z? Millennials?
As brad31 said...... congrats to the buyer, had the means and got it.
The recent price explosion is just crazy to me. My strategy is to sit tight and watch my collection increase in value. On the down side I cannot display some of my best cards now and my display cabinets are lockable. > @sayheywyo said:
The Blyleven is from the Dmitri Young Collection. Heritage sold it 11 months ago for 55K. From my observations it seems that Heritage has a strong customer base since they auction the same card multiple times over the years. My only reservation concerning these prices is: who's buying it down the road once all the boomers are gone...... Gen Z? Millennials?
As brad31 said...... congrats to the buyer, had the means and got it.
Thanks for the Dmitri info, I was unaware. Provenance does help in this case, but only to a degree.
That would hurt to sell for 55K last year. 55K for a Blyleven rookie still blows my mind. That's moon money for a non star player.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Blyleven is a HOFer, pop 1 of 1 psa 10 rookie. Trout's destiny is yet to be determined. The last year and a half hasn't looked to good for induction into the Hall. Dale Murphy was a great player. I loved him, still do. But i wouldn't spend 3 mill on his rookie. Is trout really any better than Murphy? Remember Murphy played on TBS and Trout is playing on PBS.
Something else to consider in the Trout/Blyleven card debate is that Bert's cards (especially RC) was produced in a time when baseball cards were played with and damaged, where as Trout's RC was made in a time when cards were seen as more collectible/investable, therefore, most of the cards are still in great condition. Plus Bert's are 40 years older than Trout's, so there's more opportunity for those to get damaged. By no way am I trying to compare their careers
@olb31 said:
how many on here have paid thousands for trout? i think one sold for millions, right.
Agreed but Trout is an Iconic MVP caliber player. Something that never has or ever will be said of Blyleven.
Blyleven is in the top three pitchers of his approximate era. Not as good as Seaver, about as good as Niekro. He was really good for a very long time and there were a few seasons of true excellence. Not iconic because people don't understand situational factors.
@olb31 said:
Blyleven is a HOFer, pop 1 of 1 psa 10 rookie. Trout's destiny is yet to be determined. The last year and a half hasn't looked to good for induction into the Hall. Dale Murphy was a great player. I loved him, still do. But i wouldn't spend 3 mill on his rookie. Is trout really any better than Murphy? Remember Murphy played on TBS and Trout is playing on PBS.
Mike Trout is a first ballot Hall of Famer if he never plays again. Understand that Trout is ALREADY number 5 on the list of Centerfielders in JAWS, behind only Mays, Cobb, Speaker, and Mantle. Only DiMaggio and Griffey are higher in career WAR, but they had much lower peaks. So a better question is "Is Trout really any better than Griffey?" to which my answer is still "Yes", already. As I said in another thread, I feel bad for all you people missing a chance to see an all-time great.
Oh, and I'd much rather have a high grade 1971 than a modern manufactured rarity.
@olb31 said:
how many on here have paid thousands for trout? i think one sold for millions, right.
Agreed but Trout is an Iconic MVP caliber player. Something that never has or ever will be said of Blyleven.
Blyleven is in the top three pitchers of his approximate era. Not as good as Seaver, about as good as Niekro. He was really good for a very long time and there were a few seasons of true excellence. Not iconic because people don't understand situational factors.
Don't forget to add that Blyleven is also a 2-time World Series Champion. Something Trout will never even sniff.
Also, let's not forget that we still don't have clarification on just exactly what Trout's involvement was in the Tyler Skaggs situation. The lawsuits keep getting delayed, MLB and the Angels have been ignoring subpoenas for communications, and the media seems to have subverted the story. We know there was a "Fentanyl Five", but somehow those names haven't leaked, yet we know every steroid user, ever? Give me a break. Also, just whose idea was it to launder the drug payments through the sale of Trout memorabilia, and how was that memorabilia procured? Just how many oxy pills will a Mike Trout autograph, get you, by the way?
Blyleven is in the top three pitchers of his approximate era.
Not by a long shot. Ever hear of Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Steve Calton, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton and so on? Blyleven was mediocre, at best. Lifetime record of 287-250. Perfect example of a mediocre pitcher.
If you have to convince people that someone was a great player they were not a great player. Just like setting your friend up with hot date. If she is that hot she does not need help getting a date 😉
Blyleven is in the top three pitchers of his approximate era.
