Price of Sets not equal to sum of singles

Aknot

OK this has bothered me for YEARS. How can a set, not FACTORY (1985 Topps Football) be $60 yet the sum of only 6 cards from that set be over $60?

I mean a single dollar is worth a single dollar. If you bunch it with 4 others the value "matches" the end amount.

Am I missing something?

You would think a set would cost more especially if it was "hand" created.

Stone193

<< <i>You would think a set would cost more especially if it was "hand" created. >>


Jim
This is a question that has perplexed me ever since I started collecting. In philosophy they talk of man in terms of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. In math, the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. In set collecting the whole is less than the sum of the parts. I have seen a few exceptions but all and all that's just the way it is.
Go figure?
Mike

qualitycards

In the coin world, a completed set is worth a premium over the individual parts...jay

67standup

The demand for a complete set of a particular issue is less than the collective demand for the singles of of that issue. For example, if the number of bids for a complete set is x, the number of bids for the Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Clemente, common, etc. will be much greater than x.

Logic says that a set price should be determined by adding the individual prices that make up the set. Moreover, there should be a "leg work" factor, so the set price should be higher. But logic doesn't rule this hobby, not by a long shot. That's why you can pick up an entire 1975 Topps set in raw for the equivalent of one 1975 Ryan PSA 9.

Gotta love it!

goodriddance189

quantity discount.

ZodiacMindwarp

Just as you would not buy a new car when your headlight goes out, it doesn't make sense to buy a whole raw set when you need only a few cards.

When it comes to graded, I don't know if your theorum holds true. I'm not sure how many 100% PSA graded sets have changed hands but then I could understand a premium being paid becomes it becomes a case of supply versus demand and the time involved in amassing such a set.

mrc32

This has always bothered me as well.

Something similar: When you buy a new car the value of that car goes down 15% or more as soon as you drive it off the lot.

Free Market economics at its best.

wallst32

A set collector isn't willing to pay top dollar (or the "hi" price) for each card in the set; whereas a singles collector would pay a good amount for the specific card(s) they want.

I only collect rookie cards, so we'll take the 86 Topps set for example. I'd buy the Rice rookie, but probably wouldn't take the rest of the cards at any price (well if they were giving it away for $5, I might take it for the Young).

Also, you mentioned non-factory sets; I think the perception is hand collated sets typically have "filler" cards for the more valuable cards. If you had a high grade desireable card in the set, you would be better off selling it as a single.

MorrellMan

In the old days (read: pre-eBay), you could break a set, get top dollar for the star cards in one day, then lug the book of commons to shows for the next 3 years. If you could sell the whole set at once for the sum of the major stars plus a little something for the commons, you've saved a whole lot of time and effort.

theBobs

<< <i>Something similar: When you buy a new car the value of that car goes down 15% or more as soon as you drive it off the lot. >>

So why does anyone buy a new car?

LongBall

cards or cars?

Stone193

<< <i>When it comes to graded, I don't know if your theorum holds true >>


Zodiac
Good point! When it comes to complete graded sets - that could be different - unchartered territory?
I took one of the more hi profile sets - a while back Mastro sold a PSA8 52T set for about 277K and the set now books for 277K and the total value of all the cards in the column looks to be about 287K - so the sum of the parts is about 10K over the book. Pretty close and way better than what you would do with a hand collated 82T set e.g. at 55$ and probably like 120$ in individual cards.
So, that was in this case very interesting - thanx for bringing it up. BTW, I think only more vintage graded sets would fall into this category - obviously, it's not worth having an 89T set, all graded!
Mike

HammeringHank

I'm confused as well...

DeutscherGeist

Of course all this makes sense. The singles are worth more than the entire set. The same is true about cars. It is cheaper to buy the whole car than the individual thousands of parts. Its not only in cards, but cars as well.

It is a sort of quantity discount. Hand collated sets do have fillers in them of the top value cards, so it is like buying a bunch of commons. Factory sets are worth more than hand collated, because there is a greater chance for better condition cards, even the key ones.


