<< <i>Baseball cards are NOTHING like art. Art has proven itself to be timeless and universal in its appeal. >>
Can rare photos be considered Art? Are baseball cards photos...some being rare? People discern great art from crap mainly by the price the market bears. I suspect card collectors can also discern rare and valuable cards from 1989 Donruss. If I saw Griffens unopened pack collection hanging on a wall - it would sure look like art to me.
Henry-- well said, brother. That pack collection framed on a wall would be a great piece of art. "What is art?" is such a subjective question in and of itself, it is for the individual to decide. I don't think universal appeal, if by universal one means global, is a requirement for something to be called art. Nor do I think timeless is a requirement. Not all art is ancient. A Warhol or Haring is relatively new compared to so much other art, their appeal is nowhere near as timeless, yet they are artworks nonetheless.
I do think baseball cards have a special and strong appeal as a collectible, and there is no question that many collectors of baseball cards are a passionate lot, but overall, I'd agree with baseball in the sense that this hobby is not on the same level as collecting fine art in terms of universal appeal among serious collectors and investors. For that matter, sports cards is a rather distant second to coins as a collectible on these very forums, and the CU corporate numbers reflect that reality.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
What do mean by "universal appeal," though? Are we talking sheer numbers here-- how many people are collecting? What do we mean by "serious" collectors? This is where the internet gets slippery, as we each may have different definitions of these terms.
Art, to me, is not just fine art worth millions. I think too many people are caught up in dollar values when it comes to art and cards for that matter. And then from value debates it slips into economic discussions, when it's very hard (if not impossible) to predict card values using economic principles; each card is unique and different, so much nostalgia comes into play, grading is just an opinion that leaves huge eye appeal variances within each grade, and lastly, there is relatively so little data when it comes to card prices-- sometimes only a few sales over a few years.
End of the day, each of us will have his own opinion on what art is, and whether cards fall into that definition.
<< <i>What do mean by "universal appeal," though? Are we talking sheer numbers here-- how many people are collecting? What do we mean by "serious" collectors? This is where the internet gets slippery, as we each may have different definitions of these terms.
Art, to me, is not just fine art worth millions. I think too many people are caught up in dollar values when it comes to art and cards for that matter. And then from value debates it slips into economic discussions, when it's very hard (if not impossible) to predict card values using economic principles; each card is unique and different, so much nostalgia comes into play, grading is just an opinion that leaves huge eye appeal variances within each grade, and lastly, there is relatively so little data when it comes to card prices-- sometimes only a few sales over a few years.
End of the day, each of us will have his own opinion on what art is, and whether cards fall into that definition. >>
By universal appeal, I mean there are far more collectors and fans of fine art in the world (both modest collectors and scholars as well as wealthy investors and patrons) than sports card collectors.
But my main point is in the latter part of my previous post--that on these very forums, the hobby and industry of coin collecting decidely outweighs anything cardboard-related. I collect both, and appreciate both for different reasons, but I don't think anyone would dispute that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Baseball cards is ALL about price, based on the stats and the player involved. If a Mickey Mantle card were the exact same card in appearance except that he had the stats of Gus Zernial, that SAME card would bring a few bucks and not the thousands that it does. It is ENTIRELY about price (based on stats and career), determining what is "crap" or not. You could argue that their playing of the sport was art. But the cards IMO are not. Their the purest form of a "collectible", NOT art.
Some very salient points being made here, as far as where to position sportscards in the art/collectibles paradigm.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
So could a photo of Mantle be considered art? I believe it could.
The player depicted surely plays a role, for some. But I have seen common cards that appeal to me on an aesthetic level, that capture some element of the game, or a mood, and I believe that is art. Not all art has to appeal to all people on a meaning-of-life level. As Baseball said, some art looks atrocious to his eyes, and thus I'd imagine does not "reach out to his soul" and elicit a reaction. But if a baseball card, it's subject, the composition of the photo, the design, if all these visual elements coalesce in a way that does indeed reach out to the beholder's soul, then is not that art? Does the given piece have to reach out to the soul of 100000 or 10000000 people for it to be considered art? Not in my opinion.
To me, cards are most definitely NOT all about price. If that was the case I would just sell all my cards and buy one card worth the whole lot. Again, why is so much focus on price? Sure, a certain common or semi-star may be worth nothing, but what if someone loves that card for all its aesthetics, its photo, its layout, its font, its colors, what if it speaks to athletic grace and perfection, or in some other way touched the beholder's soul and elicits a reaction? Again, there seems to be so much hang up on dollars. A painting worth nothing is still art to me if JUST ONE PERSON can look at it and it inspires some thought or emotion. A card worth nothing or a lot can do the same.
<< <i>What do mean by "universal appeal," though? Are we talking sheer numbers here-- how many people are collecting? What do we mean by "serious" collectors? This is where the internet gets slippery, as we each may have different definitions of these terms.
Art, to me, is not just fine art worth millions. I think too many people are caught up in dollar values when it comes to art and cards for that matter. And then from value debates it slips into economic discussions, when it's very hard (if not impossible) to predict card values using economic principles; each card is unique and different, so much nostalgia comes into play, grading is just an opinion that leaves huge eye appeal variances within each grade, and lastly, there is relatively so little data when it comes to card prices-- sometimes only a few sales over a few years.
End of the day, each of us will have his own opinion on what art is, and whether cards fall into that definition. >>
By universal appeal, I mean there are far more collectors and fans of fine art in the world (both modest collectors and scholars as well as wealthy investors and patrons) than sports card collectors.
