best OF ever - williams, ruth, aaron, mays, musial, bonds, mantle, henderson, frank robinson and then griffey. griffey is 10th
There are several more that I could argue are better than Griffey, but Tris Speaker? I don't see how there's even an argument. I'm also wondering what the argument against DiMaggio looks like.
DiMaggio clearly better, but missing 450 games due to the war really hurts him. He also got a 2 year later start and retired 4 years younger than Jr.
Tris Speaker was said to be an awesome fielder and had a very high batting average, but not much power.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'm curious as to how old @olb31 is, because I think all of us understand who were around in the late '80s. When the Upper Deck Griffey came out, it was a game changer that somehow was only enhanced by the Reggie Jackson cards the next year. The number 1 card was the one that everyone wanted, more than everything other than the '52 Mantle. For a while the '84 Donruss Mattingly and the '86 Donruss Canseco were the big things, but the Griffey blew them away. And for a while, for a very long while, Griffey lived up to the hype. He was great. Full stop. It wasn't until 2001 that the wheels came off, but that was far more than enough to cement the card's iconic status. And if Bonds had the kind of career envisioned for Griffey, with the broad perception of PEDs helping him out, Griffey was still great.
But it's not about how good Trout (or apparently now Griffey) was compared to how good Stockton was. It's about the cards. I don't think anyone will seriously disagree with me that the three most iconic cards are:
I'll be most of us can picture these off the top of their heads, and many of us picture those cards as soon as they hear Wagner, Mantle, or Griffey. I'd say that the 1986 Fleer Jordan is the next most iconic card, as it likely checks the boxes above, but it's a distant fourth.
But, regarding the Stockton rookie, it's just impossible to compare a junk wax card, even a comparatively scarce set like 1988 Fleer Basketball, to the highly artificial "chase cards" of today. If Corbin Carroll becomes an all-time great, I'd imagine his base cards will largely be ignored by the hobby, just the way Stockton's are. Just the way the vas, vast majority of cards from the "junk wax" days are.
If you don't understand on the one hand the Griffey's place in the hobby, and on the other hand virtually every other card from the era's place, the there is, sadly, no way of explaining it.
DiMaggio clearly better, but missing 450 games due to the war really hurts him. He also got a 2 year later start and retired 4 years younger than Jr.
Tris Speaker was said to be an awesome fielder and had a very high batting average, but not much power.
Missing 450 games does hurt DiMaggio, but I still don't see what possible argument there could be that Griffey was better than him.
And yes, Speaker was one of the greatest defensive outfielders in history; possibly THE greatest. And I don't know how anyone could describe the all-time doubles leader (6th in triples) as having not much power. His prime was in the deadball era, and that kills his HR, but even so he did lead the league once and made the top 10 seven times. In the end, his slugging average was 34% above league average, which puts him comfortably ahead of Griffey (27%) if not up to the Trout standard (44%).
I'd love to debate Griffey vs. Reggie, or Yaz, or Gwynn, or Snider, or even Shoeless Joe, but not Tris Speaker. Speaker is in the Aaron-Musial range, not the Griffey range.
And add Mel Ott to the group clearly better than Griffey, too. Griffey is one of the top 20 outfielders in history; he is not particularly close to the top 10.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@daltex said:
So I'm going to indulge @craig44 for a moment. We'll assume for a moment that walks are worthless, which I think no one here believes, but I calculated slugging percentages for 1989-2000 Griffey and for Trout as though anything that happened when a player was batting other than a hit is treated the same, that is a one out bases loaded walk has the same value as a one out bases loaded double play grounder. So I've divided total bases by plate appearances.
Griffey is 3605/7319 or .493.
Trout is 3039/6250 or .486.
So, using my stupid stat which suggests that Trout hurt his team as much by walking as Griffey did by grounding into a double play, it looks as though Griffey was at least slightly better. Except that we need to compare eras. No idea how to calculate my stat for league and park effects, so I'll cheat and compare to the regular slugging percentage that we all know and love. And we see, above, that slugging was .011 higher in Griffey's era.
So even treating walks as completely non-productive events, because we should want Trout to hit into a fielders choice to end the game rather than walk and load the bases like last night, Trout is still a better slugger than Griffey.
I dont think I said anywhere that BB are worthless. That is a Strawman.
