Safer Long-Term Bet - Pre-War, Post-War to 80's, or Modern?
MattyC
Posts: 1,335 ✭✭
So I was having a discussion with a fellow collector last night and he advanced the following theory, and I'll paraphrase here:
"It's better to buy cards like the 1975 mini Yount RC PSA 10 and Molitor RC PSA 10 that just went off, or a Jordan Star or Fleer RC, than it is to buy Pre-War cards in lower grade that cost the same, like say Ruth or Gehrig or Cobb or Shoeless Joe-- because as time marches on and older collectors are no longer driving interest in those past legends, interest in their cards will wane. Whereas more modern players have all the upside, and younger collectors now entering their prime earning years will look to their legends., i.e., Brett, Yount, Schmidt, Rose, Ryan, to Mattingly, Griffey, Thomas, etc."
On one hand I see the logic at play above. On the other hand I am personally an exception to it: I never saw Ruth or Gehrig or Koufax or Kiner play and I can/do appreciate their accomplishments-- and desire their cards. To me those cards take on an almost museum status.
So setting aside any debate on aesthetics and personal taste, I'm wondering what everyone thinks is the safer bet long term. I am not one to look at cards as pure mercenary investments; rather I am asking this: If you like all the cards equally on an aesthetic level, which would you feel more comfortable holding, in case of some unforeseen emergency you had to sell? Is it a wash with six here and a half-dozen there, or does one seem like the safer bet to hold value over time? Are names like Ruth and Gehrig immune to time and a disconnect with younger collectors, will time only age their cards like fine wine, or will there be an eventual disconnect with collectors now and soon entering their prime years? (I think Mantle is a glaring exception to any hypothetical disconnect, as his cards achieved such iconic status to so many of us who entered the hobby in the late 70s and early 80s, and the stature of his 52T card endures to this day; that's a flame I don't ever see going out within the hobby).
"It's better to buy cards like the 1975 mini Yount RC PSA 10 and Molitor RC PSA 10 that just went off, or a Jordan Star or Fleer RC, than it is to buy Pre-War cards in lower grade that cost the same, like say Ruth or Gehrig or Cobb or Shoeless Joe-- because as time marches on and older collectors are no longer driving interest in those past legends, interest in their cards will wane. Whereas more modern players have all the upside, and younger collectors now entering their prime earning years will look to their legends., i.e., Brett, Yount, Schmidt, Rose, Ryan, to Mattingly, Griffey, Thomas, etc."
On one hand I see the logic at play above. On the other hand I am personally an exception to it: I never saw Ruth or Gehrig or Koufax or Kiner play and I can/do appreciate their accomplishments-- and desire their cards. To me those cards take on an almost museum status.
So setting aside any debate on aesthetics and personal taste, I'm wondering what everyone thinks is the safer bet long term. I am not one to look at cards as pure mercenary investments; rather I am asking this: If you like all the cards equally on an aesthetic level, which would you feel more comfortable holding, in case of some unforeseen emergency you had to sell? Is it a wash with six here and a half-dozen there, or does one seem like the safer bet to hold value over time? Are names like Ruth and Gehrig immune to time and a disconnect with younger collectors, will time only age their cards like fine wine, or will there be an eventual disconnect with collectors now and soon entering their prime years? (I think Mantle is a glaring exception to any hypothetical disconnect, as his cards achieved such iconic status to so many of us who entered the hobby in the late 70s and early 80s, and the stature of his 52T card endures to this day; that's a flame I don't ever see going out within the hobby).
0
Comments
Based on the limited research I have done, it is based on about 100 cards using VCP. Most of the cards in my "study" are top tier HOF in mostly average to slightly above average conditions. The values for the most part have remained somewhat stagnant and pretty much kept pace with inflation. Maybe it was a function of the market, maybe it was the demand for the players, maybe it was luck. Of the few cards that did not do well, that was a function of bad purchases. I admit, sometimes I pay too much for a card. Hey, it happens to the best of us.
For the most part, the big names like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, DiMaggio, Williams, Clemente, etc.... are immune to time. There will always be collectors for these players because their stories never go away. Mantle as you said will transcend any and all rules. The asterisk that needs to be said is that it has to be the right card for said players. For example, there is not a huge demand for the Gehrig Delong card. It's a great card and will cost a few dollars, but I'm not sure if there return will be there and it may not be as easy to sell in a pinch (or even if you have time). Cards like that demand a certain buyer (mostly a registry junkie). Whereas, if you try to sell any of the Gehrig Goudeys, you'll have a bidding war on your hands (an ideal situation for any seller). For mid tier HOF, I think high end samples of their rookie card or low pop other years might be worth owning. One example of a modern card that I can think of that might be an exception for long term appreciation is the Jeter UD SP rookie card (is 92 still considered modern? I think so). To end this part of the ramble, one thing I hear consistently is that you can almost never go wrong with high end tobacco cards.
A somewhat not so funny story: One night I decided to put together a spreadsheet on excel of every purchase and sale I could find in my excel history going back 6 or 7 years. I put in purchase price, sale price, purchase date, sale date, total rate of return, annualized rate of return. It was pretty extensive. Saved it to my computer. I stayed after work one night and put about 5 hours into it. Literally, LITERALLY, the very next day, my company shut our office down and took away access to our computers. Everything that I did was lost. I was not happy.
One thing that stood out was the best card to have in terms of an investment and rate of return was a Michael Jordan rookie. Over a period of around 5 years, it had an annualized rate of return of about 7% and most of the other cards averaged around 1-3%. Will that trend continue? Who knows? What caused his cards to spike so much compared to so many other examples over the past 7 years? He is still alive. He hasn't broken any new records. Did I miss anything?
Another thing to consider is the transaction costs. The fees that are involved in eBay and Paypal are no joke and add up fast. Not too mention taxes. When dealing with high end cards, 13% of the hammer price could be a nice chunk of any profit that you might realize.
I think the trick of it is, if you plan on keeping cards for an investment purpose (and to some degree most of us are), you need a combination of good buys (not always possible for a variety of reasons) and/or the time to keep them.