But my main point is in the latter part of my previous post--that on these very forums, the hobby and industry of coin collecting decidely outweighs anything cardboard-related. I collect both, and appreciate both for different reasons, but I don't think anyone would dispute that. >>
If the coin collecting industry does outweigh cardboard, what does that mean? Is cardboard somehow less important to those who love it? If there are more fine art collectors than there are people who collect sportscards (and there's no way to account this) does this mean the minority collectors are somehow lesser? I don't see what the majority/minorty, this-many-people-do-this-as-opposed-to-that comparisons actually mean to accomplish. Lots of people of multiple generations have collected cards, going back to the late 1800s. Lots of people have also collected fine art. I don't see the two groups at war or condescending to one another. No doubt one could argue that more people have bought a baseball card than have collected a piece of fine art, but again I fail to see what that would even accomplish.
Matty, you are definitely passionate about the cards you collect, and I think the definition of what constitutes "art" is so subjective it can never really be defined to any acceptable extent. Which is fine, imo, and the way it should be.
The concept of price/value is a sticky one. I agree with your premise in that a certain common or semi-star can touch the soul and elicit a reaction, but we also both know that when it comes time to post scans of your cards, you're not posting any cards in that category--you're posting the PSA 10 78 Molitor RC, the Mantle, the Ruth, the PSA 10 Jordan RC. And those cards are as impressive as they come, but illustrate, in large part, baseball's point about value linked directly to the player depicted on the card, rather than the actual card presenting itself as a work of art.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>What do mean by "universal appeal," though? Are we talking sheer numbers here-- how many people are collecting? What do we mean by "serious" collectors? This is where the internet gets slippery, as we each may have different definitions of these terms.
Art, to me, is not just fine art worth millions. I think too many people are caught up in dollar values when it comes to art and cards for that matter. And then from value debates it slips into economic discussions, when it's very hard (if not impossible) to predict card values using economic principles; each card is unique and different, so much nostalgia comes into play, grading is just an opinion that leaves huge eye appeal variances within each grade, and lastly, there is relatively so little data when it comes to card prices-- sometimes only a few sales over a few years.
End of the day, each of us will have his own opinion on what art is, and whether cards fall into that definition. >>
By universal appeal, I mean there are far more collectors and fans of fine art in the world (both modest collectors and scholars as well as wealthy investors and patrons) than sports card collectors.
But my main point is in the latter part of my previous post--that on these very forums, the hobby and industry of coin collecting decidely outweighs anything cardboard-related. I collect both, and appreciate both for different reasons, but I don't think anyone would dispute that. >>
If the coin collecting industry does outweigh cardboard, what does that mean? Is cardboard somehow less important to those who love it? If there are more fine art collectors than there are people who collect sportscards (and there's no way to account this) does this mean the minority collectors are somehow lesser? I don't see what the majority/minorty, this-many-people-do-this-as-opposed-to-that comparisons actually mean to accomplish. Lots of people of multiple generations have collected cards, going back to the late 1800s. Lots of people have also collected fine art. I don't see the two groups at war or condescending to one another. No doubt one could argue that more people have bought a baseball card than have collected a piece of fine art, but again I fail to see what that would even accomplish. >>
I think you missed my point, Matty. I was not suggesting that collectors of sport cards are second-rate or should be minimized in any way. After all, this is a hobby, with many different people from many different income levels, simply collecting what they love. My point was more in response to baseball's synopsis on art vs. collectibles and where sports cards factor in to that paradigm.
I enjoy these debates, as different viewpoints are always interesting to hear.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I am not at all denying the player depicted is part of the equation for some cards. It is part of the equation in terms of why I am selecting the card, because I admire the player. It is part of the equation in terms of the card's value. But, for example, there are some VERY valuable cards I can buy but never will, because the card does not appeal to me aesthetically. So this is my genuine answer to, "You're chasing Mantles, Ruths, HOF Rookies, etc. just like everyone else without any consideration for any sort of artistic element IMO." In actuality I put great consideration into which cards I choose, and that consideration is based strictly on artistic element. For example, I will never complete the Mantle Registry or the Top 20 Registry only because there are cards there which I do not like, artistically, even though I could have them.
When Baseball writes, "You can protest if you'd like but just look at where all your spending on cards has gone and why and tell me with a straight face that it was for reasons of "art" that you had to have them. I'm not arguing that you genuinely love owning them, but it wasn't with the same approach as someone who genuinely appreciates the artistic element of the item," I can say with a straight face that yes, when I love a player and he inspires me for whatever reason, I then study all his cards and choose only the ones that speak to me aesthetically-- and this is THE EXACT SAME WAY I approach paintings and art (albeit in the case of HOfer cards, the player steers me to an initial menu, if you will, of artworks that I then choose from, based solely on aesthetics). I respect everyone's opinions, but that said I would never presume to know all the reasons behind why a man chooses the cards or paintings or rare books he chooses for his collections. And I think it is great, how we can hang here and talk about these things intelligently with one another. It's very cool and a very nice discussion.
Yes, the depicted player helps create monetary value. But just as a photo of Mick Jagger is considered art and is worth money, and may be more desirable and valuable for its subject than a photo of say a random human being, so can it be with cards. A Mantle or Ruth or Jordan card should not be precluded from being called art just because of their subject. For example, I consider a 53B Mantle to be art, again to me personally. I do not say the same about a 63 Topps Mantle. I would buy a 53B in PSA 3 condition for my collection before a PSA 8 '63 Mantle, because in the highly personal and subjective realm of what constitutes art, one makes the cut and the other doesn't. But again this is just where I come out on the topic. Another guy may feel the design and colors of the 1963 Mantle conspire to rise to the level of art, and if he feels that way, that's great.
With respect to say, the 1986 Fleer Jordan, yes I call that card art because of the photo of the subject; he is grace in motion in that photo. The others looking up at him. He inspires awe. But the card is more than just a photo, those American-flag colored borders add a certain Pop Art sensibility to the card that transcends photography, for me. So end of the day, the salient point for me is that while player depicted does drive desirability and value, a photo or painting's sheer subject should not preclude it from being art. Especially when that subject is human and has achieved a measure of greatness in some way; many people are moved on a deep level by contemplating those types of people. Hence why portraiture in photo and painting is also art, I suppose. And I have also owned many a common that I have loved and posted, especially 1975 Minis. Take a 1975 Blyleven. It is worth a bundle in high grade but by no means is it an M101 Ruth. And if that was not a HOFer and just a scrub player, I would still adore that card and call it art. Again, all just one person's take on the subject.