If you take Griffeys top 7 or 8 seasons and Trouts top 7 or 8 seasons, which I think is a reasonable prime, Griffey was the better slugger. Trouts SLG % are comparable, but with much fewer AB's. as I mentioned earlier, it is much easier to post high rate stats with fewer AB's. Remember the Williams, Gwynn and Brett examples?
If you notice, Trout did not enter the realm of elite SLG % (>.600) until his yearly AB's dipped down into the 400s and below. Griffey had several elite SLG% years with 550-over 600 AB. it is MUCH more difficult to keep a rate stat high over a full season. That is why in the last 80 years, no one has hit over .400 with more than 500 ABs.
But, as we're in the Trading Card forum not the Sports Talk one, I'll again note that a similarly great player from the junk wax days, no matter how strictly you define them, will have his rookie be worth far less than one from before or after that era. The bottom line is if you opened a legit box of 1988 Fleer you'd expect to get three or four Stockton rookies, with nothing autoed or serial numbered or anything to make them special, and no discussion about Stockton's greatness will change that.
Nice post. Ken Griffey jr ceratinly played in the junk wax era. 1988 fleer basketball cards are very tough to find unopened and are very expensive if you so find one. About $4,500.
A 1989 Upper Deck Box costs around $350. The number 1 card ever graded is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.
Griffey jR almost 97,000 times graded with 4,074 PSA 10
1988 Fleer Stockton just 11,000 graded with 970 Psa 10's.
Griffey might be slightly higher rated as a baseball player than stockton a basketball player, but it's very close. 1989 upper deck was obviously heavily printed and the 1988 fleer was moderately printed. Nothing about this scenario says the GRiffey card should sale for twice as much as Stockton. At best it should be even. @craig44 said: @daltex said:
So I'm going to indulge @craig44 for a moment. We'll assume for a moment that walks are worthless, which I think no one here believes, but I calculated slugging percentages for 1989-2000 Griffey and for Trout as though anything that h> @craig44 said: @daltex said:
So I'm going to indulge @craig44 for a moment. We'll assume for a moment that walks are worthless, which I think no one here believes, but I calculated slugging percentages for 1989-2000 Griffey and for Trout as though anything that happened when a player was batting other than a hit is treated the same, that is a one out bases loaded walk has the same value as a one out bases loaded double play grounder. So I've divided total bases by plate appearances.
Griffey is 3605/7319 or .493.
Trout is 3039/6250 or .486.
So, using my stupid stat which suggests that Trout hurt his team as much by walking as Griffey did by grounding into a double play, it looks as though Griffey was at least slightly better. Except that we need to compare eras. No idea how to calculate my stat for league and park effects, so I'll cheat and compare to the regular slugging percentage that we all know and love. And we see, above, that slugging was .011 higher in Griffey's era.
So even treating walks as completely non-productive events, because we should want Trout to hit into a fielders choice to end the game rather than walk and load the bases like last night, Trout is still a better slugger than Griffey.
I dont think I said anywhere that BB are worthless. That is a Strawman.
If you take Griffeys top 7 or 8 seasons and Trouts top 7 or 8 seasons, which I think is a reasonable prime, Griffey was the better slugger. Trouts SLG % are comparable, but with much fewer AB's. as I mentioned earlier, it is much easier to post high rate stats with fewer AB's. Remember the Williams, Gwynn and Brett examples?
If you notice, Trout did not enter the realm of elite SLG % (>.600) until his yearly AB's dipped down into the 400s and below. Griffey had several elite SLG% years with 550-over 600 AB. it is MUCH more difficult to keep a rate stat high over a full season. That is why in the last 80 years, no one has hit over .400 with more than 500 ABs.
Griffey slugged .613 in his seven year prime in 4,266 PA.
Trout Slugged .590 in his seven year(full time years) in 4,499 PA.
Yes, Griffey does have him there.
But to be fair, Trout was quite young in the first couple of those years and his HR hitting still developing a little. Trout is just a scratch away from a .600 SLG there, and in his last three years there he averaged 609 Plate Appearances and a .634 SLG%.
best OF ever - williams, ruth, aaron, mays, musial, bonds, mantle, henderson, frank robinson and then griffey. griffey is 10th
There are several more that I could argue are better than Griffey, but Tris Speaker? I don't see how there's even an argument. I'm also wondering what the argument against DiMaggio looks like.