As has been said one or two times on this board, if you are going to own just one card for the sake of investment purposes (that is somewhat reasonably in the grasp of more than a handful of people on this board) it would be the Mantle 52T in almost any grade.
<< <i>I started in the mail order card business by selling 100 card player lots in SCD back in 1982, so forgive me, but Im a tad cynical when looking at cards as an investment. Collect what you like and you'll never go wrong
I agree. Collecting for enjoyment (bringing back childhood memories) is much better then investing, but to answer the question, you can NEVER go wrong with
the big names. Planting your money in Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Ryan, Rose, or Schmidt, proven hall of famers whose cards value will not go down, is
the way to go.
Putting huge money into todays modern market is a little risky.
I'm getting better at this though, I just bought a HOF hockey player at 40% off VCP average, and at one of the lowest sale prices over the past 5 years. Hard to imagine not getting a good return when I go to sell, which won't be for a few decades.
IMO large price swings are the biggest variable; unlike other investments (for the record I don't collect as an investment) card prices vary so greatly that if you buy quality cards at the bottom of the price scale you should always do OK.
My gut says to rule out current cards, and that legendary HOFers become a wash, in terms of the PreWar vs PostWar icons; in other words I'm thinking a "blue chip" card from the 70s like a Yount or Brett RC will likely hold its value as much as a Goudey Ruth or Cobb bat off.
<< <i>It's always fun discussing this kind of stuff. Just to be clear I'm not asking which cards to buy from a purely investment/mercenary perspective. But rather if you liked a Pre-War, a 50s-80s card, and a modern card equally from both the featured player and aesthetic points of view, and all that was then left to consider was which would be the safest bet to hold value over time, which would you then choose to add-- if you could only add one to your collection? In other words how much do we agree or disagree with the paraphrased theory in the initial post...
My gut says to rule out current cards, and that legendary HOFers become a wash, in terms of the PreWar vs PostWar icons; in other words I'm thinking a "blue chip" card from the 70s like a Yount or Brett RC will likely hold its value as much as a Goudey Ruth or Cobb bat off. >>
My opinion is that both Pre-War and 50's-80's iconic high grade rookie "should" hold their own assuming a good economy in general. As I've stated before, I think this stuff is a safer investment right now than the stock market. More and more former collectors just like myself, people in their 30's and 40's with money to invest, are coming back into it to pick up some of the high end stuff they collected when they were a kid, both for nostalgic sake, and to invest. For that reason, I think the 50's-80's stuff might be a tad safer based on the number of collectors out there that can and should be able to relate
TheClockworkAngelCollection
<< <i>I think this stuff is a safer investment right now than the stock market. >>
That would depend on what your time line would be. For the most part, the stock market is a more liquid investment. And over the past 10 years has done better than most cards (assuming the overall index and not individual stocks).
Are cards more fun to invest in? Absolutely. Safer? Not so sure. Just like any commodity, there is usually more risk. I won't go too far off on a tangent about that right now.
<< <i>More and more former collectors just like myself, people in their 30's and 40's with money to invest, are coming back into it to pick up some of the high end stuff they collected when they were a kid, both for nostalgic sake, and to invest. >>
I agree with you on this. I for one am in this category myself. While I am able to buy the cards I always wanted when I was a kid, at the same time I am aware that this is real money being put into my collection and want to make sure I don't take a bath.
<< <i>I think the 50's-80's stuff might be a tad safer based on the number of collectors out there that can and should be able to relate >>
Maybe at first. I would even say that the trend would end to the mid 70s. But once these reborn collectors start to learn more about the hobby, they might start to venture towards Pre War and older. Then again, the lion's share of collections of people in that demographic would be during those years, so you might be right on that.
If I had to pick one though... I'm going with modern!
Now, I'm not just talking modern in general, but rather, specific targeting of limited edition, moderate-to-high value modern "rookie" cards. A third year Pujols base card, or Tom Brady base card... will never, never, never, stack up against 3rd year cards of the stars of yesteryear.
When I'm talking about modern... I'm talking 2000-present, and specifically, the proliferation of serial numbered cards. The trick is the gamble (well, the OP did say "bet")... because we have to project that these modern athletes will transcend the sport in the same fashion that stars of the past did. In baseball, we have Albert Pujols. I'm hard pressed to think of another since 2000... maybe Ichiro, but that's a stretch. But we have more recent players maybe worth a gamble, like Strasburg, Harper, Trout, etc. In football, there is Tom Brady. Potential cases could be made for Aaron Rodgers, Adrian Peterson, maybe even Drew Brees. Basketball... ever heard of Lebron James! Hockey, you have Sydney Crosby... and maybe one day Ovechkin, Datsyuk, and potentially others.
When I'm thinking long-term... I'm thinking 25 years from now or longer. For example, and I'll speak to this as it's one area of my collecting focus... Albert Pujols has 43 different rookie cards. 33 of these cards are serial numbered to 2999 or less. About a dozen of these, I'd consider strong, long-term, investment type cards. No matter how you slice it, you can add up the total print run of these 33 serial numbered rookie cards... and that number is still a fraction of the number of rookie cards printed for the likes of Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Jackie Robinson, etc.
There will always, always, be demand for both... but long term, assuming the hobby doesn't die... supply on the modern side, speaking specifically to a players more desirable issues, will be far more limited than that of the other categories.
Even I, admittedly, find it difficult to make this argument. I often can't believe I believe this... but I do. I'm analytical, and the numbers are just there. Just look at where the hobby has come since the boom of the mid-80's to early 90's... high grade vintage continues to come out of the woodwork... but there will never be more than the number of low serial numbered rookies of future hall of famers like there is with current modern cards.
For an additional example... right now, today, you can pick up a Albert Pujols SPX (and it's autographed to boot) rookie card in PSA 10, limited to only 1500 ever printed, for the cost of a PSA 5 Hank Aaron rookie! The Pujols is a pop 127 card... the Aaron PSA 5 has a current pop of 610! Heck, the Aaron PSA 8 has a pop of 177. Right now, there are 1715 Hank Aaaron rookies, without qualifiers, grade PSA 5 or higher. Yes, there are already more PSA 5 and higher Hank Aaron rookies floating around than there were even Pujols SPX rookies cards made! One of these numbers will continue to grow, the other cannot! If I'm betting... my bet is 25-30 years from now... that Pujols PSA 10 is not only going to kill the Hank Aaron PSA 5 in value, but will probably surpass that of even a PSA 7 or PSA 8.