Yes; no doubt I agree with you there. In most cases, the player depicted is the initial draw. I admire that player or he inspires me in some way. Especially Gehrig. I then look at all their cards and choose the ones I like the best, with absolutely no consideration for value, and all consideration for the aesthetics of the card-- the color, design, fonts, photo, etc.. Believe me, I wish the 1952 Mantle or M101 Ruth cost only $100. Ruth's glare in that photo. Mantle's gaze and the teel/aqua background. The surreal yellow of his bat. This is what draws me to select the card after selecting the player subject. Sheer aesthetics. Sometimes many people feel the same way, and a card is just desirable or rare and costs a bundle. I am never drawn to the most expensive card; I prefer the M101 Ruth to the Balt News, for example. I'd also point to the types of cards I collect in terms of condition: my focus is on central image clarity and centering. I am not a corner guy. This is because I am beholding the image and all it stands for, to me, all the thoughts and inspiration it stirs. I am not focusing on corners or having "the best" one with no consideration for aesthetics. Rather, once the aesthetics are there for me, I am happy and move on. I look for the lowest grade that has the unmarred aesthetics I am after. Were I simply chasing "the best," I would be buying OC or poorly registered 8s and 9s, which do not appeal to me aesthetically. Again, just pointing out how much aesthetics play into choices.
The salient point for me and the one I'd like to share with you is that the subject being a good player should not preclude the piece from being called art. If someone loves to collect photography, which is no doubt art, but is drawn to the subject of rockstars or athletes, those photographs' subjects should not be a strike against them when it comes to being called art. The subject is merely part of what inspires or reached out to the soul of that beholder. That collector is not more or less genuine in thinking those photos art, than were they photos of non-celebrities, in my opinion.
What Ruth or Gehrig or Mantle playing-days card is not iconic? Almost any I would choose could fall into that category. You can totally believe what you will about my choices, and I respect your opinion, but I have two Joe Jackson cards and neither is an Old Mill. My Wagner card is not an e107. My Ruth is not a Balt News. I have a D304 and CJ Cobb but no Red Cobb/Cobb Back. I have a 75 Winfield but not the RC. My Mantle is not the Dice Game or a PSA 8. I could go on and on, but to each his own.
As it is getting to bedtime for me, I'll say goodnight and leave on this: I wholly agree with you that the player predominantly is the driver, for many of us. For me, no question that is true. There are legions of set collectors who likely feel differently, it is worth noting. But I again add that just because a great player as subject is what draws one to his cards, that does not necessarily mean that these pieces of photography enjoined with fonts and layout design and coloring cannot be deemed art. Especially when considering it is the individual's right to bestow that title upon anything. I personally consider some graffiti tags on the street to be art; others call it vandalism. These are subjective areas. But I do think portraiture and photography are longstanding institutions that bear this out: that a famous subject does not preclude either from being art.
'Night fellas and was fun talking-- we may have also set the internet record for longest civil discussion with diverging viewpoints, LOL! Seriously, great chatting and always great to absorb new points of view from fellow collectors.
Please don't presume another collector's goals or reasoning. Just to clarify: I am not at all trying to finish the Top 20 Set. I have no attraction at all toward the remaining cards except the Jordan and Aaron, and then I am done. I have no interest in the Wagner, the Plank, the T3 Cobb, etc. The PSA Registry Top 20 is not my own Top 20; I wouldn't let that third-party list dictate my collection. My own Top 20 is quite different. I just happen to have some of those Top 20 cards and really like the presentation and organizational aspect of the Registry. Now if someone gave me a Wagner T206, would I accept it an appreciate it? Sure. But I have no desire for one whatsoever. Let's not assume I want all cards on Registry Sets I am pursuing.
I agree about Mantle and realize I also should have said "50's" Mantle card, as I am drawn to depictions of him when was the embodiment of potential and raw talent. That is why I would rather have a PSA 7 53B than a much more impressive-to-the-majority run of PSA 9 and 10 later issues. But that's just me.
Where we agree is that the player is the main driver of card choice and value. Where we seem to part ways is that I believe an iconic subject can still be part of the aesthetic, and not just a driver of value. To me the subject himself is part of what makes the card beautiful. Yes, I can find lesser value cards that please my eyes somewhat, but to me a card is like a photo of a famous and interesting subject; that photo is art and so is a card, which contains photography and more. I find certain human subjects that have achieved a great deal to "reach out to my soul and inspire thoughts" to paraphrase your earlier definition of art, so to me those cards depicting such subjects are art.
I would never, ever buy the card of a player if I didn't admire both the player and the card itself. So I cannot relate to plunking down money on the MJ of you feel that way. I'd just pass on it, no matter how many guys find it desirable.
I'd love it as an investment right now if one came up, as I see it growing. Not as a card to collect.
I can see where you'd think that, though. Understood. But yeah, for me that would be a financial play right now. I don't think it's an ugly card, just prefer the e90-2 and I love the W600.