Not by a long shot. Ever hear of Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Steve Calton, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton and so on? Blyleven was mediocre, at best. Lifetime record of 287-250. Perfect example of a mediocre pitcher.
I hope my son can have a mediocre career and only win 287 MLB games and win two world series's. And be 5th all-time in strikeouts.
@countdouglas said:
Also, let's not forget that we still don't have clarification on just exactly what Trout's involvement was in the Tyler Skaggs situation. The lawsuits keep getting delayed, MLB and the Angels have been ignoring subpoenas for communications, and the media seems to have subverted the story. We know there was a "Fentanyl Five", but somehow those names haven't leaked, yet we know every steroid user, ever? Give me a break. Also, just whose idea was it to launder the drug payments through the sale of Trout memorabilia, and how was that memorabilia procured? Just how many oxy pills will a Mike Trout autograph, get you, by the way?
Anyone that attends the Frank & Sons shows has heard about the Trout memorabilia that was offered to many dealers.
Blyleven is in the top three pitchers of his approximate era.
Not by a long shot. Ever hear of Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Steve Calton, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton and so on? Blyleven was mediocre, at best. Lifetime record of 287-250. Perfect example of a mediocre pitcher.
no, no, no. Blyleven was a fantastic pitcher. for a really long time.
please lets not use wins as a metric to measure pitchers by. we are far beyond that at this point.
@countdouglas said:
Also, let's not forget that we still don't have clarification on just exactly what Trout's involvement was in the Tyler Skaggs situation. The lawsuits keep getting delayed, MLB and the Angels have been ignoring subpoenas for communications, and the media seems to have subverted the story. We know there was a "Fentanyl Five", but somehow those names haven't leaked, yet we know every steroid user, ever? Give me a break. Also, just whose idea was it to launder the drug payments through the sale of Trout memorabilia, and how was that memorabilia procured? Just how many oxy pills will a Mike Trout autograph, get you, by the way?
I have heard about taylor skaggs of course, but I am completely unaware of the other stuff. was trout involved somehow?
I have heard the HGH allegations against Trout, but this is new to me. could you explain to the best of your knowledge what happened?
thanks!
In other messages, Kay appeared to try to make sure the pills weren’t laced with fentanyl, and offered to trade one alleged dealer a baseball signed by Angels superstar Mike Trout. “We Dodgers fans my boi lol,” responded the alleged dealer, whom the prosecutors referred to as “Sharky.”
I think linking Trout to this because Kay could get him to autograph a baseball and calling that memorabilia is a stretch. If there is more out there please post a link.
I hope my son can have a mediocre career and only win 287 MLB games and win two world series's. And be 5th all-time in strikeouts.
He played 22 years, which is why he had that many wins. His 287-250 numbers works out to having a 13-11 record every season. As I stated before, he had a mediocre career.
Blyleven is in the top three pitchers of his approximate era.
Not by a long shot. Ever hear of Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Steve Calton, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton and so on? Blyleven was mediocre, at best. Lifetime record of 287-250. Perfect example of a mediocre pitcher.
I don't consider Gibson in the same approximate era. He and Carlton are not too far behind Blyleven, but when you have to go to Sutton it just shows how poorly Blyleven was understood.
It's really sad to see people ignore greatness because it's not sexy.
All I know is I never got excited because I got a Bert Blyleven card in my pack! I was always more impressed with Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, Mel Stottlemyre and a few others. No kid ever said "Oh no, the Red Sox are facing Bert Blyleven today!" Sorry, but he just wasn't that impressive or feared by anyone.
@MisterTim1962 said:
All I know is I never got excited because I got a Bert Blyleven card in my pack! I was always more impressed with Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, Mel Stottlemyre and a few others. No kid ever said "Oh no, the Red Sox are facing Bert Blyleven today!" Sorry, but he just wasn't that impressive or feared by anyone.
He had one of the best curve balls I've ever seen. That thing broke from behind the hitter's back to the outside corner and they weren't soft tossed. The main reason his record wasn't better is he spent most of his peak years pitching for the lowly Twins and Rangers. People didn't fear him because the offenses they were facing were so bad.