Of course, this is just my opinion and I don't expect it to be shared by most... but that's my bet!
High grade vintage is still pretty risky since it hasn't been tested over the long term.
If you want to invest for the long term, look at something else.
And, if you want to gamble, there's always Vegas. You'll see an outcome a lot sooner than if you sit on a card for 25 years.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
On the one hand Pre-War players are bought and sold based on their stats since few people are left alive that saw them play, on the other, since most of the players have passed away there won't be any new "bad" information (steroids or trouble with the law) that will hurt the players value. Good steady value and small risk, if any.
Post-War you still have people like me who remembered watching them play and are willing to pay more than they are worth because of that feeling. The downside (and it's not much of one) is there is unopened material out there and if someone finally busts a case and pulls several 9's or 10's, card values could be effected.
I would say Pre-War but it's pretty close in my opinion. The modern stuff is too confusing to me to predict and with the steroid factor, you could really lose big time.
That's my .02.
Joe
The "portfolio" ranges from T206 to 2001 Pujols.
As a WHOLE, my spreadsheet calculates a 9% annualized return...
Some have preformed poorly. Some have appreciated 200%. Some I was able to purchase below market value (got lucky)
(Realized prices; not book)
I believe Ruth/Gehrig/Koufax/Dimaggio,etc will continue to be the Blue Chips with good steady growth. They are more than baseball cards...they're baseball Americana and still legendary even to the younger baseball generation. IMO
<< <i>"It's better to buy cards like the 1975 mini Yount RC PSA 10 and Molitor RC PSA 10 that just went off, or a Jordan Star or Fleer RC, than it is to buy Pre-War cards in lower grade that cost the same, like say Ruth or Gehrig or Cobb or Shoeless Joe."
I think the key term here is "in lower grade," and agree with the sentiment. If we are talking $10,000 and less, I would rather invest in a scarce/rare high-grade post-war card of a Hall of Famer than a low-grade Ruth, Cobb, etc. I believe there is more upside. If I had the funds, I would invest in scarce high-grade pre-war cards of Hall of Famers. I believe these cards have experienced the highest annualized return over the last 10 or 20 years, but also typically come with astronomical price tags.
I'm also a fan of investing in legitimate game-used jerseys and bats of Hall of Famers. Overall much more scarce than cards.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. While not every one of those 33 cards has a print run as high as 2999, I think we can say that 50,000 copies is a conservative number for the sake of this conversation. There's no way in hell there are even close to 50,000 1952 Topps Mantles out there. PSA has graded 1,100+. I don't know how many SGC has graded because getting information from their pop report is like answering Schrodinger's cat, but I'd bet there are less SGC examples than PSA. Now let's say there are 5x as many 52 Mantles raw as there are graded (I'm guessing it's nowhere close to this), and let's say there are 3,000 total graded examples amongst all TPGers. You're looking at 18,000 1952 Topps Mantles out there compared to 50,000 2001 Pujols cards.
Now, I went way overboard on my projections (I'm sure there are much less Mantles and many more Pujols than the numbers I've used here) to prove a point. Even if you include 52 Bowman there's still no way that Pujols 2001 cards are "a fraction of the number of rookie cards printed for the likes of Mantle ...."
<< <i><<<<< When I'm thinking long-term... I'm thinking 25 years from now or longer. For example, and I'll speak to this as it's one area of my collecting focus... Albert Pujols has 43 different rookie cards. 33 of these cards are serial numbered to 2999 or less. About a dozen of these, I'd consider strong, long-term, investment type cards. No matter how you slice it, you can add up the total print run of these 33 serial numbered rookie cards... and that number is still a fraction of the number of rookie cards printed for the likes of Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Jackie Robinson, etc. >>>>>
I'm going to have to disagree with this. While not every one of those 33 cards has a print run as high as 2999, I think we can say that 50,000 copies is a conservative number for the sake of this conversation. There's no way in hell there are even close to 50,000 1952 Topps Mantles out there. PSA has graded 1,100+. I don't know how many SGC has graded because getting information from their pop report is like answering Schrodinger's cat, but I'd bet there are less SGC examples than PSA. Now let's say there are 5x as many 52 Mantles raw as there are graded (I'm guessing it's nowhere close to this), and let's say there are 3,000 total graded examples amongst all TPGers. You're looking at 18,000 1952 Topps Mantles out there compared to 50,000 2001 Pujols cards.
Now, I went way overboard on my projections (I'm sure there are much less Mantles and many more Pujols than the numbers I've used here) to prove a point. Even if you include 52 Bowman there's still no way that Pujols 2001 cards are "a fraction of the number of rookie cards printed for the likes of Mantle ...." >>
1) The actual total number of serial number Pujols RCs is 38,433
2) Mantle's RC is 1951 Bowman, not 1952 Topps... but whatever
3) I don't know that anyone knows the true print run numbers from Topps/Bowman/Leaf, historically, but for the sake of conversation... let's say 100,000 each (albeit, I bet the number is higher)... 38% is a fairly low fractional value!
4) Yes, over the past half century... Thousands of these cards may have been destroyed, lost, thrown away, what have you... but, they are still be found all over the place and never cease to come out of the woodwork. A Pujols rookie with a print run of, lets say 1500 like the SPX... it doesn't matter where you look, how hard you look, whatever luck may throw you... you'll never find more than 1500 of them!
Even though it's not his rookie, let's go with your idea of the 52 Mantle... and let's look at a PSA 6... current VCP average is right around (just slightly over) $15K
A PSA 10 Pujols SPX RC, can be had for roughly $875... or for $15K... you can buy 17 of them!!!
The 52 Mantle is an established hobby staple, so let's say it beats inflation over a 25 year period to realize a annual 3% gain... in 25 years, it's a $31,436 card... not bad for investing $15K today!!!
