<< <i>In 1996, Henderson’s first season with San Diego, he boarded the team bus and was looking for a seat. Steve Finley said, “You have tenure, sit wherever you want.” Henderson looked at Finley and said, “Ten years? Ricky’s been playing at least 16, 17 years.” >>
That's Rickey in a nutshell. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer but a freak of an athlete.
If I wanted to invest $30K in Henderson Rookies, I'd buy up 60 PSA 9's at $500 per card, and send 10 in at a time to PSA for a bump review. If you hit on just one bump out of 60 (very possible), you're a winner. Get two to bump and you now have more than doubled your money. Three to bump and you have yourself a new business model.
I don't really view the Henderson as iconic. Crappy Topps design, soft recycled cardboard was used for 1980 Topps, the photo looks out of focus more often than not. The production of 1980 Topps Baseball was huge. There's nothing good here.
Rich people are smart at making money, not spending it.
I admit I am biased right out the gate as Rickey is my all time favorite baseball player. With that in mind, here is my opinion.
1. ALL TIME RANKING
I would put Rickey in the top 15 of all time. You have to look at what he did in context of not only getting on base and manufacturing runs, but making those hitting behind him much better. As one example, Mattingly had his best RBI year knocking Rickey home. Imagine this simple example:
You can have an all time outfield of Williams, Mays and Ruth (left to right) OR Henderson, Mays, Ruth
Sure Ted has more pop and gets on base more BUT he is a station to station base runner and average defender in his prime. Put Rickey in the lineup instead and bat him lead off followed by Mays and then Ruth. You have total havoc at the top of the order and someone to set the table for two big hitters right after him. You also get a much better defender in the outfield (Rickey always had a weenie arm but you can best hide that in left). I think the latter is going to present a more dynamic and higher scoring lineup than with Williams. Runs will also be saved on defense (again, you have to think intangibles with pitches that will be seen, Rickey rattling the pitcher with Mays at the plate, etc.)
2. RICKEY AND ROIDS
Absolutely nuts in my book. Rickey was always a specimen with legs the size of tree trunks. Recall he has a fantastic running back in high school. He really was one of those once in a lifetime athletes. Also, look at his production. It had a natural decline. His best all around year was in 1990 when he was 31. It seems most players traditionally have their best years between 28 and 32; or at least sometime prior to reaching the age of 32. One exception to that is Hank Aaron who had his best year at 37. He was also very productive close to 40. I actually compare Rickey to Aaron, not obviously in the power department, but two very gifted athletes who remained productive and consistent for very long periods of time.
Note also as well that Rickey never once hit over 28 home runs in a season. He also only slugged over .500 twice in his career. He never was a 162 game a season player; he needed rest days. In his last nine major league seasons, he only went over 140 games twice and only slugged over .400 in two of those seasons. Such is not the progression of a roid user. While we will certainly never know for sure about any player, I for one am convinced Rickey was 100 percent clean. He did not show power surges of a roid user and his body naturally broke down as he aged. I am convinced he hung on like he did for the pure love of the game.
Ok, he got cut in his 30s. He still was at most 180 on that score card. A guy ripped is gonna look much bigger cause you can clearly see their muscles. Manny Pacquiao was ripped and looked bigger than his 146 pounds. And yes it wouldn't surprise me if PacMan did do roids and HGH like Floyd Mayweather accused him of cause PacMan did start off fighting at 105-110. PacMan's knockout power did seem to coincide with his weight gain above 135 when he took out Ricky Hatton and turned a much bigger Antonio Margarita's face into mush. My point is Ricky's stats don't suggest any sudden use of PEDS. He stole 100 bases his 2nd year and 130 two years later. He never came close to stealing 100 bases after age 30. The roids would have kept the explosive speed in his legs. That's why sprinters like Ben Johnson and Marion Jones used roids. He never hit over 30 home runs. You'd think being on roids would have at least bumped him past his career high of 28 homers in 1986.
I'm not one of those guys who needs definitive proof that a player cheated. I believe Brady Anderson juiced. That sudden 47 home run season followed his muscle gain. Bagwell's transformation from doubles and 15-20 home run power to big time slugger followed the off season he bulked up. Just don't throw out the roids accusations unless the stats back them up.
