The "investing" debate: focus on the PLAYER, team

doog71

I always read the discussions about "investing" in graded cards on this board, and agree that, if you really know your stuff, there are perhaps more sound ways to get a return on your money.

However, if you do invest in cards (as I do to an extent, along with other investments), I would disagree with the sentiment that one should only invest in particular YEARS of cards (i.e. pre-war, pre 1969, etc.) to potentially see a return. This may be generally true to an extent...I don't believe that many, if any, cards that were produced post 1983 will move much in the future. Collecting went nutso in 1984 with people chasing Don Mattingly, Darryl Strawberry, etc. and that's when the companies REALLY let the presses run. This is not to say they weren't cranking 'em out before then, but that's when they really went nuts.

People will ALWAYS collect their baseball heroes, whether they're in the HOF or not. They will also always collect their favorite teams. Lots of "hero" players from the '70s (ie Munson, Clemente, Ryan, Aaron, Bench, Yaz) have PSA 9 pops of 100 or less. That doesn't sound low, but when you consider that there's only one company that produced the card and the legend of each of these players grow as time goes by, under 100 starts to sound a lot better.

ALSO, people will always be looking for high grade Yankees and Cubs. You may hate those teams, but Yankee and Cub fans seem to multiply like locusts as the years pass. You may grow bored over time collecting the same players/teams, but it seems to me the best way to maximize profit potential in the future. Collecting entire high grade 70s sets seems to be a great idea as well. There are plenty of set collectors who will pay you for all the time you spent for their favorite set they collected as a kid.

Contrary to what some on this board believe, there is NOT an endless supply of mint cards from 1970-1983. Is there more out there than what's been graded so far? Absolutely. But I believe in a few years most mint cards from that era will have been graded. Remember, people weren't crazy about putting cards in protective plastic in 1976. Most of 'em were being "flipped", wrapped in rubber bands, etc.

I have personally seen big jumps (but they don't always last forever) in high grade cards from the '70s from some of the aforementioned players. The key is knowing when to buy them and keeping an eye on when there's an uptick in the players cards.

If you decide to spend money on graded cards for the purposes of seeing a return, I actually think it's a GOOD idea to get PSA 8 or higher cards from 1970-79, but you're going to have to wait awhile to see a return, for the most part. Go ahead, buy that PSA 8 1971 Topps Munson for $450...someone will pay a lot more for it eventually!

Buccaneer

Nice post. I think this relates to an experience I had after I got back into collecting in 2003 after sitting out for 13 years. In the 1980s, I completed 6 sets of the 1970s (1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977) as well as collect my favorite players of that era: Bench, Seaver, Morgan, Carlton, Schmidt, etc. I tracked their prices every year until well into the 1990s and saw that some of these cards were in the $400-$600 range. Remember, these were the stars of the late Baby Boomers like myself and should reach the level of popularity of the early Boomers and their 1950s stars. And then something happened...

When I got back into collecting, the first thing I did was to check the prices on those players. Much to my dismay, I found the prices of those cards a fraction of what they were (same thing with the sets). I didn't know why so I asked around to several prominent dealers across the country. The common answer given was that these stars (and years) fell between the cracks, sort to speak, between the stars of the 1950s and the stars of today. Many Boomers (including late ones) still look to the late 1940s-early 1960s as the Golden Age of Baseball. We (as the late Bloomers) had to deal with the advent of free agency, strikes and lockouts, drugs, awful uniforms, etc. Therefore, what we should be collecting (as part of our childhood), we are not and instead, jumping onto the years of our older siblings and friends. The generation after us was to young to remember the 1970s and instead went into the 1980s for their collections. That, as I was told by several, created the gap. The demand for Mantle, Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Williams, Musial, etc. has remained very high because those of us that were a little too young to remember most of those star players wanted them to be our heroes - when baseball was a dream and fun instead of a business of greed. If you would take a poll of all adult collectors, I perceive that given a choice between 1963, 1973 and 1983, 1973 would be third in popularity.

Stingray

I use to think collect cards as a kid, mid 70s, did not care about what condition I kept my cards. At least we did not worry that they were not in "mint" condition. Got out of collecting in the mid 80s. Then got back into collecting in the late 80s to early 90s thinking I was investing in cards. Now I have 4 Tupperware tubs full of sets and cards that I could not sell for $5/piece. I quite thinking of cards as an investment all together now and enjoy the art of finding what I want and slowly completing my one set of 67s.

Stingray

doog71

Buccanner, interesting point, but I think the fact that the '70s cards have been the "black sheep" of the past few decades may work in those cards favor in the long run as pre-war, 50s, 60s, etc. gets out of more people's price range. The 70s have some beautifully designed sets (as well as some horrendous ones). 1971 and 1975 come to mind, but many folks even like the 1978s as well. Just my two cents.

Axtell

Cards of the 80s will never be a good long term investment. There is way, way too much unopened material still available, and the lack of any true overwhelming dominant player in that stretch precludes them.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't collect them. But I think that anyone, expecting appreciation in the long term, is going to be dissappointed. Example, what is the most valuable card of the 80s? I think the lack of rarity and combine that with so few HoF players will combine to keep this era depressed.

If you are 'investing' in cards, then cards of the early 70s and before in high grade will be your best bet. These cards are truly much rarer compared to cards produced in the 80s and after. Sticking with solid, popular, HoF players is a good way to go. A friend of mine, instead of collecting complete sets, collects HoF players in 7 or better. Works on a year, then moves on.

Not every collection is going to appreciate in price. As much as I'd love my 1971 set to dramatically jump in price, I suspect with no real superstar rookie, it's going to be a consistent performer (more the love of the black borders) than one that will long term allow me to retire if I were to sell it.

DirtyHarry

Doog - seems like you're asking a question and answering it at the same time. Good points made. If I had an endless cash flow, I would invest in Rookie Cards of HOF'ers. I don't buy in to teams in general, except for major market teams that have legacys and an unending base of fans.

IJustLoveCards

I always felt the cut-off for graded cards in a particular set was 1975. In 75 the "Era" kinda ended and the new one began. The Brett, Rice, Lynn, Hernandez, Carter,Yount RC's..and the last card of Killebrew. The new era began with the uprising of these players, todays younger collectors seem to be so caught up in the inserts that the real sets are pushed aside. I personally have decided that "older sets" are more enjoyable to put together. The early-mid 70's allow me to get the rc's of the stars I grew up watching on TV. The earlier cards 50's and 60's allow me to purchase the cards of the stars that I remember who they were being compared to. I often heard how Carew brought back memories of clementes cat like quickness, or how Schmidt was the next great third baseman since eddie matthews, or Brett challenged ted williams as the last person to hit 400. There was a tie from the older stars to the stars I watched. So, for me when I collect a set, I try (and emphisize try) to get the star players card in a higher grade than maybe the whole set is. For the money spent on 110 more 9's, I think is better invested in less 9's and higher grade stars. I would rather have a psa 8-9 set of 75 topps with the star players in a 9 ( 460 8's and 200 9's) vs. the same set with more 9's (350 8's and 310 9's) of common players and my stars in 8's. I Just feel over time my George Brett and Robin Yount RC's in a psa 9 will not lose their value, thus enhanching the value of my complete set.

Just my opinon..