Now, in 25 years... and it's hard to argue it... let's say Pujols has been long retired, is in the HOF, and is widely considered a Top 10 All-Time player... is $3,000 too much to expect out of that card... I doubt it. I'm thinking 25 years from now, with only 1500 copies even possible to exist... something in the $5K+ neighborhood is about right.
And yes, $5K is a long, long, long way from $31K and change... but...
Even at the low, low estimate of $3K in 25 years... I bought 17 of them... so bam, that's $51,000.... or at the worse case, bare minimum, a $20K ROI over the purchase of a 52 Mantle!!!
So, you were saying...
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>1) The actual total number of serial number Pujols RCs is 38,433
2) Mantle's RC is 1951 Bowman, not 1952 Topps... but whatever
3) I don't know that anyone knows the true print run numbers from Topps/Bowman/Leaf, historically, but for the sake of conversation... let's say 100,000 each (albeit, I bet the number is higher)... 38% is a fairly low fractional value!
4) Yes, over the past half century... Thousands of these cards may have been destroyed, lost, thrown away, what have you... but, they are still be found all over the place and never cease to come out of the woodwork. A Pujols rookie with a print run of, lets say 1500 like the SPX... it doesn't matter where you look, how hard you look, whatever luck may throw you... you'll never find more than 1500 of them!
Even though it's not his rookie, let's go with your idea of the 52 Mantle... and let's look at a PSA 6... current VCP average is right around (just slightly over) $15K
A PSA 10 Pujols SPX RC, can be had for roughly $875... or for $15K... you can buy 17 of them!!!
The 52 Mantle is an established hobby staple, so let's say it beats inflation over a 25 year period to realize a annual 3% gain... in 25 years, it's a $31,436 card... not bad for investing $15K today!!!
Now, in 25 years... and it's hard to argue it... let's say Pujols has been long retired, is in the HOF, and is widely considered a Top 10 All-Time player... is $3,000 too much to expect out of that card... I doubt it. I'm thinking 25 years from now, with only 1500 copies even possible to exist... something in the $5K+ neighborhood is about right.
And yes, $5K is a long, long, long way from $31K and change... but...
Even at the low, low estimate of $3K in 25 years... I bought 17 of them... so bam, that's $51,000.... or at the worse case, bare minimum, a $20K ROI over the purchase of a 52 Mantle!!!
So, you were saying... >>
One word can turn that $15,000 investment into a $5,000 one... steroids.
Note: I am not at all implying that he did or didn't, but I am always skeptical about purchasing modern cards. Barry Bonds was a sure thing, Sammy Sosa was too, so was Roger Clemens, so was ARod (his stuff took a HUGE hit). All I'm saying is be careful with your "investment".
A perfect example is Mike Piazza, statistically he's one of the best AND he's one of the most loved players from the 90's, BUT he is now associated with steroids. He was never proven, no fingers were definitively pointed, but rumors spread fast. He should have been a first ballot HOFer, but instead, his items can be picked up dirt cheap because of a rumor.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Even at the low, low estimate of $3K in 25 years >>
That's a massive assumption. What are you basing that on?
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
-A lot of pre war cards have just exploded in the last 10-12 years. For example, the 1914 Baltimore News Ruth. Similar with the E90 1 Joe Jackson.
When I was a kid in the late 80's, I use to get these baseball card guides that listed the most valuable pre war cards. They had pretty much the same kind of cards in every guide....the '33 Goudey Lajoie, Wagner, Plank, Magee. A new crop of cards have popped up onto the scene in the last 10 years. Percentage wise and dollar wise, its a lot of money.
-T 206 hall of famers have done very well. SCP auctioned the Harris collection years ago. A lot of those PSA 8's and 9's are bargains now.
Modern stuff after 1975 or 80 is much more volatile. Analogous to pink sheet stocks or NASDAQ stocks.
I think people will always be intrigued by the older stuff. You read stories about players. The designs and player selection is great.
-Also, a lot of the numbers of pre war and 50's cards are almost set in stone. For example, there have been 3 Gem Mint 10 '52 Mantles for how many years?
Some modern cards will be good (like the '93 SP Jeter rookie). The problem is....a whiff of PED involvement, or any kind of "cheating" and you're tainted forever. It could be years before we know the truth about this era, from the middle 90's to 2010/2015.
<< <i>
<< <i>Even at the low, low estimate of $3K in 25 years >>
That's a massive assumption. What are you basing that on? >>
Well, primarily, I'm basing that on the assumptions I already posted... in the exact post from whtich you quoted the above...
The assumption that in 25 years... he'll be long retired, in the HOF, and considered a Top 10 All-Time player.
In addition to that, and I'm not here to teach economics and statistical analysis...
Market tendencies, inflation, and supply & demand
I guess, as someone else pointed out above... that also includes a retired, clean reputation... which at this point, I believe will be the case.
With that resume... and only 1500 cards ever produced... of which, in 25 years... maybe, maybe, 300 of them are PSA 10s... where the card sits today... versus where he stands to end up on the all time stats list... I'm thinking $3,000 in 2038 dollars is way reasonable and conservative.
Forget 25 years from now... how much could you pick up a mid-grade Mantle for 15 years ago? And today?
It's not a massive assumption at all.
And for the record, I'm done with this thread if it starts turning into another Pujols bashing thread like we've seen all to often here. I highly doubt that was the OP's original intention... and as my earliest post/theory discussed...
I'm talking about the targeting, as investments, of modern mega star rookie cards the likes of Pujols, Tom Brady, Lebron James, etc...
I just happen to be using Pujols, as it's something I collect and feel most comfortable referencing in my examples.