I know cards pretty well. Other things, like stocks, not so much. There are certain cards I have done well with and have allowed me to get others I have much stronger desire for. A Wagner would fit into that category. Speaking strictly on the card market front, I think a Wagner could do very well for its owner at this moment if acquired in the right setting and sold in the right auction setting. Above, when we were talking about my collection and what I am pursuing for passion, I meant that I have no desire for the Wagner in that respect. As a strict financial move, that's another story
The cards are so much more than the photos, to me. They came out of packs many decades if not a century ago, and were cherished items by kids then-- and somehow journeyed through time intact to the present. What was that journey, for each card; whose hands did it pass through; was it traded, if so for whom? Was it a favorite piece, passed down from a father to a son? Did it mean much more to a past owner than it being just a card? These things make the card more desirable to me than the photo. I also love the design of them. As someone heavily into graffiti, I love font design, so aesthetic choices like the lowercase on 1971 Topps or the stars around the name box on 52 Topps or the psychedelic font of 1972 Topps-- these things really appeal to me in addition to the sheer age and cherished nature and journey through time. I also find the sizes of cards appealing, as strange as that may sound. Then there are the older cards that depict the iconic and inspirational subject but have the surreal colors that make them so different from photos. So there's a slew of reasons as to why cards and not just a simple photograph. Then I have to add the sheer enjoyment and tranquility that baseball cards themselves bring me. Opening packs and trading and collecting as a kid is such a fond memory, for me. Then there is my fascination with how generations of American youth have been united through time in their collecting of cards. So lots of factors there in terms of why cards and not photos.
I view my beautiful wife as a work of art, not a collectible. Same with perfectly centered clean and full-sized 1975 mini red/yellow and green/yellow commons. I guess what is one man's art is another man's collectible (i.e. some guys "collect" women )
To be honest, I was more concerned with your statement that gold is as fiat as paper money...yikes! I don't hardly know where to begin. That statement totally ignores the rarity foundation of 5000 years of gold backed currency. The fiat experiment is obviously coming to a spectacular world-wide biblical prophetic crash!
Henry, So you have bought into the Germany gold repatriation conspiracy theory. The gold bugs can spin anything into a reason to be bullish about the shiny stuff. I have no idea the truth of what is going on there but I am skeptical of arguments that are nearly all conjecture based on a paucity of information. Any economic argument that ends with Russia and China ending up at or near the top of the heap really needs to be re-examined. Russia and China are far more susceptible to a currency crash than the US (1998 anyone). China has an incredible amount of bad debt on their books (both officially and in the shadow banking system) with no established mechanisms for handling defaults on that scale as well as an environmental crisis looming. Russia has become simply a belligerent raw materials exporter. In the unlikely event of some sort of total meltdown I think gold/silver will fail along with fiat currencies. This would trigger an even greater meltdown as the safe haven that literally everyone believes in turns out to be ephemeral. Much like the 2007/08 US financial crisis was exacerbated by across the board real estate price drops (something previously considered impossible) the same would/will occur with traditional safe havens like gold. However there is no reasonable catalyst on the horizon for this type of meltdown. In my mind there is exactly zero chance the IMF devalues the US dollar by 30% in the next 5-10 years. Look how long Japan and the yen have limped along with a far worse economic profile. Undoubtedly at some point the actions of the Fed (near zero interest rates, massive balance sheet expansion) and the continued federal government deficit spending will impact the US dollar. Right now there is no reasonable alternative to the US dollar as the world's reserve currently, please don't repeat the gold bugs wet dream of the world moving back to a gold standard. Going all in to protect against a black swan event (IMF coming in to rescue and devalue the US dollar) rarely is the right move. However selling your 70s unopened during the current unopened frenzy can't really be argued with regardless of how you got to that decision. I will definitely be watching those auctions to see how the lots do. Personally I think you would have done better with smaller lots but in the end it all depends on who decides to bid and how deep their pockets are. Your PWCC set breaks have also done very well. Best of luck with your auctions!
Well, I am reminded of how fun it is to post here. 1. The German repatriation conspiracy as you so warmly state is basically common knowledge in Europe. Talk to a German in the know or spend time overseas. So who is more believable Germany or the US treasury assertion that they have 8000 metric tons of gold still sitting in Fort Knox? 2. The Gold and Silver market is 100% manipulated. Over 95% of the trades are paper - not physical. Naked short selling is allowed, which is astounding. I have no idea what the true market value is. I basically posted what I see and what I have learned. I just happen to also converse on occasion with some pretty high-ups in China, Russia and Europe and stories seem to converge. 3. Yes, China has its issues - mostly holding trillions in what they deem to be worthless US treasuries. So here is the most plausible scenario IMO regarding the Chinese mentality: The Chinese have determined that the dollar will collapse at some point. Well, then they are stuck holding worthless treasuries - so their explicit strategy at a country level is to acquire as much gold as they can (physical). This is fact not conspiracy. Now why would they do that? Seems to me the most plausible reason is that if the dollar collapses and the manipulators cant suppress Gold prices further - then the price of Gold should rise at a rate that might offset the loss in the value of the treasuries they cant get rid of. As for alternatives to the dollar, I would suggest you research the recent activity of the BRICs nations and their coordination with the IMF. 4. I have never owned Gold or silver or invested in this stuff, but I have researched what is going on deeply over the past 6 months. You can insinuate I am some gold "wet dream" manipulator. But I am just reminded of all the odd personal attacks on my posts when I first warned that 70s stuff was drying up big-time 3-4 years ago. 5. At the end of the day, I'll probably break even on all my sales or maybe come out a bit ahead. The 1969 break and the 1971 break did very well. Working with Brent has been a joy. Oddly the 69 low pop commons were on fire, while I took a bath on 1971 low pop commons overall. The stars for both sets really carried the day. 6. Finally, let me state that Gold/Silver are meant to be a store of wealth not an investment. Most of you know the logic that in Roman times 1 ounce of Gold could buy a fine suit of clothes and 2000 years later the same ounce of Gold should be able to buy a comparable quality suit of clothes. This is the long and short of what I consider Gold/Silver to be: a store of wealth. My only advice is that if you buy - only buy physical not paper.
The picture on the card can help enhance its desirability but in no way shape or form is the primary driver of interest. It is the subject.
Most cards are sought after because they have already been sought after and have been deemed valuable.
No one collects for a long period with just pure interest in the cards and no consideration of value. It may start out as purely a hobby or something to focus on for fun but once you have to start pumping lots of money into it you have to consider the financial element. It just is what it is.