For the life of me, I cannot understand the 71 Topps Stargell PSA 9 (pop. 21, one 10) selling for more than 10X the amount the exact same card (yes, it had the exact same cert #) sold for recently ($21,600 a few days ago v. $1,920 last May). The previous high mark for this card was $2,938 last March. With a pop. of 21, others will surely come up for sale in the near future so how does a drastic price increase like this happen? I have a 74 OPC Stargell PSA 9 (pop. 1, no 10's); really makes me wonder what it might fetch in an auction!
I see so much shock about Blyleven but is this any worse than buying a card of a guy who has played a few years, or even less, for 20K+? At least Blyleven had a long successful career , mediocre in Hall of Fame terms can be debated but he did have a pretty successful career overall.
@beachbumcollecting said:
I see so much shock about Blyleven but is this any worse than buying a card of a guy who has played a few years, or even less, for 20K+? At least Blyleven had a long successful career , mediocre in Hall of Fame terms can be debated but he did have a pretty successful career overall.
Saying a 20K+ card doesn't paint the correct pitcher. It went for 138K, fricking moon money.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I hope my son can have a mediocre career and only win 287 MLB games and win two world series's. And be 5th all-time in strikeouts.
He played 22 years, which is why he had that many wins. His 287-250 numbers works out to having a 13-11 record every season. As I stated before, he had a mediocre career.
Look you can disagree whether or not he's a Hall of Famer or not but to call him a mediocre pitcher is #@%$..
Geezz..
Good pitcher with a very good career.
I watched him his whole era..
Your 74 would fetch lots if you, your buddies and the auction house all bid it up. Key that strategy is having multiple copies.
@reelinintheyears said:
For the life of me, I cannot understand the 71 Topps Stargell PSA 9 (pop. 21, one 10) selling for more than 10X the amount the exact same card (yes, it had the exact same cert #) sold for recently ($21,600 a few days ago v. $1,920 last May). The previous high mark for this card was $2,938 last March. With a pop. of 21, others will surely come up for sale in the near future so how does a drastic price increase like this happen? I have a 74 OPC Stargell PSA 9 (pop. 1, no 10's); really makes me wonder what it might fetch in an auction!
I hope my son can have a mediocre career and only win 287 MLB games and win two world series's. And be 5th all-time in strikeouts.
He played 22 years, which is why he had that many wins. His 287-250 numbers works out to having a 13-11 record every season. As I stated before, he had a mediocre career.
Even ignoring all the problems with using Wins as a measurement, that 13-11(.541 WP%) average for Blyevlen equates to 87.5 wins for a team in a season. Mediocre would be 81 wins. > @MisterTim1962 said:
All I know is I never got excited because I got a Bert Blyleven card in my pack! I was always more impressed with Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, Mel Stottlemyre and a few others. No kid ever said "Oh no, the Red Sox are facing Bert Blyleven today!" Sorry, but he just wasn't that impressive or feared by anyone.
I'm positive a lot of RH hitters in MLB felt quite differently than what you are saying. The results also prove that out...because MLB hitters did not hit him very well.
So even if he was 'feared' or not in the minds of fans, he was HOF worthy effective against MLB batters. Whether or not his teammates were effective enough for the team to win the game is irrelevant in regard to how good a pitcher Blyleven was.
Well most of his comments seem to stir the pot, that's for sure..
I'll leave it at that.. Lol
I'm sorry, but paying 138k for a Bert Blyleven card seems insane to me. For that much money, you could buy some actual game used HOFer items. Game used bat, uniform or even a game used glove, depending on the player. That would be a much better investment long term.
Here's a game used Ty Cobb bat (PSA authenticated) for $85,000! The guy who bought the Blyleven card could have bought an actual game used bat of probably the best hitter of all time. Plus, he'd have another 53k to spend on something else!
I hope my son can have a mediocre career and only win 287 MLB games and win two world series's. And be 5th all-time in strikeouts.
He played 22 years, which is why he had that many wins. His 287-250 numbers works out to having a 13-11 record every season. As I stated before, he had a mediocre career.
It seems sometimes players are "penalized" for longevity in a career.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
I hope my son can have a mediocre career and only win 287 MLB games and win two world series's. And be 5th all-time in strikeouts.
He played 22 years, which is why he had that many wins. His 287-250 numbers works out to having a 13-11 record every season. As I stated before, he had a mediocre career.