<< <i>Tabe, I get that you're not a real fan of Rickey, but how can you throw out the roids accusation for Rickey? You're the 1st guy I've heard of that has mentioned Rickey as a roids user. Are you just thinking that because he played with McGwire and Canseco in the late 80s. The guy didn't have a change in physique during his playing career. >>
Uh, yeah, he did.
Early Rickey:
Later Rickey:
Not a HUGE transformation but he obviously became bigger and a lot more muscled over the course of his career.
It's not true that I'm not a fan of Rickey's. I generally liked the guy during his career and loved the way he (generally) played. Sure, one of my all-time favorite moments in baseball was when he got thrown out against the Tigers trying for #119 in 1982 (after the runner on 2B intentionally got picked off so Rickey could try to steal and break the record at home). But I liked the guy. I've stated he's a great player. I don't see how "he's not a top 15 guy" and saying he did roids makes me not a fan. Roids don't really factor into whether I'm fan of a player or not. Bonds? Not a fan. Clemens? Mostly a fan. Palmeiro? Fan. Pettite? Not a fan. >>
Maybe he did, or maybe once he had access to training facilities, trainers, dieticians, etc he gained 15 pounds of muscle. Most men could do the same thing from November to February if they wanted to. It's not hard. If he had played football at UCLA or wherever he would have been at 200 pounds by the second fall camp.
Rickey Henderson was voted the 19th best position player recently at baseball-fever.com. At baseball-reference.com, their EloRater has him at #17. Bill James has him #26. He's 14th in career WAR.
<< <i>I'm not defending Rickey or even speculating on whether he juiced, but it's sad when any pro athlete who puts on muscle in their 30's all of a sudden gets linked to roids. I was a 3-sport athlete in high school (baseball, football, soccer) and I'm almost 36 now. I go to the gym 5 days a week, play competitive soccer twice a week, and am much more ripped than I was at 18, and I was in great shape then. There's something to be said about knowing how to lift, eat right and being able to keep on weight (good weight). Not to mention the trainers these guys have access to once they make the majors are significantly better than whatever they had in the minors or college. >>
Elite athletes also usually have a stronger genetic foundation to allow better growth and results from their training and dieting. The Joe Blows that blame steroids for anybody's gains don't understand any of the above. Rickey looks like he got a little bigger over the course of his career. Training methodologies alone made large strides during that time. It's not like his head doubled in size and he put on 45 pounds à la Barry Bonds.
And while I'm on the topic of gains, I love the Rickey Henderson 1980 Topps. Growing up, it was a card wanted but couldn't even afford raw. Since, I've had a few 9s and a few 10s. I sold the ones that weren't perfect to me and I kept the ones I loved. One of my 9s was consigned to PWCC and sold for $356 last night. I made probably $30-40. I paid $17,000 for my favorite 10 not even two years ago. If I thought the 30k sale was an outlier I would sell immediately and move on, but I'm pretty sure it's not and I also love the card. There are numerous hobby examples like this, it's not like this sale came out of nowhere. The hobby is strong right now and the highest graded of iconic cards are what's leading the way, especially when there's more demand than supply. Even if you can't justify paying the exponential increase for small differences between a 9 and a 10, sometimes factoring in investment potential alone can be enough reason to pull the trigger.
<< <i>Even if you can't justify paying the exponential increase for small differences between a 9 and a 10, sometimes factoring in investment potential alone can be enough reason to pull the trigger. >>
Thanks for sharing your views on this; it's valuable to hear them. I love the card too and am very happy to own one. I think my problem with viewing a 10 of a card like this as a longer-term investment is that I would feel like I was really investing in the continued good reputation of PSA and the maintenance of standards for 10s, and would not be investing in the card itself. If, as a purely hypothetical example, a memo to graders instructing them to artificially restrict the supply of 10s were to come to light (again, I'm not remotely suggesting this is real, it is just for discussion) I think you would see the price drop precipitously, because the exponential increase in value for a 10 doesn't seem to be attached to anything intrinsic to the card. Even a more general scandal or a loosening of grading standards could really hurt it (I suspect PSA is well aware of this and that is why standards seem to get tighter over time). I just wouldn't want to add another layer of risk where the difference between a 9 and a 10 is so great. But everybody has to make those kinds of judgments and risk/reward calculations for themselves, and you obviously stand to do very well on yours. I also admit that my risk tolerance is low to start with.