How you could construe my response as a personal attack or indicating you are gold manipulator I have no idea. You are however espousing many of the same points those who are long gold hold most fervently (US gold reserves don't exist, gold price is artificially manipulated downwards, US dollar is doomed, etc). As for the German gold repatriation what would you call it other than a conspiracy theory? Basically the assertion is that the US is lying about having the gold on hand to return to Deutsche Bundesbank. US and German officials have vigorously denied the rumors, I guess they could all be lying (wouldn't be the first time) but I would hesitate to develop a world economic view based on that. In the end the truth will come out one way or another. I believe you are wrong in your dollar assessment (at least time-wise) but you have every right to that opinion and can take any actions you like regarding it. China doesn't actually have trillions in US treasuries it is has 1.2 trillion give or take (again I guess you have to believe the US treasury for that number). Nearly the same amount that Japan holds. No one has argued that China has not been buying gold however you are hypothesizing why they are doing so. You might be right but you could just as easily be wrong. I believe China will have far more problems than a devalued dollar in the days ahead but we shall see. I agree that gold is a store of wealth and not an investment. I own gold as part of a diversified portfolio both physical and paper. I actually have researched plenty I just don't agree with your assessment of the situation. You apparently believe you have better or more complete information and are therefore making a very informed decision. I think you are wrong in your analysis but time will prove out who is right or wrong.
Hey Robb, I suspect we agree on most points except for timing in regards to the dollar's future. I wonder whether you dispute the fact that Gold and Silver markets are almost entirely manipulated? Also, that Gold/Silver trades are almost entirely paper (as a percentage) not physical such that the volume of trading is almost akin to fractional reserve banking? Also, are you aware that the Indian government has restricted the purchase of physical gold among its population because it was becoming a strain on their trade ledger? Also, regardless of the press releases between Germany and the US you do acknowledge that Germany has been trying to repatriate its gold, and has yet to receive it. I apologize for hijacking this thread about unopened 70s into tangents. It is good to have the different opinions in an open and honest format...as you say, time will tell
well Stephen, ya know ya done good when your innocent lil ol' thread turns into a full-scale debate on world economics.
the "unopened market" has outpaced and outguessed me. that much i know. however, it won't prevent me from doing what i've been doing all along. the pursuit is the best part. getting the deal is meal. it's still fun to collect, and even better to make money while doing so. when it no longer fits that criteria, i'll drop out, too.
<< <i>well Stephen, ya know ya done good when your innocent lil ol' thread turns into a full-scale debate on world economics. >>
I'll be honest, I forgot I was the creator. And that's not a knock, as I've been immersed.
It is rather humorous, tho. Ever play that game where you tell someone a secret, run it through a number of different people, then it comes full circle to see how closely it mirrors what was initially said? It's almost as if I whispered to someone, "Yo, these unopened prices are whack. Running with the big dogs is no longer feasible." Then an hour later the last person comes back to me and says, "Did you say Germany wants their gold back but we don't have it?"
<< <i>well Stephen, ya know ya done good when your innocent lil ol' thread turns into a full-scale debate on world economics. >>
I'll be honest, I forgot I was the creator. And that's not a knock, as I've been immersed.
It is rather humorous, tho. Ever play that game where you tell someone a secret, run it through a number of different people, then it comes full circle to see how closely it mirrors what was initially said? It's almost as if I whispered to someone, "Yo, these unopened prices are whack. Running with the big dogs is no longer feasible." Then an hour later the last person comes back to me and says, "Did you say Germany wants their gold back but we don't have it?" >>
Comments
<< <i>Baseball cards are NOTHING like art. Art has proven itself to be timeless and universal in its appeal. >>
Can rare photos be considered Art? Are baseball cards photos...some being rare? People discern great art from crap mainly by the price the market bears. I suspect card collectors can also discern rare and valuable cards from 1989 Donruss.
If I saw Griffens unopened pack collection hanging on a wall - it would sure look like art to me.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Art, to me, is not just fine art worth millions. I think too many people are caught up in dollar values when it comes to art and cards for that matter. And then from value debates it slips into economic discussions, when it's very hard (if not impossible) to predict card values using economic principles; each card is unique and different, so much nostalgia comes into play, grading is just an opinion that leaves huge eye appeal variances within each grade, and lastly, there is relatively so little data when it comes to card prices-- sometimes only a few sales over a few years.
End of the day, each of us will have his own opinion on what art is, and whether cards fall into that definition.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
<< <i>What do mean by "universal appeal," though? Are we talking sheer numbers here-- how many people are collecting? What do we mean by "serious" collectors? This is where the internet gets slippery, as we each may have different definitions of these terms.
Art, to me, is not just fine art worth millions. I think too many people are caught up in dollar values when it comes to art and cards for that matter. And then from value debates it slips into economic discussions, when it's very hard (if not impossible) to predict card values using economic principles; each card is unique and different, so much nostalgia comes into play, grading is just an opinion that leaves huge eye appeal variances within each grade, and lastly, there is relatively so little data when it comes to card prices-- sometimes only a few sales over a few years.
End of the day, each of us will have his own opinion on what art is, and whether cards fall into that definition. >>
By universal appeal, I mean there are far more collectors and fans of fine art in the world (both modest collectors and scholars as well as wealthy investors and patrons) than sports card collectors.
But my main point is in the latter part of my previous post--that on these very forums, the hobby and industry of coin collecting decidely outweighs anything cardboard-related. I collect both, and appreciate both for different reasons, but I don't think anyone would dispute that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Some very salient points being made here, as far as where to position sportscards in the art/collectibles paradigm.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The player depicted surely plays a role, for some. But I have seen common cards that appeal to me on an aesthetic level, that capture some element of the game, or a mood, and I believe that is art. Not all art has to appeal to all people on a meaning-of-life level. As Baseball said, some art looks atrocious to his eyes, and thus I'd imagine does not "reach out to his soul" and elicit a reaction. But if a baseball card, it's subject, the composition of the photo, the design, if all these visual elements coalesce in a way that does indeed reach out to the beholder's soul, then is not that art? Does the given piece have to reach out to the soul of 100000 or 10000000 people for it to be considered art? Not in my opinion.