If you don't agree with me, that's fine... but at least read the posts, before attempting a rebuttal discussion! I guess we'll see who is "most" right... in 25 years
<< <i>
<< <i><<<<< When I'm thinking long-term... I'm thinking 25 years from now or longer. For example, and I'll speak to this as it's one area of my collecting focus... Albert Pujols has 43 different rookie cards. 33 of these cards are serial numbered to 2999 or less. About a dozen of these, I'd consider strong, long-term, investment type cards. No matter how you slice it, you can add up the total print run of these 33 serial numbered rookie cards... and that number is still a fraction of the number of rookie cards printed for the likes of Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Jackie Robinson, etc. >>>>>
I'm going to have to disagree with this. While not every one of those 33 cards has a print run as high as 2999, I think we can say that 50,000 copies is a conservative number for the sake of this conversation. There's no way in hell there are even close to 50,000 1952 Topps Mantles out there. PSA has graded 1,100+. I don't know how many SGC has graded because getting information from their pop report is like answering Schrodinger's cat, but I'd bet there are less SGC examples than PSA. Now let's say there are 5x as many 52 Mantles raw as there are graded (I'm guessing it's nowhere close to this), and let's say there are 3,000 total graded examples amongst all TPGers. You're looking at 18,000 1952 Topps Mantles out there compared to 50,000 2001 Pujols cards.
Now, I went way overboard on my projections (I'm sure there are much less Mantles and many more Pujols than the numbers I've used here) to prove a point. Even if you include 52 Bowman there's still no way that Pujols 2001 cards are "a fraction of the number of rookie cards printed for the likes of Mantle ...." >>
1) The actual total number of serial number Pujols RCs is 38,433
2) Mantle's RC is 1951 Bowman, not 1952 Topps... but whatever
3) I don't know that anyone knows the true print run numbers from Topps/Bowman/Leaf, historically, but for the sake of conversation... let's say 100,000 each (albeit, I bet the number is higher)... 38% is a fairly low fractional value!
4) Yes, over the past half century... Thousands of these cards may have been destroyed, lost, thrown away, what have you... but, they are still be found all over the place and never cease to come out of the woodwork. A Pujols rookie with a print run of, lets say 1500 like the SPX... it doesn't matter where you look, how hard you look, whatever luck may throw you... you'll never find more than 1500 of them!
Even though it's not his rookie, let's go with your idea of the 52 Mantle... and let's look at a PSA 6... current VCP average is right around (just slightly over) $15K
A PSA 10 Pujols SPX RC, can be had for roughly $875... or for $15K... you can buy 17 of them!!!
The 52 Mantle is an established hobby staple, so let's say it beats inflation over a 25 year period to realize a annual 3% gain... in 25 years, it's a $31,436 card... not bad for investing $15K today!!!
Now, in 25 years... and it's hard to argue it... let's say Pujols has been long retired, is in the HOF, and is widely considered a Top 10 All-Time player... is $3,000 too much to expect out of that card... I doubt it. I'm thinking 25 years from now, with only 1500 copies even possible to exist... something in the $5K+ neighborhood is about right.
And yes, $5K is a long, long, long way from $31K and change... but...
Even at the low, low estimate of $3K in 25 years... I bought 17 of them... so bam, that's $51,000.... or at the worse case, bare minimum, a $20K ROI over the purchase of a 52 Mantle!!!
So, you were saying... >>
Those projections on Pujols are only guesses based on nothing going wrong with his career on and off the field. Remember, the only cards of his that have ANY chance of getting this high are going to be "Gem-Mint" examples.
I am an American League guy more than National, so I haven't watched his career that closely, but there have been some claims about steroids and possible problems with Albert's age, and he hasn't yet achieved the top 10 player of all time rating. His numbers have been dropping the last few years, he could go either way.
Puhols is a much higher risk, but could also be a big reward if he can have a few more great years.
Joe
New cards are like penny stocks - not where you want most of your investment to be but you may get the odd wild return.
<< <i>Those projections on Pujols are only guesses based on nothing going wrong with his career on and off the field. Remember, the only cards of his that have ANY chance of getting this high are going to be "Gem-Mint" examples.
I am an American League guy more than National, so I haven't watched his career that closely, but there have been some claims about steroids and possible problems with Albert's age, and he hasn't yet achieved the top 10 player of all time rating. His numbers have been dropping the last few years, he could go either way.
Puhols is a much higher risk, but could also be a big reward if he can have a few more great years.
Joe >>
Only chance are Gem Mint examples... I agree
Current player... higher risk... I agree
In Albert's case... given his track record, I highly doubt his numbers will drop to the point that he still doesn't finish his career with Top 10 numbers! His numbers have dropped... to still being a roughly .300/30/100 guy... which still makes him better than 90% of the players in the game.
There are only 2 members of the .300+ Average, 600 Homerun, 3000 hit club... Mays & Aaron... he'll (most likely) be the 3rd!
And again... I'm only using Pujols as an example... but what I'm really talking about are high grade, low print run, rookies of today's mega stars (with the gamble on them being future All-Time greats)... IE. Pujols, Brady, Lebron, Sydney Crosby, etc.
Like you said... more risk, but also more reward... so target selectively
However since Pujols still has plenty of career left to either justify his status, slow down, get hurt, or fall, it's a big risk.
But if you're into risks, there's always Vegas. You can walk out with a big payday or an empty pocket in one night. You won't even need to wait 25 years.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Since there isn't a 25 year precedent for serial numbered cards of current players, anyone's guess is as good as another.
However since Pujols still has plenty of career left to either justify his status, slow down, get hurt, or fall, it's a big risk. >>
huh?
Serial numbering just concretely justifies the limited edition status of the print run of a particular card.
Supply & demand is the precedent... and that's been around for centuries!
Like I said, I'll take my chances with a guy like... Tom Brady!!!
(yeah, can the Pujols haters get off his neck already and stick to the OP)
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps in 25 years you'll be sailing your yacht in a sea of champagne and grilling hot dogs on your gold Charbroil. But the print run on people who thought they had the hobby all figured out in order to turn a massive profit only to fail miserably is larger than any card ever produced. In fact, you're probably already paying for future profits since your "investing" in the most obvious avenue there is in the hobby.
The truth is, no one knows what the market is going to do in the future. If speculating in someone's only reason for collecting then chances are they're going to end up taking a loss and having a collection they don't enjoy.
<< <i>Serial numbering just concretely justifies the limited edition status of the print run of a particular card.
