Undervalued player cards
hammered
Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭
I'll start a new hobby-related topic here, I apologize if it's been done before.
We all look for value in card purchases, so I thought I'd begin a list of the most undervalued players in today's card market.
I'll start with my #1, Tim Duncan, who tends to fly under the radar due to his lack of flashiness, IMO.
Anyone else?
From any era or sport
Tim Duncan
We all look for value in card purchases, so I thought I'd begin a list of the most undervalued players in today's card market.
I'll start with my #1, Tim Duncan, who tends to fly under the radar due to his lack of flashiness, IMO.
Anyone else?
From any era or sport
Tim Duncan
0
Comments
Frank Thomas
Fred McGriff
Mike Mussina
Tom Glavine
John Smoltz
Only an idiot would have a message board signature.
<< <i>Two former LSUers and future HOFers, Alan Faneca and Kevin Mawae's RCs can be had for less than a $1. >>
Hard to find Faneca's true RC (UD XL). It's akin to the Pacific Philadelphia Adam Vinatieri in that when you see one, they tend to sell at a pretty high number. Albeit, the AV books for far more than the Faneca.
<< <i>
<< <i>Two former LSUers and future HOFers, Alan Faneca and Kevin Mawae's RCs can be had for less than a $1. >>
Hard to find Faneca's true RC (UD XL). It's akin to the Pacific Philadelphia Adam Vinatieri in that when you see one, they tend to sell at a pretty high number. Albeit, the AV books for far more than the Faneca. >>
Tell me about it. I can't even find a raw copy and I've been looking for about a year. It's a couple dollar card and no one EVER has it for sale ANYWHERE online.
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
I think for some it's where they play. Small market team's players can fly under the radar.
For some players, it's the lack of winning a championship. There have been dozens of HOF players in every sport who are valued less than players who have inferior career numbers, but have won a championship.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Two former LSUers and future HOFers, Alan Faneca and Kevin Mawae's RCs can be had for less than a $1. >>
Hard to find Faneca's true RC (UD XL). It's akin to the Pacific Philadelphia Adam Vinatieri in that when you see one, they tend to sell at a pretty high number. Albeit, the AV books for far more than the Faneca. >>
Tell me about it. I can't even find a raw copy and I've been looking for about a year. It's a couple dollar card and no one EVER has it for sale ANYWHERE online. >>
Took awhile to get this one for my Future HOF RC Set:
Erving
Compare that to an 1986 fleer that will go for over $150
T222's PSA 1 or better
<< <i>With the exception of 1 or 2 cards, Craig Biggio PSA 10 rookies can usually be had for $10-15. >>
This is the first one that jumped into my head. Alomar as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Two former LSUers and future HOFers, Alan Faneca and Kevin Mawae's RCs can be had for less than a $1. >>
Hard to find Faneca's true RC (UD XL). It's akin to the Pacific Philadelphia Adam Vinatieri in that when you see one, they tend to sell at a pretty high number. Albeit, the AV books for far more than the Faneca. >>
Tell me about it. I can't even find a raw copy and I've been looking for about a year. It's a couple dollar card and no one EVER has it for sale ANYWHERE online. >>
Took awhile to get this one for my Future HOF RC Set:
I'm close to putting together an all-time Steelers PSA set, and this card and the 1948 Bowman Elbie Nickel are giving me hell. It's nearly impossible to even find raw copies.
1951 Topps Red backs psa 8 only!
1960 Golden Press Presidential set Psa 8 's - Psa 9's
1961 Golden Press psa 9's
1976 Topps baseball psa 9 Stars
1980 Kelloggs baseball Psa 9's - Psa 10's
1988-1989 Fleer Basketball psa 9's
1988-1989 Fleer Stickers psa 9's
1989-1990 Fleer Basketball psa 10's
1992 Coca-Cola Donruss Nolan Ryan 1-26 Psa 10 only Gpa 9.80++ E-mail Newyork00007@aol.com
are too modern? Unless of course you meant in PSA 9 and above?
Many of those cards were produced in what is known as the mass produced era.
Or at least those printed from 76 and above.
Steve
Karl Malone
Clyde Drexler
David Robinson
Scottie Pippen
This is just to name a few. Don't get me wrong, a lot of 80's-90's NBA stars do very well, but if there was no MJ, I think collectors would be shilling out more.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Dave Andreychuk
Ron Francis
Dale Hawerchuk
Mike Gartner (although he's priced high, but sells low)
Scott Stevens
Michel Goulet
Dino Ciccarelli
Marc Tardiff (all-time leading scorer of the WHA)
Rogie Vachon - NHL goalie
Guillaume Latendresse - Minnesota Wild forward
Brad Friedel (former U.S. Nats goalkeeper)
How man HOF rc's are from the 80's? Any idea?