To me, cards are most definitely NOT all about price. If that was the case I would just sell all my cards and buy one card worth the whole lot. Again, why is so much focus on price? Sure, a certain common or semi-star may be worth nothing, but what if someone loves that card for all its aesthetics, its photo, its layout, its font, its colors, what if it speaks to athletic grace and perfection, or in some other way touched the beholder's soul and elicits a reaction? Again, there seems to be so much hang up on dollars. A painting worth nothing is still art to me if JUST ONE PERSON can look at it and it inspires some thought or emotion. A card worth nothing or a lot can do the same.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
<< <i>
<< <i>What do mean by "universal appeal," though? Are we talking sheer numbers here-- how many people are collecting? What do we mean by "serious" collectors? This is where the internet gets slippery, as we each may have different definitions of these terms.
Art, to me, is not just fine art worth millions. I think too many people are caught up in dollar values when it comes to art and cards for that matter. And then from value debates it slips into economic discussions, when it's very hard (if not impossible) to predict card values using economic principles; each card is unique and different, so much nostalgia comes into play, grading is just an opinion that leaves huge eye appeal variances within each grade, and lastly, there is relatively so little data when it comes to card prices-- sometimes only a few sales over a few years.
End of the day, each of us will have his own opinion on what art is, and whether cards fall into that definition. >>
By universal appeal, I mean there are far more collectors and fans of fine art in the world (both modest collectors and scholars as well as wealthy investors and patrons) than sports card collectors.
But my main point is in the latter part of my previous post--that on these very forums, the hobby and industry of coin collecting decidely outweighs anything cardboard-related. I collect both, and appreciate both for different reasons, but I don't think anyone would dispute that. >>
If the coin collecting industry does outweigh cardboard, what does that mean? Is cardboard somehow less important to those who love it? If there are more fine art collectors than there are people who collect sportscards (and there's no way to account this) does this mean the minority collectors are somehow lesser? I don't see what the majority/minorty, this-many-people-do-this-as-opposed-to-that comparisons actually mean to accomplish. Lots of people of multiple generations have collected cards, going back to the late 1800s. Lots of people have also collected fine art. I don't see the two groups at war or condescending to one another. No doubt one could argue that more people have bought a baseball card than have collected a piece of fine art, but again I fail to see what that would even accomplish.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
The concept of price/value is a sticky one. I agree with your premise in that a certain common or semi-star can touch the soul and elicit a reaction, but we also both know that when it comes time to post scans of your cards, you're not posting any cards in that category--you're posting the PSA 10 78 Molitor RC, the Mantle, the Ruth, the PSA 10 Jordan RC. And those cards are as impressive as they come, but illustrate, in large part, baseball's point about value linked directly to the player depicted on the card, rather than the actual card presenting itself as a work of art.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What do mean by "universal appeal," though? Are we talking sheer numbers here-- how many people are collecting? What do we mean by "serious" collectors? This is where the internet gets slippery, as we each may have different definitions of these terms.
Art, to me, is not just fine art worth millions. I think too many people are caught up in dollar values when it comes to art and cards for that matter. And then from value debates it slips into economic discussions, when it's very hard (if not impossible) to predict card values using economic principles; each card is unique and different, so much nostalgia comes into play, grading is just an opinion that leaves huge eye appeal variances within each grade, and lastly, there is relatively so little data when it comes to card prices-- sometimes only a few sales over a few years.
End of the day, each of us will have his own opinion on what art is, and whether cards fall into that definition. >>
By universal appeal, I mean there are far more collectors and fans of fine art in the world (both modest collectors and scholars as well as wealthy investors and patrons) than sports card collectors.
But my main point is in the latter part of my previous post--that on these very forums, the hobby and industry of coin collecting decidely outweighs anything cardboard-related. I collect both, and appreciate both for different reasons, but I don't think anyone would dispute that. >>
If the coin collecting industry does outweigh cardboard, what does that mean? Is cardboard somehow less important to those who love it? If there are more fine art collectors than there are people who collect sportscards (and there's no way to account this) does this mean the minority collectors are somehow lesser? I don't see what the majority/minorty, this-many-people-do-this-as-opposed-to-that comparisons actually mean to accomplish. Lots of people of multiple generations have collected cards, going back to the late 1800s. Lots of people have also collected fine art. I don't see the two groups at war or condescending to one another. No doubt one could argue that more people have bought a baseball card than have collected a piece of fine art, but again I fail to see what that would even accomplish. >>
I think you missed my point, Matty. I was not suggesting that collectors of sport cards are second-rate or should be minimized in any way. After all, this is a hobby, with many different people from many different income levels, simply collecting what they love. My point was more in response to baseball's synopsis on art vs. collectibles and where sports cards factor in to that paradigm.
I enjoy these debates, as different viewpoints are always interesting to hear.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
When Baseball writes, "You can protest if you'd like but just look at where all your spending on cards has gone and why and tell me with a straight face that it was for reasons of "art" that you had to have them. I'm not arguing that you genuinely love owning them, but it wasn't with the same approach as someone who genuinely appreciates the artistic element of the item," I can say with a straight face that yes, when I love a player and he inspires me for whatever reason, I then study all his cards and choose only the ones that speak to me aesthetically-- and this is THE EXACT SAME WAY I approach paintings and art (albeit in the case of HOfer cards, the player steers me to an initial menu, if you will, of artworks that I then choose from, based solely on aesthetics). I respect everyone's opinions, but that said I would never presume to know all the reasons behind why a man chooses the cards or paintings or rare books he chooses for his collections. And I think it is great, how we can hang here and talk about these things intelligently with one another. It's very cool and a very nice discussion.