1) Griffey not mentioned in a stone classic pop track lyric to define an era. "Where have You Gone, Joe Dimaggio"
2) Griffey Never Married to Marilyn Monroe.
3) Griffey Zero WS rings
4) Griffey not the face of a device that was first to bring drip coffee to the masses. Although I prefer percolated. https://www.thecommonscafe.com/who-sells-mr-coffee-joe-dimaggio/
5) Griffey never ENLISTED to serve his country.
6) Griffey does not posses a fabled MLB record that has survived 82 years and counting
7) Griffey does not have Les Brown song (a hit in it's day) commemorating him setting a now fabled MLB record.
8) Dimaggio knew when he hit ,263 in 1951 it was time to call it a career rather than become an embarrassment or liability on the field.
Griffey does smile a lot and by most accounts was quite amiable unlike Joltin' Joe.
Bottom Line: Griffey had an overall incredible career deserving accolades, but total career numbers are merely component in defining legend.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
I think the fact that Griffey's UD rookie is priced as high as it is, despite there being a billion of them, is a show of how popular the card is in the minds of collectors.
This is a fascinating discussion and I love how cards have been woven into the commentary. One thing to note about the '89 UD Griffey is that card has value/desirability that goes well beyond whatever Griffey did as a player. That card ushered premium cards into the hobby. First UD set, card #1, beautiful white card stock, "revolutionary" holograms, $1 (gasp!) packs... It all led the allure of that particular card. And now that the kids who grew up dreaming about that card are a bit older and have a bit more money in their pockets, they want pristine copies of what they wanted as kids. Simply put, you cannot talk about that era of the hobby without talking about that one card. It is similar to the '52 Mantle in that the stars aligned perfectly to make those particular cards important almost regardless of what the players did on the field..
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
You and many others have like opinions/facts about the Griffey Jr. Upper Deck card. But much like the reason I would rather have the o-pee-chee version of most cards vs topps, there are just too many. The card itself is kind of neat and worked out well for Upper Deck. But if I were a Card Broker (instead of a stock broker), I would not advise you to load up on these for your portfolio, especially the PSA 10's. I just don't see the upside.
The 1952 Mantle (less than 2,000 ever graded by PSA) and the Wagner are certainly Iconic cards, and if you could afford these issues, as your Card Broker, I would say buy and hold. Much like the 1915 and 1916 Babe Ruth issues. Big upside in all of these.
As for Trout, he still has chance to make big history and is certainly a great player. But if you compare the price of some his cards to his output, I would say, as your Card Broker, that the Price/Earnings Ratio (price/overall qualities) of the Trout card is not that great right now. I would advise not to buy these cards at the current prices.
As for the 1988 Fleer Stockton card, especially the all-star card, the price/output of stockton is strong for the future. The regular rookie sits at about $450, and the all-star is closer to $750 or more (and far harder to get a PSA 10). Plus being in a strong registry set helps the overall lasting value. Plus $4,500 per unopened box certainly doesn't hurt.
This is how I pick and choose how I buy cards. There are a few I favor and buy more of, Like the 1964 Pete Rose, but I try to look at the upside/downside of my purchase. I waited 10 years before I bought my first Pujols cards and picked up affordable ones that I later graded and got PSA 10's on. These are undervalued, too, he's probably in the top 10 all-time, in my opinion.
Now I realize people collect things and $$$$ aren't the reason, but in my world $2,000 for a card is rather pricey and would keep me from buying other cards. For some of you with large bank accounts and you just like the card then it would make no difference.
You and many others have like opinions/facts about the Griffey Jr. Upper Deck card. But much like the reason I would rather have the o-pee-chee version of most cards vs topps, there are just too many. The card itself is kind of neat and worked out well for Upper Deck. But if I were a Card Broker (instead of a stock broker), I would not advise you to load up on these for your portfolio, especially the PSA 10's. I just don't see the upside.
The 1952 Mantle (less than 2,000 ever graded by PSA) and the Wagner are certainly Iconic cards, and if you could afford these issues, as your Card Broker, I would say buy and hold. Much like the 1915 and 1916 Babe Ruth issues. Big upside in all of these.
As for Trout, he still has chance to make big history and is certainly a great player. But if you compare the price of some his cards to his output, I would say, as your Card Broker, that the Price/Earnings Ratio (price/overall qualities) of the Trout card is not that great right now. I would advise not to buy these cards at the current prices.