<< <i>Undervalued presumes that they will go up in value (relative to other cards) in the future, right? Just because a player like Tim Duncan is under appreciated does not mean his cards will ever go up in value dis-proportionally to other players. He may just be one of those guys whose cards always cost less than other similar skilled players. Doesn't mean he isn't a better play or anything like that. It's just simple supply and demand... mostly demand (or lack thereof) that determine value. Thus, in conclusion I think it is very difficult to determine someone who is truly undervalued now as compared to the future. It would seem something would have to happen to all of a sudden make the world aware of this "undervalued" gem which would cause people to start buying. I think it's a crap shoot like any card. I thus think no card is truly "undervalued." Just my two. >>
I think, in this instance, that undervalued is applied to cards that sell significantly below the prices of similar contemporary players.
As a example, Andreychuk sells for a fraction of Cam Neely (same rookie card issue - 1984-85 OPC). There's no reason for this other than the fact that Neely played in Boston and Andreychuk primarily in Buffalo, Toronto, NJ and TB. Andreychuk had nearly twice and many goals and points as Neely.
<< <i>Undervalued presumes that they will go up in value (relative to other cards) in the future, right? Just because a player like Tim Duncan is under appreciated does not mean his cards will ever go up in value dis-proportionally to other players. He may just be one of those guys whose cards always cost less than other similar skilled players. Doesn't mean he isn't a better play or anything like that. It's just simple supply and demand... mostly demand (or lack thereof) that determine value. Thus, in conclusion I think it is very difficult to determine someone who is truly undervalued now as compared to the future. It would seem something would have to happen to all of a sudden make the world aware of this "undervalued" gem which would cause people to start buying. I think it's a crap shoot like any card. I thus think no card is truly "undervalued." Just my two. >>
I completely disagree. If what you say is true, then why do cards ever go up in value.
<< <i>Undervalued presumes that they will go up in value (relative to other cards) in the future, right? >>
Not necessarily. It can also mean the value I place on them is under what other people do
or players and people would seek those cards out, or a series for some reason would become cold and people would again buy them up.
Any number of factors could cause this too.
If Larry is saying that even the series that were once over looked are where they should be than my point is moot.
IMO collectors constantly seek out what they feel is undervalued, it could be a pre war set or any card for that matter.
Hope the above made sense.
edited to attribute the comment to the proper author.
Steve
But, I think - fer sure - there's guys that aren't appreciated the way some may prefer.
Tim Duncan was mentioned - I think David Robinson may fall in that category also.
Sometimes entire sets aren't well accepted - 20 yrs ago, the '55 and 56T sets were underappreciated - but then they caught fire.
There's so many years and sets to view but - in general - Topps cards had a bit of a "correction" years ago - this was probably due to the heavy speculation back in the early 90s.
I just pickup what I like.
mike
Steve
<< <i>If I thought that and had the dough I'd be buying them up.
Steve >>
You do not think they are undervalued?
I was simply saying if I thought that and had the dough, not that I don't think that.
That make sense?
Steve
<< <i>I have no idea, I'm not up on that set or card.
I was simply saying if I thought that and had the dough, not that I don't think that.
That make sense?
Steve >>
It came across that you did not think it was. It really does not matter, I was just stating what I thought was undervalued.
Or it can be like Scott mentioned regarding between two or more players that were similar.
Steve
yeah I see that now. Nah I meant differently.
It's a great card. I have no idea if it's under or over valued.
Steve
Edited to add: I only know for certain that I don't have the dough.....lol
many rookie HOFers in sports other than the big 4 or named tiger woods
Tony Hawk
Roger federer
david beckham
Jack nickalaus
Hulk Hogan..haha
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Wade Boggs
2 of the best hiiters of all time
There then is the overall issue of economics and it's impact on the baseball card world. This exchange happened a page or two back:
I SAID: << Undervalued presumes that they will go up in value (relative to other cards) in the future, right? Just because a player like Tim Duncan is under appreciated does not mean his cards will ever go up in value dis-proportionally to other players. He may just be one of those guys whose cards always cost less than other similar skilled players. Doesn't mean he isn't a better play or anything like that. It's just simple supply and demand... mostly demand (or lack thereof) that determine value. Thus, in conclusion I think it is very difficult to determine someone who is truly undervalued now as compared to the future. It would seem something would have to happen to all of a sudden make the world aware of this "undervalued" gem which would cause people to start buying. I think it's a crap shoot like any card. I thus think no card is truly "undervalued." Just my two. >>
SPORTSCARDTHEORY so eloquently said,
I completely disagree. If what you say is true, then why do cards ever go up in value.