Yes, the depicted player helps create monetary value. But just as a photo of Mick Jagger is considered art and is worth money, and may be more desirable and valuable for its subject than a photo of say a random human being, so can it be with cards. A Mantle or Ruth or Jordan card should not be precluded from being called art just because of their subject. For example, I consider a 53B Mantle to be art, again to me personally. I do not say the same about a 63 Topps Mantle. I would buy a 53B in PSA 3 condition for my collection before a PSA 8 '63 Mantle, because in the highly personal and subjective realm of what constitutes art, one makes the cut and the other doesn't. But again this is just where I come out on the topic. Another guy may feel the design and colors of the 1963 Mantle conspire to rise to the level of art, and if he feels that way, that's great.
With respect to say, the 1986 Fleer Jordan, yes I call that card art because of the photo of the subject; he is grace in motion in that photo. The others looking up at him. He inspires awe. But the card is more than just a photo, those American-flag colored borders add a certain Pop Art sensibility to the card that transcends photography, for me. So end of the day, the salient point for me is that while player depicted does drive desirability and value, a photo or painting's sheer subject should not preclude it from being art. Especially when that subject is human and has achieved a measure of greatness in some way; many people are moved on a deep level by contemplating those types of people. Hence why portraiture in photo and painting is also art, I suppose. And I have also owned many a common that I have loved and posted, especially 1975 Minis. Take a 1975 Blyleven. It is worth a bundle in high grade but by no means is it an M101 Ruth. And if that was not a HOFer and just a scrub player, I would still adore that card and call it art. Again, all just one person's take on the subject.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
The salient point for me and the one I'd like to share with you is that the subject being a good player should not preclude the piece from being called art. If someone loves to collect photography, which is no doubt art, but is drawn to the subject of rockstars or athletes, those photographs' subjects should not be a strike against them when it comes to being called art. The subject is merely part of what inspires or reached out to the soul of that beholder. That collector is not more or less genuine in thinking those photos art, than were they photos of non-celebrities, in my opinion.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
As it is getting to bedtime for me, I'll say goodnight and leave on this: I wholly agree with you that the player predominantly is the driver, for many of us. For me, no question that is true. There are legions of set collectors who likely feel differently, it is worth noting. But I again add that just because a great player as subject is what draws one to his cards, that does not necessarily mean that these pieces of photography enjoined with fonts and layout design and coloring cannot be deemed art. Especially when considering it is the individual's right to bestow that title upon anything. I personally consider some graffiti tags on the street to be art; others call it vandalism. These are subjective areas. But I do think portraiture and photography are longstanding institutions that bear this out: that a famous subject does not preclude either from being art.
'Night fellas and was fun talking-- we may have also set the internet record for longest civil discussion with diverging viewpoints, LOL! Seriously, great chatting and always great to absorb new points of view from fellow collectors.
Best,
MC
Instagram: mattyc_collection
I agree about Mantle and realize I also should have said "50's" Mantle card, as I am drawn to depictions of him when was the embodiment of potential and raw talent. That is why I would rather have a PSA 7 53B than a much more impressive-to-the-majority run of PSA 9 and 10 later issues. But that's just me.
Where we agree is that the player is the main driver of card choice and value. Where we seem to part ways is that I believe an iconic subject can still be part of the aesthetic, and not just a driver of value. To me the subject himself is part of what makes the card beautiful. Yes, I can find lesser value cards that please my eyes somewhat, but to me a card is like a photo of a famous and interesting subject; that photo is art and so is a card, which contains photography and more. I find certain human subjects that have achieved a great deal to "reach out to my soul and inspire thoughts" to paraphrase your earlier definition of art, so to me those cards depicting such subjects are art.
I would never, ever buy the card of a player if I didn't admire both the player and the card itself. So I cannot relate to plunking down money on the MJ of you feel that way. I'd just pass on it, no matter how many guys find it desirable.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
I can see where you'd think that, though. Understood. But yeah, for me that would be a financial play right now. I don't think it's an ugly card, just prefer the e90-2 and I love the W600.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
Instagram: mattyc_collection
Instagram: mattyc_collection
To be honest, I was more concerned with your statement that gold is as fiat as paper money...yikes! I don't hardly know where to begin. That statement totally ignores the rarity foundation of 5000 years of gold backed currency. The fiat experiment is obviously coming to a spectacular world-wide biblical prophetic crash!
So you have bought into the Germany gold repatriation conspiracy theory. The gold bugs can spin anything into a reason to be bullish about the shiny stuff. I have no idea the truth of what is going on there but I am skeptical of arguments that are nearly all conjecture based on a paucity of information.
Any economic argument that ends with Russia and China ending up at or near the top of the heap really needs to be re-examined. Russia and China are far more susceptible to a currency crash than the US (1998 anyone). China has an incredible amount of bad debt on their books (both officially and in the shadow banking system) with no established mechanisms for handling defaults on that scale as well as an environmental crisis looming. Russia has become simply a belligerent raw materials exporter.
In the unlikely event of some sort of total meltdown I think gold/silver will fail along with fiat currencies. This would trigger an even greater meltdown as the safe haven that literally everyone believes in turns out to be ephemeral. Much like the 2007/08 US financial crisis was exacerbated by across the board real estate price drops (something previously considered impossible) the same would/will occur with traditional safe havens like gold. However there is no reasonable catalyst on the horizon for this type of meltdown.
In my mind there is exactly zero chance the IMF devalues the US dollar by 30% in the next 5-10 years. Look how long Japan and the yen have limped along with a far worse economic profile. Undoubtedly at some point the actions of the Fed (near zero interest rates, massive balance sheet expansion) and the continued federal government deficit spending will impact the US dollar. Right now there is no reasonable alternative to the US dollar as the world's reserve currently, please don't repeat the gold bugs wet dream of the world moving back to a gold standard. Going all in to protect against a black swan event (IMF coming in to rescue and devalue the US dollar) rarely is the right move.