It seems sometimes players are "penalized" for longevity in a career.
Well, yes. How much better would Griffey's reputation have been if he'd retired after the 2000 season, or Pujols if he'd retired rather than sign with the Angels, or at least after 2015? Very few can be like Mike Schmidt and hang it up as soon is it's obvious they don't have it anymore.
At least truly embarrassing late career detours are ignored (Killebrew in Kansas City, Mays with the Mets, Ruth with the Braves, too many more to mention.)
I am not old enough to have watched but Mays went 2 for 7 with a run and an RBI in the ‘73 Series after going 1 for 3 in the NLCS. Unless he made some kind of fielding gaffe seems like he helped the Mets in the postseason. In playing with the Mets he came back to end his career where he started (in New York), likely in front of many who watched him play with the Giants.
In ‘72 while playing for the Mets he had an .848 OPS.
I just remember him fielding a ball in the outfield and tossing it to another outfielder to throw it in to the infield. I guess his arm was totally shot by then.
@MisterTim1962 said:
I haven't collected much in the last 20 years, but have been selling my cards on eBay since 1999. I sold the last of my collection probably around five years ago. I have been here many times over the years, but never created an account or posted anything. I do know what I'm talking about and do see what's coming.
The same thing happened in crypto and the stock market. People are blindly buying with the thought that their investment will only go up in value. Doesn't work that way. We've had a crypto correction and now a stock market correction.
Do you think it won't happen in the sports card market as well? Just my take on the current investment mania that has taken over this hobby...
Comments
I am not saying you thinking that this market will correct itself is incorrect, MisterTim. My point is that all your posts I have read have been very critical of people and their collecting desires. We all spend our money on things which we enjoy. I don't think collectors appreciate being scolded or being corrected by someone who is not in the market. You are free to have your opinion, though.
Exactly. I know collectibles and so many hobbies are dead and buried. Stamp collecting, Avon collectibles, milk glass, Noritake china, limited edition collector plates and so on. Baseball cards were dead and buried after the 1994 strike and it can happen again. I used to have at least 20 card shops in my area back then. I think there might be one or two now. That part of the hobby never came back.
Bottom line, buy for the fun of it and not as an investment. Don't think you're going to put your kids through college with the huge profits you're going to make in 10 or 20 years. Could happen, but it could also go bust in a blink of an eye. Nothing turns collectors off faster than lockouts and strikes. Hard to relate to athetes whining that 20 mil a year isn't enough to play a child' game. Or billionaire owners trying to keep as much of the profits as possible because they need anothe yacht. Very easy to sour the fans when you pull that garbage.
One thing I will never get about our beloved hobby of collecting cards (or anything else for that matter) is the extent of the fixation many have on the monetary aspect. I'm not even talking about guys fixated on the value of what they themselves collect. While value is not even in the top handful of things I think of when looking at my own cards, I do get the psychological impulse in some to want their cards to be worth money, more than they paid; I do think what myopically gets lost in rooting for that is the double-edged aspect, in that as your cards rise, so will the price of things on your want list.
Yet what I mean in this post is how often we see threads of guys focusing on what other guys are buying, and what others' cards will be worth in years to come, sometimes in decades to some. There are modern guys who hate vintage. Vintage guys who hate modern. Prewar guys who hate both. Collectors who hate Registry guys. Investors who hate collectors. Sports guys who hate Pokemon guys. And every other permutation and vector of vitriol possible. Man oh man, it's a lot of vitriol flying around the collecting universe.
Sure, there are things I certainly prefer and others I don't like for my own collection: for example I prefer cards that are valuable even in super low grades, as they have more intrinsic value in my eye than a card whose value is all in its subjective grade; I prefer signed vintage, as its rarity is created by the athlete having signed it, again as opposed to what some grader felt on a given day. Yet I'm not out to waste my time trying to change minds and get people to collect what I like. It's certainly a fine line, yet we can share cards and our reasons for liking what we each collect without seeking to evangelize or proselytize. Comparing future values of cards I don't own or care to own, it seems a useless and fruitless endeavor to me, yet it's probably the most ubiquitous topic on every platform that offers card discussions. This is a good investment. That isn't. This will be worth more in twenty years than that. Who knows and more importantly, who cares? Just collect what floats your boat. To me, a collection is more like a mix tape or playlist than it is a stock portfolio. There will be songs on your playlist others know and love, songs others know and dislike, and songs few besides yourself have ever heard— and maybe they love the song, too, when they learn of it from your playlist.