<< <i>Even if you can't justify paying the exponential increase for small differences between a 9 and a 10, sometimes factoring in investment potential alone can be enough reason to pull the trigger. >>
Thanks for sharing your views on this; it's valuable to hear them. I love the card too and am very happy to own one. I think my problem with viewing a 10 of a card like this as a longer-term investment is that I would feel like I was really investing in the continued good reputation of PSA and the maintenance of standards for 10s, and would not be investing in the card itself. If, as a purely hypothetical example, a memo to graders instructing them to artificially restrict the supply of 10s were to come to light (again, I'm not remotely suggesting this is real, it is just for discussion) I think you would see the price drop precipitously, because the exponential increase in value for a 10 doesn't seem to be attached to anything intrinsic to the card. Even a more general scandal or a loosening of grading standards could really hurt it (I suspect PSA is well aware of this and that is why standards seem to get tighter over time). I just wouldn't want to add another layer of risk where the difference between a 9 and a 10 is so great. But everybody has to make those kinds of judgments and risk/reward calculations for themselves, and you obviously stand to do very well on yours. I also admit that my risk tolerance is low to start with. >>
I've thought about the same types of things. It's healthy to play devil's advocate and think of all the possibilities. The same can be said for almost any type of investment. If you're investing in a publicly traded company you have to trust that they aren't cooking the books and are operating the right way. That's why diversification is important. Cards are so much more fun to me than stocks but when I find my self over-investing in cardboard, I sometimes re-evaluate and make sure that it's not too large of a percentage of my portfolio for various reasons.
<< <i>I think my problem with viewing a 10 of a card like this as a longer-term investment is that I would feel like I was really investing in the continued good reputation of PSA >>
This is the key point here. Everyone knows the difference between the best 9s and the 10s is tiny-----literally microscopic as has been said---- if it exists at all in some cases, since we have all seen 9s become 10s with review. So it comes down to the sticker, for any 10 to be a winning investment.
Luckily for those who buy and flip 10s for profit, there are always super rich guys who want "the best," but perhaps don't perform enough due diligence or have time in their busy careers to learn about the card versus the holder philosophy, about centering, tilt, value, etc. So these guys will see the 10 on the sticker and just open their wallet for it, not knowing you can obtain perhaps the exact same card for so much less, or find the beautiful cards that DM23HOF, JBRULES, THOSEBACKPAGES, and some others have been showing on these forums for years.
As someone returning to the hobby after many years, I find anyone can throw money at a 10. But it takes a keen and talented eye for cards to locate eye appeal in other grades. I have also found that, for me, setting a new price record for a special, great looking low grade card is much cooler and smarter than setting a new price for a 10, because of what I quoted all the way up above. Plus I know the lower graded cards are not worked on like the 10s. Because for that little sticker (which is all the 10 has over the top 9s) to retain its value, the grading company has to remain in existence and atop its game. But companies come and go in this world all the time. In ten years, twenty years, who knows what grading company is the new hot thing. However the cards will always be around. I read here a long time ago an interesting point that stuck with me, that decades from now, if the grading company deck is reshuffled, a 3 will always be a 3 or maybe even a 4, but 10s may not become a new TPGs 10s. That's why long term I would much rather hold a beautiful 3 or 7. The 10 just puts all the value in that sticker from that one company. So a short term flip is safe. But imagine holding hugely expensive 10s and then one day another company is the new leader? When someone buys a 10, they are not just buying the card, they are also making a huge bet on a specific company. I like to have as much of my money be spent on the card as possible.
Regarding this card in question, if the owner is happy, that's what matters. Sounds like it's an investment play. And it'll likely pay off. Someone out there will want to play big dog and pay 35k in a few months, not knowing he's really paying $34,600 for at most a fractionally sharper corner or a fish eye that's not there under magnification. For my slowly growing collection, I will allocate my next 30k toward the nicest early Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Cobb, or Aaron I can find. A card that costs that much in low grade seems to me more important a card than one that is rare and valuable only due to condition.