As for the 1988 Fleer Stockton card, especially the all-star card, the price/output of stockton is strong for the future. The regular rookie sits at about $450, and the all-star is closer to $750 or more (and far harder to get a PSA 10). Plus being in a strong registry set helps the overall lasting value. Plus $4,500 per unopened box certainly doesn't hurt.
This is how I pick and choose how I buy cards. There are a few I favor and buy more of, Like the 1964 Pete Rose, but I try to look at the upside/downside of my purchase. I waited 10 years before I bought my first Pujols cards and picked up affordable ones that I later graded and got PSA 10's on. These are undervalued, too, he's probably in the top 10 all-time, in my opinion.
Now I realize people collect things and $$$$ aren't the reason, but in my world $2,000 for a card is rather pricey and would keep me from buying other cards. For some of you with large bank accounts and you just like the card then it would make no difference.
I respect how you think that through. Happy hunting
You and many others have like opinions/facts about the Griffey Jr. Upper Deck card. But much like the reason I would rather have the o-pee-chee version of most cards vs topps, there are just too many. The card itself is kind of neat and worked out well for Upper Deck. But if I were a Card Broker (instead of a stock broker), I would not advise you to load up on these for your portfolio, especially the PSA 10's. I just don't see the upside.
The 1952 Mantle (less than 2,000 ever graded by PSA) and the Wagner are certainly Iconic cards, and if you could afford these issues, as your Card Broker, I would say buy and hold. Much like the 1915 and 1916 Babe Ruth issues. Big upside in all of these.
As for Trout, he still has chance to make big history and is certainly a great player. But if you compare the price of some his cards to his output, I would say, as your Card Broker, that the Price/Earnings Ratio (price/overall qualities) of the Trout card is not that great right now. I would advise not to buy these cards at the current prices.
As for the 1988 Fleer Stockton card, especially the all-star card, the price/output of stockton is strong for the future. The regular rookie sits at about $450, and the all-star is closer to $750 or more (and far harder to get a PSA 10). Plus being in a strong registry set helps the overall lasting value. Plus $4,500 per unopened box certainly doesn't hurt.
This is how I pick and choose how I buy cards. There are a few I favor and buy more of, Like the 1964 Pete Rose, but I try to look at the upside/downside of my purchase. I waited 10 years before I bought my first Pujols cards and picked up affordable ones that I later graded and got PSA 10's on. These are undervalued, too, he's probably in the top 10 all-time, in my opinion.
Now I realize people collect things and $$$$ aren't the reason, but in my world $2,000 for a card is rather pricey and would keep me from buying other cards. For some of you with large bank accounts and you just like the card then it would make no difference.
The PSA Graded Supply of the 1989 UD Griffey will continue to grow. The is question is; Will demand outpace the supply? Short of another pandemic perfect storm at current price point the return on ROI will be minimal.
Agreed its simply not an investment, same can be said for any Junk Wax. Yet there are still rubes|suckers shelling out current market price on 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas' and 1990 Fleer Jordon's. Yea they have dropped in going rate to point the Thomas is not much more than it was in early 2020 BUT PSA10 supply of those is now approaching a quantity larger than grains of sand on a beach.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
Agreed its simply not an investment, same can be said for any Junk Wax. Yet there are still rubes|suckers shelling out current market price on 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas' and 1990 Fleer Jordon's. Yea they have dropped in going rate to point the Thomas is not much more than it was in early 2020 BUT PSA10 supply of those is now approaching a quantity larger than grains of sand on a beach.
It all depends on your perspective.
I think it's good for the hobby if a 10 year old kid gets a PSA10 rc of Griffey Jr, Bo Jackson, Frank Thomas, etc. as a gift because their Uncle has a half dozen sitting around that he's feeling sorry about and decided to change the investment from financial to an investment in other collectors. A 10 year old with a slabbed gem of a historic player might just be the motivation a kid needs to keep working on their game.
Comments
DiMaggio clearly better, but missing 450 games due to the war really hurts him. He also got a 2 year later start and retired 4 years younger than Jr.
Tris Speaker was said to be an awesome fielder and had a very high batting average, but not much power.