When one plunks big money for whatever budget down on a collectible, is it nice to think the item will hold value or increase in the event one has to sell? Sure. And at least in the vintage and pre war card space, the great news is they almost always will hold a good chunk of their value. Whether it is a condition rarity or a pinholed POOR grade e107 Mathewson.
That said, I've found it's even better to think of cards as a luxury good akin to a suit or car or what have you that is spent money on something that simply provides enjoyment when owned. Then the value aspect is just gravy if one ever has to sell.
I get that some use cards as purely financial instruments, to be flipped for profits just like a day trader moves stocks. But even those day trader types are about the stocks they own or care to own. Bottom line, if you wouldn't like a card as a collector or pure investor then why waste a breath even talking or typing about it? I just wasted a few minutes typing this I realize, but I've got bananas jet lag and time to kill.
I sold mine at auction a few months back, it went for like 16k. Was a solid 9, too, that merited the grade. I thought it would've gone higher but I guess it just isn't low pop like the Munson 9 to achieve a higher sale point, and so there are enough Ryan 9s to keep the prices at that 16k-ish level.
Baseball cards never died. They evolved. In the 1980s/early 1990's card shows, 95% of sales of vintage HOF cards from pre-1980 were Ex/Mt and below. What happened is that those types of sales died. People stopped paying the 'Beckett going rate' for a 1978 Eddie Murray rookie card.
The reality was that 95% of those Murray's were EX/MT(when considering centering too), except people didn't care as long as it wasn't creased or roughed up, so they paid the Beckett price because Beckett was the Bible, and true high grade cards were extremely difficult to find at card shows...so EX/MT was really the norm.
Grading and the internet changed all of that to what it is now. In the early 1990's at the 'height' of the craze, a raw EX/MT Murray RC was a $40-$50 card. I use that card as an example because I was specifically looking for a centered one with sharp corners at that time as he solidified his HOF resume. That same Ex/Mt card is a $15 card on Ebay now. So yes, that type of card sale died, and an Ex/Mt Murray rookie is as common as a snot in a Kindergartners' nose.
Baseball card collecting didn't die after 1994, but like in the 1990's, you can still buy card that may go down in value now. I was still selling raw Canseco rookies on Ebay in 1999 for north of $50. Raw McGwire rookies in 1999 were on fire and over $100 for centered examples. I was looking through every 1985 Topps set I had to find centered ones at that time.
I sold all those, including tons of player lots of 1980's HOF type players, and used that money to buy a good amount of pre-war Ruth's etc. So the prices were strong enough still into the late 90's for mass produced 1980's cards to finance some elite purchases that were 'underpriced'.
The market overall is as strong as ever. I would say even stronger.
A HOF 1 of 1 rookie seems pretty rare. 1971 is a very popular issue also. I do agree $138,000 seems to be a high amount. But back in 1990 ( I collected then too) everyone would laugh at you if you told them how much basketball and football cards sell for now. Especially the newer ones.
I bought a 1958 Jim Brown PSA 5 7 years ago for $200. Now they sale for nearly $3,000. 10 years from now the Blyleven may be worth twice that much.
Blyleven ain't the Jim Brown of Baseball but to a 71 collector with deep pockets it is 1/1. Even if today it would grade a 9 at absolute best.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
How many of these dudes are still alive? I bet Reggie and Pete Rose are (and bidding on each others card).. conspiracy theory of my own making....
Rose sure ain't above it, Reggie has better things to do. Like bein' Reggie which is way more cool!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
The recent price explosion is just crazy to me. My strategy is to sit tight and watch my collection increase in value. On the down side I cannot display some of my best cards now and my display cabinets are lockable. > @sayheywyo said:
Thanks for the Dmitri info, I was unaware. Provenance does help in this case, but only to a degree.
That would hurt to sell for 55K last year. 55K for a Blyleven rookie still blows my mind. That's moon money for a non star player.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I was really going to try to win that PSA 10 Bert rookie card at all costs…
…but unfortunately for me…
…I was asleep bly eleven.