However selling your 70s unopened during the current unopened frenzy can't really be argued with regardless of how you got to that decision. I will definitely be watching those auctions to see how the lots do. Personally I think you would have done better with smaller lots but in the end it all depends on who decides to bid and how deep their pockets are. Your PWCC set breaks have also done very well. Best of luck with your auctions!
Robb
I am reminded of how fun it is to post here.
1. The German repatriation conspiracy as you so warmly state is basically common knowledge in Europe. Talk to a German in the know or spend time overseas. So who is more believable Germany or the US treasury assertion that they have 8000 metric tons of gold still sitting in Fort Knox?
2. The Gold and Silver market is 100% manipulated. Over 95% of the trades are paper - not physical. Naked short selling is allowed, which is astounding. I have no idea what the true market value is. I basically posted what I see and what I have learned. I just happen to also converse on occasion with some pretty high-ups in China, Russia and Europe and stories seem to converge.
3. Yes, China has its issues - mostly holding trillions in what they deem to be worthless US treasuries. So here is the most plausible scenario IMO regarding the Chinese mentality: The Chinese have determined that the dollar will collapse at some point. Well, then they are stuck holding worthless treasuries - so their explicit strategy at a country level is to acquire as much gold as they can (physical). This is fact not conspiracy. Now why would they do that? Seems to me the most plausible reason is that if the dollar collapses and the manipulators cant suppress Gold prices further - then the price of Gold should rise at a rate that might offset the loss in the value of the treasuries they cant get rid of. As for alternatives to the dollar, I would suggest you research the recent activity of the BRICs nations and their coordination with the IMF.
4. I have never owned Gold or silver or invested in this stuff, but I have researched what is going on deeply over the past 6 months. You can insinuate I am some gold "wet dream" manipulator. But I am just reminded of all the odd personal attacks on my posts when I first warned that 70s stuff was drying up big-time 3-4 years ago.
5. At the end of the day, I'll probably break even on all my sales or maybe come out a bit ahead. The 1969 break and the 1971 break did very well. Working with Brent has been a joy. Oddly the 69 low pop commons were on fire, while I took a bath on 1971 low pop commons overall. The stars for both sets really carried the day.
6. Finally, let me state that Gold/Silver are meant to be a store of wealth not an investment. Most of you know the logic that in Roman times 1 ounce of Gold could buy a fine suit of clothes and 2000 years later the same ounce of Gold should be able to buy a comparable quality suit of clothes. This is the long and short of what I consider Gold/Silver to be: a store of wealth. My only advice is that if you buy - only buy physical not paper.
Most cards are sought after because they have already been sought after and have been deemed valuable.
No one collects for a long period with just pure interest in the cards and no consideration of value. It may start out as purely a hobby or something to focus on for fun but once you have to start pumping lots of money into it you have to consider the financial element. It just is what it is.
I believe you are wrong in your dollar assessment (at least time-wise) but you have every right to that opinion and can take any actions you like regarding it.
China doesn't actually have trillions in US treasuries it is has 1.2 trillion give or take (again I guess you have to believe the US treasury for that number). Nearly the same amount that Japan holds. No one has argued that China has not been buying gold however you are hypothesizing why they are doing so. You might be right but you could just as easily be wrong. I believe China will have far more problems than a devalued dollar in the days ahead but we shall see.
I agree that gold is a store of wealth and not an investment. I own gold as part of a diversified portfolio both physical and paper.
I actually have researched plenty I just don't agree with your assessment of the situation. You apparently believe you have better or more complete information and are therefore making a very informed decision. I think you are wrong in your analysis but time will prove out who is right or wrong.
Robb
I suspect we agree on most points except for timing in regards to the dollar's future.
I wonder whether you dispute the fact that Gold and Silver markets are almost entirely manipulated? Also, that Gold/Silver trades are almost entirely paper (as a percentage) not physical such that the volume of trading is almost akin to fractional reserve banking? Also, are you aware that the Indian government has restricted the purchase of physical gold among its population because it was becoming a strain on their trade ledger? Also, regardless of the press releases between Germany and the US you do acknowledge that Germany has been trying to repatriate its gold, and has yet to receive it. I apologize for hijacking this thread about unopened 70s into tangents.
It is good to have the different opinions in an open and honest format...as you say, time will tell
the "unopened market" has outpaced and outguessed me. that much i know. however, it won't prevent me from doing what i've been doing all along. the pursuit is the best part. getting the deal is meal. it's still fun to collect, and even better to make money while doing so. when it no longer fits that criteria, i'll drop out, too.
<< <i>well Stephen, ya know ya done good when your innocent lil ol' thread turns into a full-scale debate on world economics.
I'll be honest, I forgot I was the creator. And that's not a knock, as I've been immersed.
It is rather humorous, tho. Ever play that game where you tell someone a secret, run it through a number of different people, then it comes full circle to see how closely it mirrors what was initially said? It's almost as if I whispered to someone, "Yo, these unopened prices are whack. Running with the big dogs is no longer feasible." Then an hour later the last person comes back to me and says, "Did you say Germany wants their gold back but we don't have it?"
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
<< <i>
<< <i>well Stephen, ya know ya done good when your innocent lil ol' thread turns into a full-scale debate on world economics.
I'll be honest, I forgot I was the creator. And that's not a knock, as I've been immersed.
It is rather humorous, tho. Ever play that game where you tell someone a secret, run it through a number of different people, then it comes full circle to see how closely it mirrors what was initially said? It's almost as if I whispered to someone, "Yo, these unopened prices are whack. Running with the big dogs is no longer feasible." Then an hour later the last person comes back to me and says, "Did you say Germany wants their gold back but we don't have it?" >>
+100
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Dave