A Sandard Biscuit Babe Ruth in POOR 1 condition is still worth quite a bit of lettuce. That Henderson in 1 is worth a penny. That is, for me, the standout fact in the equation.
If you consider 13k cards have been subbed for 13 psa 10s the math would not support buying 100 psa 9s at $350 per card hoping one would bump. Less than 1 percent have been given a psa 10. The sheer time involved in finding 100 centered psa 9's would probably take a full year. Consider what someones time is worth that has 30k to spend on cards and spending $30k makes a lot of sense in my opinion.
I am not saying it is a good or bad investment but sometimes you have too look at it from the buyers perspective relative to value. 100 hours working in my office is worth far more than 30k
Good topic and I also appreciate the friendly, good natured debate in this thread!
That said, my position has been and still is a strong example in a high grade with limited pop of a key RC will usually end up as a winning play. For years I've been playing in this space with many nay sayers saying PSA 10's are over priced; I've been hearing and reading that for years - usually from those who don't collect or invest in PSA 10's. What I have seen is if a well heeled buyer leaves the hobby or changes collecting focus , another buyer (or two or more) replaces him in this space. Pick any sport in the 70's and 80's and do a little VCP research on key HOF RC's over last 3-5 years - hard to refute if you are being intellectually honest.
Some commons and minor stars PSA 10's haven't fared so well as pops increased, buy key 1970-80's HOF or soon to be HOF RC PSA 10's in limited pops continue to increase in all four major sports. Lastly, I also still like the upside of the Henderson PSA 10 - especially if you own one of the better examples of the 13 in existence. PSA 10's may not be for all collectors - enjoy what you collect!
<< <i>First of all, I'm loving the respectful tone of this debate.
Second, my all-time outfield is Williams, Mantle, Ruth. No room for Rickey
I will say this: Although I still have strong suspicions on Rickey, Jose Canseco says he was clean. That goes a long way in my book. >>
Good point. I meant to note this in my ramblings. Jose certainly would have ratted Rickey out had he had any knowledge. This is a good point.
Getting to the card, I would love to own a 10. I'm a huge Rickey fan so that would be a dream card. Wait, let me rephrase-- Matt would love to own a Rickey 10!
Interesting debate. I will throw in my two cents If you consider 13k cards have been subbed for 13 psa 10s the math would not support buying 100 psa 9s at $350 per card hoping one would bump. Less than 1 percent have been given a psa 10. The sheer time involved in finding 100 centered psa 9's would probably take a full year. Consider what someones time is worth that has 30k to spend on cards and spending $30k makes a lot of sense in my opinion.
Actually, the odds are much worse than one in a hundred, it's more like one in a thousand, or .1 percent chance of getting a 10. But in fairness, you have increased your odds a little by submitting only nines.
Comments
<< <i>In 1996, Henderson’s first season with San Diego, he boarded the team bus and was looking for a seat. Steve Finley said, “You have tenure, sit wherever you want.” Henderson looked at Finley and said, “Ten years? Ricky’s been playing at least 16, 17 years.” >>
That's Rickey in a nutshell. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer but a freak of an athlete.
If I wanted to invest $30K in Henderson Rookies, I'd buy up 60 PSA 9's at $500 per card, and send 10 in at a time to PSA
for a bump review. If you hit on just one bump out of 60 (very possible), you're a winner.
Get two to bump and you now have more than doubled your money. Three to bump and you have yourself a new business model.
I don't really view the Henderson as iconic. Crappy Topps design, soft recycled cardboard was used for 1980 Topps, the photo looks out of focus
more often than not. The production of 1980 Topps Baseball was huge. There's nothing good here.
Rich people are smart at making money, not spending it.
1. ALL TIME RANKING
I would put Rickey in the top 15 of all time. You have to look at what he did in context of not only getting on base and manufacturing runs, but making those hitting behind him much better. As one example, Mattingly had his best RBI year knocking Rickey home. Imagine this simple example:
You can have an all time outfield of Williams, Mays and Ruth (left to right)
OR
Henderson, Mays, Ruth
Sure Ted has more pop and gets on base more BUT he is a station to station base runner and average defender in his prime. Put Rickey in the lineup instead and bat him lead off followed by Mays and then Ruth. You have total havoc at the top of the order and someone to set the table for two big hitters right after him. You also get a much better defender in the outfield (Rickey always had a weenie arm but you can best hide that in left). I think the latter is going to present a more dynamic and higher scoring lineup than with Williams. Runs will also be saved on defense (again, you have to think intangibles with pitches that will be seen, Rickey rattling the pitcher with Mays at the plate, etc.)