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 see what you did there. Good job👍
how many on here have paid thousands for trout? i think one sold for millions, right.
Agreed but Trout is an Iconic MVP caliber player. Something that never has or ever will be said of Blyleven.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Blyleven is a HOFer, pop 1 of 1 psa 10 rookie. Trout's destiny is yet to be determined. The last year and a half hasn't looked to good for induction into the Hall. Dale Murphy was a great player. I loved him, still do. But i wouldn't spend 3 mill on his rookie. Is trout really any better than Murphy? Remember Murphy played on TBS and Trout is playing on PBS.
Something else to consider in the Trout/Blyleven card debate is that Bert's cards (especially RC) was produced in a time when baseball cards were played with and damaged, where as Trout's RC was made in a time when cards were seen as more collectible/investable, therefore, most of the cards are still in great condition. Plus Bert's are 40 years older than Trout's, so there's more opportunity for those to get damaged. By no way am I trying to compare their careers
Blyleven is in the top three pitchers of his approximate era. Not as good as Seaver, about as good as Niekro. He was really good for a very long time and there were a few seasons of true excellence. Not iconic because people don't understand situational factors.
Mike Trout is a first ballot Hall of Famer if he never plays again. Understand that Trout is ALREADY number 5 on the list of Centerfielders in JAWS, behind only Mays, Cobb, Speaker, and Mantle. Only DiMaggio and Griffey are higher in career WAR, but they had much lower peaks. So a better question is "Is Trout really any better than Griffey?" to which my answer is still "Yes", already. As I said in another thread, I feel bad for all you people missing a chance to see an all-time great.
Oh, and I'd much rather have a high grade 1971 than a modern manufactured rarity.
But, since you asked, it's kind of funny to make the comparison: https://stathead.com/tiny/YojCU
Don't forget to add that Blyleven is also a 2-time World Series Champion. Something Trout will never even sniff.
Also, let's not forget that we still don't have clarification on just exactly what Trout's involvement was in the Tyler Skaggs situation. The lawsuits keep getting delayed, MLB and the Angels have been ignoring subpoenas for communications, and the media seems to have subverted the story. We know there was a "Fentanyl Five", but somehow those names haven't leaked, yet we know every steroid user, ever? Give me a break. Also, just whose idea was it to launder the drug payments through the sale of Trout memorabilia, and how was that memorabilia procured? Just how many oxy pills will a Mike Trout autograph, get you, by the way?
Not by a long shot. Ever hear of Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Steve Calton, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton and so on? Blyleven was mediocre, at best. Lifetime record of 287-250. Perfect example of a mediocre pitcher.
If you have to convince people that someone was a great player they were not a great player. Just like setting your friend up with hot date. If she is that hot she does not need help getting a date 😉
I hope my son can have a mediocre career and only win 287 MLB games and win two world series's. And be 5th all-time in strikeouts.
Anyone that attends the Frank & Sons shows has heard about the Trout memorabilia that was offered to many dealers.
no, no, no. Blyleven was a fantastic pitcher. for a really long time.
please lets not use wins as a metric to measure pitchers by. we are far beyond that at this point.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I have heard about taylor skaggs of course, but I am completely unaware of the other stuff. was trout involved somehow?
I have heard the HGH allegations against Trout, but this is new to me. could you explain to the best of your knowledge what happened?
thanks!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/08/23/tyler-skaggs-death-angels-federal-subpoena/
In other messages, Kay appeared to try to make sure the pills weren’t laced with fentanyl, and offered to trade one alleged dealer a baseball signed by Angels superstar Mike Trout. “We Dodgers fans my boi lol,” responded the alleged dealer, whom the prosecutors referred to as “Sharky.”
I think linking Trout to this because Kay could get him to autograph a baseball and calling that memorabilia is a stretch. If there is more out there please post a link.
He played 22 years, which is why he had that many wins. His 287-250 numbers works out to having a 13-11 record every season. As I stated before, he had a mediocre career.
I don't consider Gibson in the same approximate era. He and Carlton are not too far behind Blyleven, but when you have to go to Sutton it just shows how poorly Blyleven was understood.
It's really sad to see people ignore greatness because it's not sexy.