A set is basically like buying an unknown, that's why it can't ever be higher than the major singles put together. The 1987 Fleer set may have a crappy Bonds card, so then you are left with nothing but junk. It makes perfect sense that sets are cheaper---the condition of all the major sinlges would not match the condition of cherry picking those singles separately. It is perfect logic.

This is why I don't buy sets....I just pick the best singles I can find from a particular set that I want to have and that's it. Its all about condition.

fsjeter

I agree that the sum of the parts should be closer to the value of the whole but I do feel that card collectors pay significantly higher for individual cards from a set rather than the whole set. I think there are far more player and theme collectors than set collectors, especially now that it is next to impossible to put together a complete set. This helps dictate the premium for some of the individual cards.

Your post did point to an issue that has troubled me for some time and that is the difference between the price for hand collated sets and sealed factory sets. To me, hand collated sets should command a higher price because of the time involved and you can't really be sure what is in a factory set unless you open it (and this greatly reduces the value). I purchased a 1982 Topps Traded set a few months ago. While there were 132 cards in the box, I didn't have 1-132. I was mising two cards and had doubles of a couple others. I don't believe it was the seller because the missing cards were commons and one of the doubles was Reggie Jackson. Doesn't make sense. I am sure there have been other examples of missing or damaged cards as well.

Engineer

This may have been touched upon but in addition to the other reasons I think it's partially pure economics. There are probably a whole lot of people who would like a complete 1971 Topps set but can't afford to plunk out the cash for a high grade set. So given limited funds a lot of folks will pick up their favorite players (Ryan, Clemente, Munson, Jackson, etc.), which also creates more competition for single players than the full set. I've seen lots of full sets go for pretty darn good prices but didn't want to/couldn't bring myself to shell out the cash. I'm not a set builder but a lot of folks like the chase of putting together their sets from scratch. I myself don't necessarily want all other cards in the set taking up room unless it's from a pretty desirable issue.

Adam

Allen

I always wondered about that too. Everything you all have said is pretty much how I would explain it. I think it is harder to sell a set because most collectors would rather build them for the fun of it and also to get the condition of card they want. Some people are more strict on their centering than corners etc. I mainly collect rookies but I have quite a few sets as well. I like when people break the sets for the key rookie and I can pick up the rest from them for nothing. I bought a bunch of 89UD sets minus the Griffey for about $8 which helped me protect my investments in the Griffeys when he slumped. I don't think the set should be worth the total of all cards including commons and such, but they should be worth a higher % than they are.

RobBobGolf

Cars go down more than 15% when driven off the lot. Compared to the selling price it's more like 25%. This is because the car has now been Titled, and is considered a "Used" car. Believe me, I see people trying to trade cars after only weeks, sometimes days, they get a real shock. Today, a guy traded in a 2004 Chevy Avalanche he bought last Thursday. His lady friend fell out of the vehicle and went to the Hospital, he was so spooked, he traded it with 274 miles on it. He paid 42,000 on the road, I bought the car for 27,000. Hows that for taking a bath?

RobBob

helionaut

You mean you convince people to sell to you for more than 15% off. You could've paid him more, or he could've sold it privately, and he would've gotten more back, probably. It's just like cards, where at least half the value of a pack seems to be in the opening. You might spend $150 for a SP Game-Used Patch pack, but once you open it, you don't have $150 worth of cards anymore.

jrinck

<< <i>This has always bothered me as well.

Something similar: When you buy a new car the value of that car goes down 15% or more as soon as you drive it off the lot.

Free Market economics at its best. >>



Actually, this is only true if you pay the MSRP of the car. The actual value of the new car is what the dealer paid for it. So if you purchased the car for what the dealer paid, then driving the car off the lot does nothing to reduce the value. HOWEVER, if you paid MSRP, then you paid OVER the amount of which it was worth. MSRP is just a magical number to inflate dealer profit and it has nothing to do with value. It's just like paying $1,000 for a PSA 9 Canseco rookie. Just because you overpaid doesn't mean that the card is worth $1,000. The card is, and always had been worth much, much less.