Supply & demand is the precedent... and that's been around for centuries! >>
You're obviously very sure of yourself and your understanding. Good luck.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
You have a choice-- a George Brett RC in PSA 10 or a Ruth M101-5 or Goudey in low grade of equivalent cost to the Brett (just assume that is the case). Assume you find both aesthetically fantastic and would enjoy both...
Which is the safest; in other words if you had to sell at a moment's notice, which do you think would sell for close or better than its original cost?
Which will appreciate more in say 5 and 10 year windows?
Which do you pick: the high grade newer card or the low grade Pre war?
There are just far too many variables that affect a trading cards price.
Albert Pujols may be a tremendous baseball player and his cards may due well but putting 25 year minimum price targets on them is crazy.
Time does not guarantee appreciation.
Modern would be far the most risky in this discussion. For first year cards of players from major sports selling for well north of $5,000 is an awfully high starting point. It has taken many of the best cards many years to even get close to that level.
In 2001 I purchased a set of the 1984 Fleer Update for $175 on EBAY. I had the Kirby Puckett and Roger Clemens on display for years in the large Lucite screw down holders and was so proud of them. When the Roger Clemens card was breaking out to the upside it made it all the more sweet. We all know what happens next down it went. I got the two cards graded and sold them and it turned out to be a reasonably good investment. Had the Kirby Puckett not come back a PSA 10 my $175 investment would have turned into at most $250. Is this a bad return no. But had these been purchased two years later I would have lost money. This set was bullet proof but the market changed. It is very possible that in 10 years these are in a very similar price range. Heck they might be lower.
If the word safe can be used I think it applies to much older material that is heavily sought after and ultra high grade star cards that are low population.
Serial numbering just concretely justifies the limited edition status of the print run of a particular card.
Supply & demand is the precedent... and that's been around for centuries!
Yes the supply is known but noone knows the demand, . The only true way to invest in cards is to go with the high grade vintage cards..wagner, cobb, young, plank, lajoie, ruth. The true investments are the the HOF's with a 20 or less population. When the majority are tucked away in collections and the float is small...with the large concentrations of wealth at the top and cards that may only come up every so often. All it takes is a couple snot nosed kids of some hedge fund managers or big CEO to want something and the egos come in on the price. Something like a jordan 86 fleer where a new one pops up every week on EBAY will never see long term appreciation. The older cards are like art...you are not going to find a pujols card hanging in the new york metropolitan museum in 25 years.
<< <i>Very interesting points of view. Reframing the issue another way:
You have a choice-- a George Brett RC in PSA 10 or a Ruth M101-5 or Goudey in low grade of equivalent cost to the Brett (just assume that is the case). Assume you find both aesthetically fantastic and would enjoy both...
Which is the safest; in other words if you had to sell at a moment's notice, which do you think would sell for close or better than its original cost?
Which will appreciate more in say 5 and 10 year windows?
Which do you pick: the high grade newer card or the low grade Pre war? >>
Interesting topic. I would take the Ruth hands down over a PSA 10 Brett RC. The Brett is a great card. But in time I think overall scarcity will trump condition scarcity. Plus as great as Brett was, he will never reach the iconic status of Ruth.
<< <i>Very interesting points of view. Reframing the issue another way:
You have a choice-- a George Brett RC in PSA 10 or a Ruth M101-5 or Goudey in low grade of equivalent cost to the Brett (just assume that is the case). Assume you find both aesthetically fantastic and would enjoy both...
Which is the safest; in other words if you had to sell at a moment's notice, which do you think would sell for close or better than its original cost?
Which will appreciate more in say 5 and 10 year windows?
Which do you pick: the high grade newer card or the low grade Pre war? >>
Give me something that is rare no matter what condition it is in over a card that is "condition rare" because last Tuesday someone decided that this particular copy was a "10" instead of a "9" any day of the week, twice on Sundays, and three times on Thursdays. You know what, go ahead and make that twice on every other day too.
<< <i>Serial numbering just concretely justifies the limited edition status of the print run of a particular card.
Supply & demand is the precedent... and that's been around for centuries!
Yes the supply is known but noone knows the demand, . The only true way to invest in cards is to go with the high grade vintage cards..wagner, cobb, young, plank, lajoie, ruth. The true investments are the the HOF's with a 20 or less population. When the majority are tucked away in collections and the float is small...with the large concentrations of wealth at the top and cards that may only come up every so often. All it takes is a couple snot nosed kids of some hedge fund managers or big CEO to want something and the egos come in on the price. Something like a jordan 86 fleer where a new one pops up every week on EBAY will never see long term appreciation. The older cards are like art...you are not going to find a pujols card hanging in the new york metropolitan museum in 25 years. >>
Agree 100%. Low pop high quality vintage feels safe for investment purposes. How easy will it be to acquire that PSA 5/6/7 t206 Cy young 10 or 15 years from today? Supply and demand I guess.
Prolly gonna get hate mail... where's the prestige of plopping a modern card into a top loader straight from a pack and gettin a 10.
Or the era of "yeah, mom tossed my cards out years ago" and " yeah, i used to put them in bicycle spokes...sounded cool"
<< <i>I don't think anyone is hating Pujols, I know I wasn't. But he was the example you provided so to work within those parameters he was the example I used.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps in 25 years you'll be sailing your yacht in a sea of champagne and grilling hot dogs on your gold Charbroil. But the print run on people who thought they had the hobby all figured out in order to turn a massive profit only to fail miserably is larger than any card ever produced. In fact, you're probably already paying for future profits since your "investing" in the most obvious avenue there is in the hobby.
The truth is, no one knows what the market is going to do in the future. If speculating in someone's only reason for collecting then chances are they're going to end up taking a loss and having a collection they don't enjoy. >>
If I'm sailing my yacht in a sea of champagne and grilling hot dogs on my gold Charbroil... it certainly won't be because of my sports card & memorabilia hobby!!!
Stick to the OP though man... don't talk to me like you know what/how I enjoy the hobby... blah, blah, blah, probably already paying for future profits, blah, blah, blah.
Clearly, you don't!
I'd prefer to stick to a semi-realistic discussion specific to the OP. And along those lines, since it's a discussion... my assumption would be that were having a discussion about cards that are relatively within reach for the majority of the folks on this forum.... not the minority.