All I know is I never got excited because I got a Bert Blyleven card in my pack! I was always more impressed with Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, Mel Stottlemyre and a few others. No kid ever said "Oh no, the Red Sox are facing Bert Blyleven today!" Sorry, but he just wasn't that impressive or feared by anyone.
He had one of the best curve balls I've ever seen. That thing broke from behind the hitter's back to the outside corner and they weren't soft tossed. The main reason his record wasn't better is he spent most of his peak years pitching for the lowly Twins and Rangers. People didn't fear him because the offenses they were facing were so bad.
For the life of me, I cannot understand the 71 Topps Stargell PSA 9 (pop. 21, one 10) selling for more than 10X the amount the exact same card (yes, it had the exact same cert #) sold for recently ($21,600 a few days ago v. $1,920 last May). The previous high mark for this card was $2,938 last March. With a pop. of 21, others will surely come up for sale in the near future so how does a drastic price increase like this happen? I have a 74 OPC Stargell PSA 9 (pop. 1, no 10's); really makes me wonder what it might fetch in an auction!
The previous exact same cert # was last sold by.... you guessed it.... Heritage. Check out Texas auction rules for more info.
I see so much shock about Blyleven but is this any worse than buying a card of a guy who has played a few years, or even less, for 20K+? At least Blyleven had a long successful career , mediocre in Hall of Fame terms can be debated but he did have a pretty successful career overall.
Saying a 20K+ card doesn't paint the correct pitcher. It went for 138K, fricking moon money.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Look you can disagree whether or not he's a Hall of Famer or not but to call him a mediocre pitcher is #@%$..
Geezz..
Good pitcher with a very good career.
I watched him his whole era..
Your 74 would fetch lots if you, your buddies and the auction house all bid it up. Key that strategy is having multiple copies.
Even ignoring all the problems with using Wins as a measurement, that 13-11(.541 WP%) average for Blyevlen equates to 87.5 wins for a team in a season. Mediocre would be 81 wins. > @MisterTim1962 said:
I'm positive a lot of RH hitters in MLB felt quite differently than what you are saying. The results also prove that out...because MLB hitters did not hit him very well.
So even if he was 'feared' or not in the minds of fans, he was HOF worthy effective against MLB batters. Whether or not his teammates were effective enough for the team to win the game is irrelevant in regard to how good a pitcher Blyleven was.
My guess is hitters fear pitchers that can strike them out. Pretty good rating on the all-time K list for a mediocre pitcher.
Blyleven is above the average HOF pitcher which is a really high bar.
One thing I have learned recently is no matter the subject, MisterTim1962 is always right.
Well most of his comments seem to stir the pot, that's for sure..
I'll leave it at that.. Lol
Nope, just have my opinions. Neve said I was right!
I'll leave it at that.. Lol
I'm sorry, but paying 138k for a Bert Blyleven card seems insane to me. For that much money, you could buy some actual game used HOFer items. Game used bat, uniform or even a game used glove, depending on the player. That would be a much better investment long term.
Here's a game used Ty Cobb bat (PSA authenticated) for $85,000! The guy who bought the Blyleven card could have bought an actual game used bat of probably the best hitter of all time. Plus, he'd have another 53k to spend on something else!
https://ebay.com/itm/194509611744?hash=item2d49ad22e0:g:938AAOSw881hlScR
It seems sometimes players are "penalized" for longevity in a career.
Well, yes. How much better would Griffey's reputation have been if he'd retired after the 2000 season, or Pujols if he'd retired rather than sign with the Angels, or at least after 2015? Very few can be like Mike Schmidt and hang it up as soon is it's obvious they don't have it anymore.
At least truly embarrassing late career detours are ignored (Killebrew in Kansas City, Mays with the Mets, Ruth with the Braves, too many more to mention.)
Mays in the 1973 World Series was sad to watch...
I am not old enough to have watched but Mays went 2 for 7 with a run and an RBI in the ‘73 Series after going 1 for 3 in the NLCS. Unless he made some kind of fielding gaffe seems like he helped the Mets in the postseason. In playing with the Mets he came back to end his career where he started (in New York), likely in front of many who watched him play with the Giants.
In ‘72 while playing for the Mets he had an .848 OPS.
I just remember him fielding a ball in the outfield and tossing it to another outfielder to throw it in to the infield. I guess his arm was totally shot by then.
Sell low!