Cards go up (or down) in value based on supply and demand. So, for example in the late 1980's there was a tremendous DEMAND and thus all cards (on average) went up astronomically. Yes, some more than others but, in general, they "all" went up a lot and then came down a lot since then. In case you missed Econ 1a (or 101) supply and demand play an important role in ALL sales. Toothpaste at the market, gasoline for your car, stocks on the stockmarket or collectibles like baseball cards. I always remember something said in Econ class by the teacher, "the price paid for any given stock, on the stockmarket is the price when 50% of the people think the card will go up in value and 50% think it will go down in value." Same could be said of cards. You can look it up at wiki I am sure if you need more background information on supply and demand. As time goes on there will be less supply as new copies of old cards are presumably (and hopefully) never added but can be lost (by fire, etc...). Likewise, demand goes up and down for cards in general. With all that said, the average demand for any two cards (let's say, an undervalued player versus an overvalued player) will move in similar patterns up and down. Unless an exceptional (and unexpected) event happens an undervalued player's card is not going to increase (or decrease) proportionally more than an "overvalued" card. Yes, it CAN happen but on average it won't and it is essentially pure luck to pick the card that will increase more than others. Just because a certain player's cards are "undervalued" does not mean they will go up more than a player who is overvalued. The "overvalued" player has a greater DEMAND and presumably that will always be the case. Again, go back to basic econ before you "completely disagree."
<< <i>It seems there are two different issues being discussed here. One is the fact that the cards of some players, of equal (or GREATER) impact on the field/court than others, are just less than other players. There is no doubt and it's fine to point out which players "should" be worth more. Big city players tend to be worth more, loud mouth players tend to be worth more, etc....
There then is the overall issue of economics and it's impact on the baseball card world. This exchange happened a page or two back:
I SAID: << Undervalued presumes that they will go up in value (relative to other cards) in the future, right? Just because a player like Tim Duncan is under appreciated does not mean his cards will ever go up in value dis-proportionally to other players. He may just be one of those guys whose cards always cost less than other similar skilled players. Doesn't mean he isn't a better play or anything like that. It's just simple supply and demand... mostly demand (or lack thereof) that determine value. Thus, in conclusion I think it is very difficult to determine someone who is truly undervalued now as compared to the future. It would seem something would have to happen to all of a sudden make the world aware of this "undervalued" gem which would cause people to start buying. I think it's a crap shoot like any card. I thus think no card is truly "undervalued." Just my two. >>
SPORTSCARDTHEORY so eloquently said,
I completely disagree. If what you say is true, then why do cards ever go up in value.
Cards go up (or down) in value based on supply and demand. So, for example in the late 1980's there was a tremendous DEMAND and thus all cards (on average) went up astronomically. Yes, some more than others but, in general, they "all" went up a lot and then came down a lot since then. In case you missed Econ 1a (or 101) supply and demand play an important role in ALL sales. Toothpaste at the market, gasoline for your car, stocks on the stockmarket or collectibles like baseball cards. I always remember something said in Econ class by the teacher, "the price paid for any given stock, on the stockmarket is the price when 50% of the people think the card will go up in value and 50% think it will go down in value." Same could be said of cards. You can look it up at wiki I am sure if you need more background information on supply and demand. As time goes on there will be less supply as new copies of old cards are presumably (and hopefully) never added but can be lost (by fire, etc...). Likewise, demand goes up and down for cards in general. With all that said, the average demand for any two cards (let's say, an undervalued player versus an overvalued player) will move in similar patterns up and down. Unless an exceptional (and unexpected) event happens an undervalued player's card is not going to increase (or decrease) proportionally more than an "overvalued" card. Yes, it CAN happen but on average it won't and it is essentially pure luck to pick the card that will increase more than others. Just because a certain player's cards are "undervalued" does not mean they will go up more than a player who is overvalued. The "overvalued" player has a greater DEMAND and presumably that will always be the case. Again, go back to basic econ before you "completely disagree." >>
That's a pretty long-winded way of saying that the price of any given card can and will fluctuate. I know what supply and demand is, this is why I stated that cards can go up in value. I get your point, that cards are worth what they are worth at any given moment, but a card WAS undervalued if the price skyrockets, no? If I buy card A for $10 and it goes up to $20, was it not undervalued at $10?