We want to play that game... okay, fine... Post-War to 80's WINS! No question about it. The absolute safest bet in the entire hobby is a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle PSA 10. Can you afford one? I know I can't... and I don't know many, if any, people that can! Maybe a case could be made for a Wagner... but with the insane prices one usually commands and the still yet to be determined fall out of all the speculation of the Gretzky Wagner... little to volatile for my taste... so I'll stick with the 1952 Mantle PSA 10. There, case closed, thread over, Post-War to 80's is the WINNER!
Me though, I'll try to play along with the spirit of the OP. I'll stand by my belief that long-term, supply & demand factors will show favorably on modern with respect to high grade, limited production, rookies of established players with a high probably of obtaining/maintaining legendary status (IE. Pujols, Brady, LeBron, etc.). Absolutely, nobody has a crystal ball and knows what the future holds. However, from a purely analytical side... I hold firm that the long-term ROI potential is much, much higher for these type of cards than anything from the pre-war and vintage eras. They've had time to establish in the market since the 80's/90's boom, and again since the introduction of TPG to the market. Beyond that, these cards haven't changed much outside of inflation factors the last decade or so... at least not for those cards that are typically in the financial wheelhouse of fairly well off to middle-class'ish type collectors... and their is not much reason to expect them too going forward. Is there a ton of risk in modern? ABSOLUTELY! Under the caveat of high grade, limited production mega-star rookies, is there still a ton of risk? No, not really, but there is definitely still risk.
But there is always risk in collecting/investing in anything... always.
I may be wrong, and that's okay... it's still my opinion, I'll own it. I would love to hear your opinion and reasons for such... but you haven't stated them! Just a couple replies as rebuttals to my statements in the oh so common internet vein of duh, duh, duh, you're wrong, duh.
Yeah, this has been fun
I think one thing the OP misses in regards to the Pujols argument is there may only be a few hundred of one card but there are probally 35 different brands and 100,000 plus pujols rookie cards, versus total populations less than 1000 of some of the vintage rookies and often times less than 100 in PSA 9 or PSA 10. So are people really going to say I will give you $10K for this low print rookie in 25 years when I can get his topps PSA 10 for $40 bucks or so. The topps brand will always be iconic. Taking a brand that comes and goes every so many years and slapping a $50 signature on a card, I just dont see why anyone would pay big bucks.
And while I love George Brett - I'd have to take the low grade Ruth rookie over the PSA 10 Brett rookie.
Jeff
The example of Pujols do makes sense provided that he finishes he continues to produce the anticipated results on the field. The same thing could be said a out the internet stocks from the dotcom boom. Apple and Amazon have proven to be real winners, but unfortunately there are hundreds of other so called "revolutionary game changers" that went bust. Some people like high risk investments and enjoy the thrill of the up and down ride. I've saw so many boast of how they just knew that a high risk stock was gonna be the next big thing. They typically loved to talked about the winners, and never seemed to remember the losers.
True Pujols may eventually be a HOF and who knows what records he will own when he is done, but history gives us a peek into what could happen. Look back 5-10 years ago and see what modern collectors were thinking about Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc.
Meanwhile, many investors simply prefer proven, boring, solid income producing companies that have been producing consitent results for decades. Stocks like IBM, McDonalds, ATT, Proctor & Gamble, etc have quietly been producing consistent returns for investors for many, many years. For the most part, you can invest in them and never lose sleep at night wondering about price fluctuations.
HOF members careers are behind them, their on the field results are final and proven and their stats forever written in the almanacs. There is little unknown and uncertainty regarding them. The deceased HOF players are even safer because the cant do anything stupid things that drive their prices down (OJ Simpson). True sports collectors will always appreciate the best players because the younger players are always being compared to them or they are chasing them up the all time leader boards.
Meanwhile the IPO and high risk stocks rise fast and fall faster. So if you want to be able to tell your friends that you knew a modern player cards would become so valuable and you want to boast about hoarding a bunch of them, just be prepared that their values could drop quickly if the players production drops of, he becomes injury prone, or has off the field issues.
As for me, I will stick with having PSA 8's of my modern favorite players like Griffey, Jordan, Favre, E. Smith, etc but I fully expect my profits to come from my collection of Mantle, Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Unitas, Jim Brown, Etc.
While it's tempting to separate cards according to era, I think it's more productive to separate them according to scarcity. When we think of profit maximizing, then, I think this notion of 'pre war', 'post war' amounts to a distinction without a difference. By my reckoning there are only really two types of cards. They are:
1) Cards that are heavily traded, and have a clearly defined market value. The 89UD Griffey RC is a great example of this.
2) Cards that are hard to find. This can include cards with limited print runs, cards that are extremely old and therefore haven't survived the rigors of time, and perhaps- in some cases- high grade examples of notoriously condition sensitive issues.
Consider something like a PSA 7 Hank Aaron RC. This is not a hard card to come by, and if someone decides they want one they will not have to wait long to find one available for a price close to the established market price. Thus, if you are 'investing' in a card like this you are making one critical (and tenuous) assumption, which is that you have the knowledge and insight to beat the market. Assuming that the current market price includes the market participants' collective opinion on the revenue stream that the card/asset will generate going forward, then by 'investing' in a card like this what you are really saying is that the market has miscalculated the card's net present value. And that, I think, is a really dangerous assumption to make, for reasons that any of the 1000's of failed day traders fully understand.
Cards in the first category, however, are a different kettle of fish, for one important reason: Because they are traded so infrequently, there is no established market price- therefore, if one invests in these kinds of cards they don't have to concern themselves with beating the market; instead, they need only wait for a single buyer who is not particularly price sensitive. True, the card may take longer to sell at the seller's asking price. But over time, given a large enough portfolio, this concern becomes negligible. Because these cards have no obvious substitutes, and they sell so infrequently, buyers do not have the luxury of knowing what the card 'should sell for'. Instead, they must determine what they think is a fair price by gauging their own willingness to pay. And if there's one thing we know about collectibles, it's that opinions on what someone is willing to pay for a card can and do vary wildly amongst collectors.