I'm curious as to how old @olb31 is, because I think all of us understand who were around in the late '80s. When the Upper Deck Griffey came out, it was a game changer that somehow was only enhanced by the Reggie Jackson cards the next year. The number 1 card was the one that everyone wanted, more than everything other than the '52 Mantle. For a while the '84 Donruss Mattingly and the '86 Donruss Canseco were the big things, but the Griffey blew them away. And for a while, for a very long while, Griffey lived up to the hype. He was great. Full stop. It wasn't until 2001 that the wheels came off, but that was far more than enough to cement the card's iconic status. And if Bonds had the kind of career envisioned for Griffey, with the broad perception of PEDs helping him out, Griffey was still great.
But it's not about how good Trout (or apparently now Griffey) was compared to how good Stockton was. It's about the cards. I don't think anyone will seriously disagree with me that the three most iconic cards are:
T-206 Wagner
1952 Topps Mantle
1989 Upper Deck Griffey
I'll be most of us can picture these off the top of their heads, and many of us picture those cards as soon as they hear Wagner, Mantle, or Griffey. I'd say that the 1986 Fleer Jordan is the next most iconic card, as it likely checks the boxes above, but it's a distant fourth.
But, regarding the Stockton rookie, it's just impossible to compare a junk wax card, even a comparatively scarce set like 1988 Fleer Basketball, to the highly artificial "chase cards" of today. If Corbin Carroll becomes an all-time great, I'd imagine his base cards will largely be ignored by the hobby, just the way Stockton's are. Just the way the vas, vast majority of cards from the "junk wax" days are.
If you don't understand on the one hand the Griffey's place in the hobby, and on the other hand virtually every other card from the era's place, the there is, sadly, no way of explaining it.
Missing 450 games does hurt DiMaggio, but I still don't see what possible argument there could be that Griffey was better than him.
And yes, Speaker was one of the greatest defensive outfielders in history; possibly THE greatest. And I don't know how anyone could describe the all-time doubles leader (6th in triples) as having not much power. His prime was in the deadball era, and that kills his HR, but even so he did lead the league once and made the top 10 seven times. In the end, his slugging average was 34% above league average, which puts him comfortably ahead of Griffey (27%) if not up to the Trout standard (44%).
I'd love to debate Griffey vs. Reggie, or Yaz, or Gwynn, or Snider, or even Shoeless Joe, but not Tris Speaker. Speaker is in the Aaron-Musial range, not the Griffey range.
And add Mel Ott to the group clearly better than Griffey, too. Griffey is one of the top 20 outfielders in history; he is not particularly close to the top 10.
I dont think I said anywhere that BB are worthless. That is a Strawman.
If you take Griffeys top 7 or 8 seasons and Trouts top 7 or 8 seasons, which I think is a reasonable prime, Griffey was the better slugger. Trouts SLG % are comparable, but with much fewer AB's. as I mentioned earlier, it is much easier to post high rate stats with fewer AB's. Remember the Williams, Gwynn and Brett examples?
If you notice, Trout did not enter the realm of elite SLG % (>.600) until his yearly AB's dipped down into the 400s and below. Griffey had several elite SLG% years with 550-over 600 AB. it is MUCH more difficult to keep a rate stat high over a full season. That is why in the last 80 years, no one has hit over .400 with more than 500 ABs.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Griffey slugged .613 in his seven year prime in 4,266 PA.
Trout Slugged .590 in his seven year(full time years) in 4,499 PA.
Yes, Griffey does have him there.
But to be fair, Trout was quite young in the first couple of those years and his HR hitting still developing a little. Trout is just a scratch away from a .600 SLG there, and in his last three years there he averaged 609 Plate Appearances and a .634 SLG%.
Then covid hit. Then the big injuries.
1) Griffey not mentioned in a stone classic pop track lyric to define an era. "Where have You Gone, Joe Dimaggio"
2) Griffey Never Married to Marilyn Monroe.
3) Griffey Zero WS rings
4) Griffey not the face of a device that was first to bring drip coffee to the masses. Although I prefer percolated.
https://www.thecommonscafe.com/who-sells-mr-coffee-joe-dimaggio/
5) Griffey never ENLISTED to serve his country.
6) Griffey does not posses a fabled MLB record that has survived 82 years and counting
7) Griffey does not have Les Brown song (a hit in it's day) commemorating him setting a now fabled MLB record.