2. RICKEY AND ROIDS
Absolutely nuts in my book. Rickey was always a specimen with legs the size of tree trunks. Recall he has a fantastic running back in high school. He really was one of those once in a lifetime athletes. Also, look at his production. It had a natural decline. His best all around year was in 1990 when he was 31. It seems most players traditionally have their best years between 28 and 32; or at least sometime prior to reaching the age of 32. One exception to that is Hank Aaron who had his best year at 37. He was also very productive close to 40. I actually compare Rickey to Aaron, not obviously in the power department, but two very gifted athletes who remained productive and consistent for very long periods of time.
Note also as well that Rickey never once hit over 28 home runs in a season. He also only slugged over .500 twice in his career. He never was a 162 game a season player; he needed rest days. In his last nine major league seasons, he only went over 140 games twice and only slugged over .400 in two of those seasons. Such is not the progression of a roid user. While we will certainly never know for sure about any player, I for one am convinced Rickey was 100 percent clean. He did not show power surges of a roid user and his body naturally broke down as he aged. I am convinced he hung on like he did for the pure love of the game.
Matt
I'm not one of those guys who needs definitive proof that a player cheated. I believe Brady Anderson juiced. That sudden 47 home run season followed his muscle gain. Bagwell's transformation from doubles and 15-20 home run power to big time slugger followed the off season he bulked up. Just don't throw out the roids accusations unless the stats back them up.
<< <i>
<< <i>Tabe, I get that you're not a real fan of Rickey, but how can you throw out the roids accusation for Rickey? You're the 1st guy I've heard of that has mentioned Rickey as a roids user. Are you just thinking that because he played with McGwire and Canseco in the late 80s. The guy didn't have a change in physique during his playing career. >>
Uh, yeah, he did.
Early Rickey:
Later Rickey:
Not a HUGE transformation but he obviously became bigger and a lot more muscled over the course of his career.
It's not true that I'm not a fan of Rickey's. I generally liked the guy during his career and loved the way he (generally) played. Sure, one of my all-time favorite moments in baseball was when he got thrown out against the Tigers trying for #119 in 1982 (after the runner on 2B intentionally got picked off so Rickey could try to steal and break the record at home). But I liked the guy. I've stated he's a great player. I don't see how "he's not a top 15 guy" and saying he did roids makes me not a fan. Roids don't really factor into whether I'm fan of a player or not. Bonds? Not a fan. Clemens? Mostly a fan. Palmeiro? Fan. Pettite? Not a fan. >>
Maybe he did, or maybe once he had access to training facilities, trainers, dieticians, etc he gained 15 pounds of muscle. Most men could do the same thing from November to February if they wanted to. It's not hard. If he had played football at UCLA or wherever he would have been at 200 pounds by the second fall camp.
At baseball-reference.com, their EloRater has him at #17.
Bill James has him #26.
He's 14th in career WAR.
<< <i>I'm not defending Rickey or even speculating on whether he juiced, but it's sad when any pro athlete who puts on muscle in their 30's all of a sudden gets linked to roids. I was a 3-sport athlete in high school (baseball, football, soccer) and I'm almost 36 now. I go to the gym 5 days a week, play competitive soccer twice a week, and am much more ripped than I was at 18, and I was in great shape then. There's something to be said about knowing how to lift, eat right and being able to keep on weight (good weight). Not to mention the trainers these guys have access to once they make the majors are significantly better than whatever they had in the minors or college. >>
Elite athletes also usually have a stronger genetic foundation to allow better growth and results from their training and dieting. The Joe Blows that blame steroids for anybody's gains don't understand any of the above. Rickey looks like he got a little bigger over the course of his career. Training methodologies alone made large strides during that time. It's not like his head doubled in size and he put on 45 pounds à la Barry Bonds.