So then, the secret is to find cards of high profile players (or cards from high profile sets- in either case, we're talking about a card that could conceivably be desirable to a large pool of collectors), and then making sure you price the card at such a point that ensures that the maximum possible price will be realized. A great example of this-- and one I was actually discussing with Lee via PM earlier this week-- can be seen here.. A sale like renders any questions of 'will I see an annual return of 9% or 13%' completely moot. If you can make a handful of sales like this every year-- and sales like this happen routinely on Ebay with cards that fit the profile I've described here--you will end up far, far ahead of anyone who's passively investing in commonly traded cards.
When we think of investing we tend to think of assets that have perfect substitutes (equities, for example, since one share of Apple stock is indistinguishable from another) and who's value is based on some set of 'fundamentals'. But I think that approach is absolutely the wrong one to take when discussing what kind of buy-and-sell strategy works best in a collectibles market. The collectible market is characterized by assets that
don't have perfect substitutes; a savvy market participant will look to find such cards, and then exploit the varying degrees of consumer surplus that a set of buyers would derive from purchasing the card, to their advantage. The real money is owning a card that someone else just has to have-- and cards that are commonly traded don't satisfy that criterion, since the buyer can always shop with a competitor.
One of the best, and most accurate, posts I've read on this forum in a while!!!
Collect what you like, but never ever count on selling it to recoup anything resembling your initial investment.
Modern
baseball
1993 Sp Baseball Derek Jeter PSA 9 or 10
1990 Topps Frank Thomas NNOF PSA 9 or 10
1980 Topps Rickey Henderson PSA 10
2001 Bowman Chrome Albert Pujols PSA 9 or 10 or BGS 9,BGS 9.5 , BGS 10
Modern
Basketball
1980 Topps Bird,Erving Magic PSA 10
1986 Fleer Michael Jordan PSA 10 or BGS 10
1996 Topps Chrome Kobe Bryant refractor PSA 10 or BGS 10
03-04 Exquiste Lebron James #99 BGS 9 or BGS 9.5
Modern
Football
1981 Topps Joe Montana PSA 10 and BGS 10
1986 Topps Jerry Rice PSA 10
1998 Playoff contenders Peyton manning BGS 9 or 9.5 with 10 auto
2000 Playoff contenders championship ticket Tom Brady PSA 9 or PSA 10 BGS 9 or BGS 9.5
As for the Modern(Pujols) debate?
I have to believe that it's fools gold to think that those kind of card will ever hold any true value.
#1 Baseball simply does not hold the social status it once did in the 50's and 60's, and to some extent the 70's, where generations of kids
Grew up idolizing the players to the point they became household names and transcended the game to become social icons as well.
The legions of kids is all but gone from the hobby, And there are NO players that will ever reach that kind of social status again. Those days are all but gone.
Michael Jordan is the ONLY modern Sports figure to have transcended a sport and likely the last.
#2 "The Manufactured Rarity", The reason the card producers have be forced to do this is obvious to me. Todays kids and the past generation of kids simply
have no interest in these cards. (See #1 ) Card Producers, being the savy businessmen they are, have created fantastic marketing ploy.
In order to keep interest in their product they now have to rely on the human "Greed" factor, which creates a lottery type of effect with their products.
They are very aware that people like to think they are getting something for nothing.
#3 "The Manufactured Rarity" Supply and Demand? So.... Who is buying and selling these "Manufactured Rarities? Obviously it is not the legions of youth(See #1)
The answer is, The "investor collector" that has bought into the card producers Marketing ploy. These are basically middle age men with disposable income who
are basically in the hobby for the sole purpose of turning profits off these "Manufactured Rarities".
#4 "The Manufactured Rarity" The Future? With what I call "The Stupid Money" that "The Manufactured Rarity" currently attract, again due to the lottery effect the
card producers have created, or in my own words "fools gold", I believe that cards like the Pujols and the "stupid Money" they attract are priced, bought and sold with
a Futuristic premiumn already attatched to them, and a very unrealistic one as well. IMHO they have nowhere to go but down.
Once the limited group of middle aged men who buy and sell these "Manufactured Rarities" among themselves are deceased I believe nobody will want these cards in
25-30 years(maybe even 10 years) Pujols will be all but forgotten, as there will be no legions of youth nostalgia clamoring for a "Manufactured Rarity", much less willing
to pluck down thousands of dollars for. While it may be true that only 1,500 exist, I don't see more than 1,500 ever caring enough about Albert Pujols to lay down the
"stupid Money" for these cards. Any kind of money being made off these type of "fools gold" cards are being made right now. With the kind of "stupid Money" I see these
"Manufactured Rarities" going for, I know I wouldn't want to be caught holding 17 of them 25 years from now, or even 10 years.
Just my 2 cents worth.
If you are a young man looking to invest money for long term, I would not start with sports cards. This is a hobby & is much more enjoyable when treated as so.
BUT, I beleive something like 40% of Americans do not invest for their future. They are either trying to comfortably live their daily lives or spend like there is no tomorrow.
Sometimes good investing requires large down payments or starting sums which prevents some people from investing. If you find yourself in one of these catagories, than I would say it's better to buy sportscards than not to invest in anything. At least with sportscards, you can buy, or invest, what you have and increase as more funds are available.
With that in mind, high grade, vintage, HOF rookies is an excellent way to go because they have always been in demand and have a better chance to be in demand in the future.
Many folks say the hobby will not substain itself because of less interest in baseball, kids not collecting cards as much, pre-war collectors dying & new collectors not having interest in pre-war, etc....I disagree with this 100% because there are too many collectors out there that collect mainly because they are sports fans. And as long as there are sports, there will be sports fans. Collectors also collect according to their personality. A history buff will more likely be a prewar collector. A gambler will gamble on the new rookies. Somebody conservitive may just collect HOFers, etc...I think there are just too many reasons to be a collector and that's what will make this hobby stand the test of time.
Ideally, have an investment portfolio first and hobby second. If you make money in the hobby, that's even better! My 2 cents also!
Modern has no future.
Post-War through 1969 is also a good bet.
That is my opinion.
Dave