8) Dimaggio knew when he hit ,263 in 1951 it was time to call it a career rather than become an embarrassment or liability on the field.
Griffey does smile a lot and by most accounts was quite amiable unlike Joltin' Joe.
Bottom Line: Griffey had an overall incredible career deserving accolades, but total career numbers are merely component in defining legend.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
I think the fact that Griffey's UD rookie is priced as high as it is, despite there being a billion of them, is a show of how popular the card is in the minds of collectors.
As for the future, who knows.
I almost listed Dimaggio. I would have him higher then Griffey or at least very close.
Cakes, I'm sorry if my post sounded like a personal attack. I apologize.
This is a fascinating discussion and I love how cards have been woven into the commentary. One thing to note about the '89 UD Griffey is that card has value/desirability that goes well beyond whatever Griffey did as a player. That card ushered premium cards into the hobby. First UD set, card #1, beautiful white card stock, "revolutionary" holograms, $1 (gasp!) packs... It all led the allure of that particular card. And now that the kids who grew up dreaming about that card are a bit older and have a bit more money in their pockets, they want pristine copies of what they wanted as kids. Simply put, you cannot talk about that era of the hobby without talking about that one card. It is similar to the '52 Mantle in that the stars aligned perfectly to make those particular cards important almost regardless of what the players did on the field..
It's okay. Thank you for the apology.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Can someone refresh my memory - how come Stockton wasn't in the 1986 Fleer set, or even 1987 Fleer?
No idea. Best guess is that people had to be left out of a 132 card set. Second best guess is licensing issues.
Edited to add: Stockton only started 45 games his first three years.
Nice.
Daltex,
You and many others have like opinions/facts about the Griffey Jr. Upper Deck card. But much like the reason I would rather have the o-pee-chee version of most cards vs topps, there are just too many. The card itself is kind of neat and worked out well for Upper Deck. But if I were a Card Broker (instead of a stock broker), I would not advise you to load up on these for your portfolio, especially the PSA 10's. I just don't see the upside.
The 1952 Mantle (less than 2,000 ever graded by PSA) and the Wagner are certainly Iconic cards, and if you could afford these issues, as your Card Broker, I would say buy and hold. Much like the 1915 and 1916 Babe Ruth issues. Big upside in all of these.
As for Trout, he still has chance to make big history and is certainly a great player. But if you compare the price of some his cards to his output, I would say, as your Card Broker, that the Price/Earnings Ratio (price/overall qualities) of the Trout card is not that great right now. I would advise not to buy these cards at the current prices.
As for the 1988 Fleer Stockton card, especially the all-star card, the price/output of stockton is strong for the future. The regular rookie sits at about $450, and the all-star is closer to $750 or more (and far harder to get a PSA 10). Plus being in a strong registry set helps the overall lasting value. Plus $4,500 per unopened box certainly doesn't hurt.
This is how I pick and choose how I buy cards. There are a few I favor and buy more of, Like the 1964 Pete Rose, but I try to look at the upside/downside of my purchase. I waited 10 years before I bought my first Pujols cards and picked up affordable ones that I later graded and got PSA 10's on. These are undervalued, too, he's probably in the top 10 all-time, in my opinion.
Now I realize people collect things and $$$$ aren't the reason, but in my world $2,000 for a card is rather pricey and would keep me from buying other cards. For some of you with large bank accounts and you just like the card then it would make no difference.
I respect how you think that through. Happy hunting
The PSA Graded Supply of the 1989 UD Griffey will continue to grow. The is question is; Will demand outpace the supply? Short of another pandemic perfect storm at current price point the return on ROI will be minimal.
Agreed its simply not an investment, same can be said for any Junk Wax. Yet there are still rubes|suckers shelling out current market price on 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas' and 1990 Fleer Jordon's. Yea they have dropped in going rate to point the Thomas is not much more than it was in early 2020 BUT PSA10 supply of those is now approaching a quantity larger than grains of sand on a beach.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
It all depends on your perspective.
I think it's good for the hobby if a 10 year old kid gets a PSA10 rc of Griffey Jr, Bo Jackson, Frank Thomas, etc. as a gift because their Uncle has a half dozen sitting around that he's feeling sorry about and decided to change the investment from financial to an investment in other collectors. A 10 year old with a slabbed gem of a historic player might just be the motivation a kid needs to keep working on their game.