And while I'm on the topic of gains, I love the Rickey Henderson 1980 Topps. Growing up, it was a card wanted but couldn't even afford raw. Since, I've had a few 9s and a few 10s. I sold the ones that weren't perfect to me and I kept the ones I loved. One of my 9s was consigned to PWCC and sold for $356 last night. I made probably $30-40. I paid $17,000 for my favorite 10 not even two years ago. If I thought the 30k sale was an outlier I would sell immediately and move on, but I'm pretty sure it's not and I also love the card. There are numerous hobby examples like this, it's not like this sale came out of nowhere. The hobby is strong right now and the highest graded of iconic cards are what's leading the way, especially when there's more demand than supply. Even if you can't justify paying the exponential increase for small differences between a 9 and a 10, sometimes factoring in investment potential alone can be enough reason to pull the trigger.
<< <i>Even if you can't justify paying the exponential increase for small differences between a 9 and a 10, sometimes factoring in investment potential alone can be enough reason to pull the trigger. >>
Thanks for sharing your views on this; it's valuable to hear them. I love the card too and am very happy to own one. I think my problem with viewing a 10 of a card like this as a longer-term investment is that I would feel like I was really investing in the continued good reputation of PSA and the maintenance of standards for 10s, and would not be investing in the card itself. If, as a purely hypothetical example, a memo to graders instructing them to artificially restrict the supply of 10s were to come to light (again, I'm not remotely suggesting this is real, it is just for discussion) I think you would see the price drop precipitously, because the exponential increase in value for a 10 doesn't seem to be attached to anything intrinsic to the card. Even a more general scandal or a loosening of grading standards could really hurt it (I suspect PSA is well aware of this and that is why standards seem to get tighter over time). I just wouldn't want to add another layer of risk where the difference between a 9 and a 10 is so great. But everybody has to make those kinds of judgments and risk/reward calculations for themselves, and you obviously stand to do very well on yours. I also admit that my risk tolerance is low to start with.
Second, my all-time outfield is Williams, Mantle, Ruth. No room for Rickey
I will say this: Although I still have strong suspicions on Rickey, Jose Canseco says he was clean. That goes a long way in my book.
<< <i>
<< <i>Even if you can't justify paying the exponential increase for small differences between a 9 and a 10, sometimes factoring in investment potential alone can be enough reason to pull the trigger. >>
Thanks for sharing your views on this; it's valuable to hear them. I love the card too and am very happy to own one. I think my problem with viewing a 10 of a card like this as a longer-term investment is that I would feel like I was really investing in the continued good reputation of PSA and the maintenance of standards for 10s, and would not be investing in the card itself. If, as a purely hypothetical example, a memo to graders instructing them to artificially restrict the supply of 10s were to come to light (again, I'm not remotely suggesting this is real, it is just for discussion) I think you would see the price drop precipitously, because the exponential increase in value for a 10 doesn't seem to be attached to anything intrinsic to the card. Even a more general scandal or a loosening of grading standards could really hurt it (I suspect PSA is well aware of this and that is why standards seem to get tighter over time). I just wouldn't want to add another layer of risk where the difference between a 9 and a 10 is so great. But everybody has to make those kinds of judgments and risk/reward calculations for themselves, and you obviously stand to do very well on yours. I also admit that my risk tolerance is low to start with. >>
I've thought about the same types of things. It's healthy to play devil's advocate and think of all the possibilities. The same can be said for almost any type of investment. If you're investing in a publicly traded company you have to trust that they aren't cooking the books and are operating the right way. That's why diversification is important. Cards are so much more fun to me than stocks but when I find my self over-investing in cardboard, I sometimes re-evaluate and make sure that it's not too large of a percentage of my portfolio for various reasons.
<< <i>I think my problem with viewing a 10 of a card like this as a longer-term investment is that I would feel like I was really investing in the continued good reputation of PSA >>
This is the key point here. Everyone knows the difference between the best 9s and the 10s is tiny-----literally microscopic as has been said---- if it exists at all in some cases, since we have all seen 9s become 10s with review. So it comes down to the sticker, for any 10 to be a winning investment.
Luckily for those who buy and flip 10s for profit, there are always super rich guys who want "the best," but perhaps don't perform enough due diligence or have time in their busy careers to learn about the card versus the holder philosophy, about centering, tilt, value, etc. So these guys will see the 10 on the sticker and just open their wallet for it, not knowing you can obtain perhaps the exact same card for so much less, or find the beautiful cards that DM23HOF, JBRULES, THOSEBACKPAGES, and some others have been showing on these forums for years.
As someone returning to the hobby after many years, I find anyone can throw money at a 10. But it takes a keen and talented eye for cards to locate eye appeal in other grades. I have also found that, for me, setting a new price record for a special, great looking low grade card is much cooler and smarter than setting a new price for a 10, because of what I quoted all the way up above. Plus I know the lower graded cards are not worked on like the 10s. Because for that little sticker (which is all the 10 has over the top 9s) to retain its value, the grading company has to remain in existence and atop its game. But companies come and go in this world all the time. In ten years, twenty years, who knows what grading company is the new hot thing. However the cards will always be around. I read here a long time ago an interesting point that stuck with me, that decades from now, if the grading company deck is reshuffled, a 3 will always be a 3 or maybe even a 4, but 10s may not become a new TPGs 10s. That's why long term I would much rather hold a beautiful 3 or 7. The 10 just puts all the value in that sticker from that one company. So a short term flip is safe. But imagine holding hugely expensive 10s and then one day another company is the new leader? When someone buys a 10, they are not just buying the card, they are also making a huge bet on a specific company. I like to have as much of my money be spent on the card as possible.
Regarding this card in question, if the owner is happy, that's what matters. Sounds like it's an investment play. And it'll likely pay off. Someone out there will want to play big dog and pay 35k in a few months, not knowing he's really paying $34,600 for at most a fractionally sharper corner or a fish eye that's not there under magnification. For my slowly growing collection, I will allocate my next 30k toward the nicest early Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Cobb, or Aaron I can find. A card that costs that much in low grade seems to me more important a card than one that is rare and valuable only due to condition.
A Sandard Biscuit Babe Ruth in POOR 1 condition is still worth quite a bit of lettuce. That Henderson in 1 is worth a penny. That is, for me, the standout fact in the equation.
If you consider 13k cards have been subbed for 13 psa 10s the math would not support buying 100 psa 9s at $350 per card hoping one would bump. Less than 1 percent have been given a psa 10. The sheer time involved in finding 100 centered psa 9's would probably take a full year. Consider what someones time is worth that has 30k to spend on cards and spending $30k makes a lot of sense in my opinion.
I am not saying it is a good or bad investment but sometimes you have too look at it from the buyers perspective relative to value. 100 hours working in my office is worth far more than 30k
T222's PSA 1 or better
That said, my position has been and still is a strong example in a high grade with limited pop of a key RC will usually end up as a winning play. For years I've been playing in this space with many nay sayers saying PSA 10's are over priced; I've been hearing and reading that for years - usually from those who don't collect or invest in PSA 10's. What I have seen is if a well heeled buyer leaves the hobby or changes collecting focus , another buyer (or two or more) replaces him in this space. Pick any sport in the 70's and 80's and do a little VCP research on key HOF RC's over last 3-5 years - hard to refute if you are being intellectually honest.
Some commons and minor stars PSA 10's haven't fared so well as pops increased, buy key 1970-80's HOF or soon to be HOF RC PSA 10's in limited pops continue to increase in all four major sports. Lastly, I also still like the upside of the Henderson PSA 10 - especially if you own one of the better examples of the 13 in existence. PSA 10's may not be for all collectors - enjoy what you collect!
<< <i>First of all, I'm loving the respectful tone of this debate.
Second, my all-time outfield is Williams, Mantle, Ruth. No room for Rickey
I will say this: Although I still have strong suspicions on Rickey, Jose Canseco says he was clean. That goes a long way in my book. >>
Good point. I meant to note this in my ramblings. Jose certainly would have ratted Rickey out had he had any knowledge. This is a good point.
Getting to the card, I would love to own a 10. I'm a huge Rickey fan so that would be a dream card. Wait, let me rephrase-- Matt would love to own a Rickey 10!
Matt
Actually, the odds are much worse than one in a hundred, it's more like one in a thousand, or .1 percent chance of getting a 10. But in fairness, you have increased your odds a little by submitting only nines.