Interesting discussion. The question of "value" brings back an interesting conversation I had with a client yesterday. I am a probate attorney. This client is trying to sell her mom's house with the aid of a Realtor. It has been on the market for some months and one "low ball" offer about 30% less than asking. She told me, "nobody is willing to pay what it's worth." I explained to her that it's "worth" is when a buyer and seller agree on a price. Until then you are merely guessing what it's "worth." To extend this to baseball cards no card is "under valued." It is what it is today. What cards have the greatest chance of increasing in value in the future? That's a wild crap shoot of course but nothing is "undervalued." Take any card as an example and there are people that buy for different reasons. Since there was discussion of Mr. Pujols let's discus him. Is he "lock" for the hall of fame? Who knows. However, the current value of his cards factors in the liklihood of him making it to the HOF. Someone who thinks it is more likely might pay a little more than someone who thinks it less likely. Either way, his liklihood of making it to the HOF is already factored into the price. We all know what his numbers have been to date and we all have different expectations on what they will be in the future. Unless he does something drastically better or drastically worse than expected the value is not likely to fluctute/spike (up or down) greatly. If he hits 90 home runs in a year, something that is unexpected, I would think his cards would see a spike in value which may continue for the long term. On the other hand if he goes down with a career ending injury tomorrow his cards will likely decrease as that is unexpected. Do not compare him to Koufax or anybody else. When discussing "value" it doesn't matter what a Koufax rookie is as compared to a Pujols or whatever. Obviously they are apples and oranges. The factors include on the field stuff, off the field stuff, AND everything that effects comodities in general (like how is our economy doing). It's been said 1,000 times cards are not a good investment. They MIGHT appreciate more than the stock market (or whatever you like to collect) but when looking for a true investment they are NOT better in my opinion. They are a gamble like a very risky stock (or pork futures or whatever). I got a B+ in macro and a B- in micro so take my BS for what it cost you. Having said all that, I am going to stock pile a few Russell Westbrook rookie cards because I think he is the next Michael Jordan....
<< <i>You're quite wrong. Pujols would be in a situation much like Koufax was. Based on mere dominance, and the eye popping numbers put up. A career .332 batting average, and the fourth best slugging % in the history of MLB, at .621, is nothing the HOF could turn a blind eye to. Also, taking into acount he is accomplishing what no player has ever done in MLB, an MVP, and a World Series Championship, would be enough to get him elected if he went down today. >>
Actually, if Pujols retired today, he'd be ineligible for HoF voting because he hasn't played for the minimum requirement of 10 years.
<< <i>You're quite wrong. Pujols would be in a situation much like Koufax was. Based on mere dominance, and the eye popping numbers put up. A career .332 batting average, and the fourth best slugging % in the history of MLB, at .621, is nothing the HOF could turn a blind eye to. Also, taking into acount he is accomplishing what no player has ever done in MLB, an MVP, and a World Series Championship, would be enough to get him elected if he went down today. >>
Actually, if Pujols retired today, he'd be ineligible for HoF voting because he hasn't played for the minimum requirement of 10 years. >>
Honestly, if we get very literal, that is true. With that said, I did not literally mean "right this minute", in regards to a possibility that his career would end so suddenly(although my words could be taken that way). It's pretty safe to say Albert Pujols plays another 2 seasons, to say the least. That is what I base my statements on.
There can always be the "what if" game with anything in life.
<< <i>Interesting discussion. The question of "value" brings back an interesting conversation I had with a client yesterday. I am a probate attorney. This client is trying to sell her mom's house with the aid of a Realtor. It has been on the market for some months and one "low ball" offer about 30% less than asking. She told me, "nobody is willing to pay what it's worth." I explained to her that it's "worth" is when a buyer and seller agree on a price. Until then you are merely guessing what it's "worth." To extend this to baseball cards no card is "under valued." It is what it is today. What cards have the greatest chance of increasing in value in the future? That's a wild crap shoot of course but nothing is "undervalued." Take any card as an example and there are people that buy for different reasons. Since there was discussion of Mr. Pujols let's discus him. Is he "lock" for the hall of fame? Who knows. However, the current value of his cards factors in the liklihood of him making it to the HOF. Someone who thinks it is more likely might pay a little more than someone who thinks it less likely. Either way, his liklihood of making it to the HOF is already factored into the price. We all know what his numbers have been to date and we all have different expectations on what they will be in the future. Unless he does something drastically better or drastically worse than expected the value is not likely to fluctute/spike (up or down) greatly. If he hits 90 home runs in a year, something that is unexpected, I would think his cards would see a spike in value which may continue for the long term. On the other hand if he goes down with a career ending injury tomorrow his cards will likely decrease as that is unexpected. Do not compare him to Koufax or anybody else. When discussing "value" it doesn't matter what a Koufax rookie is as compared to a Pujols or whatever. Obviously they are apples and oranges. The factors include on the field stuff, off the field stuff, AND everything that effects comodities in general (like how is our economy doing). It's been said 1,000 times cards are not a good investment. They MIGHT appreciate more than the stock market (or whatever you like to collect) but when looking for a true investment they are NOT better in my opinion. They are a gamble like a very risky stock (or pork futures or whatever). I got a B+ in macro and a B- in micro so take my BS for what it cost you. Having said all that, I am going to stock pile a few Russell Westbrook rookie cards because I think he is the next Michael Jordan.... >>
81 topps henderson psa 9 only 180 or so compare that too surrounding years rare not to mention finding one squared up with 5050 centering your down into id say 20-30ish ebay prices 12-25 only seen 2 or 3 since jan 81 topps reggie jax psa 9 only 38 examples in 9 no tens card goes for as little as 30 and sold it at 150 before good card to pick up
I would agree with SFMays....Topps test issues are extremely scarce and collected by quite a few people. The most popular from the 1970 and later time period seems to be the 1972 Cloth Stickers (with Aaron & Clemente IA) and 1973 Topps Puzzles (especially the Ryan, which is never found centered). In football, I'd have to go with the extremely rare 1977 Topps Mexican set.
As for regular issue cards, I'd have to go with the 1971 Topps set (because of the black borders which lead to condition scarcity) and the 1975 Topps sets (most popular set of the decade by far). I'd also keep an eye out on unopened late 70's basketball, which although before the Bird/Magic/Jordan era, are nice tight sets (132 cards each) and feature some great superstars. Because of the small set sizes, you can pull roughly three sets from a box, which is nice.
Also, I think 1972-73 basketball will do well (it's the set with Dr. J's RC and is very colorful), and that 1980-81 Topps Basketball with Bird & Magic's 2nd year cards is very hard to find centered and without print defects.
People who think the hottest most expensive guy will keep going up in value are hilarious. It's never happened in the history of card collecting, yet people continue to think that their guy will be the one exception. Just go down the line- Jordan, Tiger, Montana, Marino, Moss, Ripken, Thomas, Griffey, Jeter, etc..... All of these guys were white hot for a while and are at a fraction of their peak right now.
The rationalization that the number of cards printed will be able to help Pujols/Brady/whoever maintain their price levels proves how little people know about the card market. Traditional supply and demand theories really don't apply in the hobby as much as people think. How many Griffey UD RCs are there? 50 million? If supply and demand had any effect on this card it would be worth around $3. Instead, it was worth $100 at one point and you had investors buying lots of 1000 at a time. Well, if there was a #'d/1000 version of the Griffey RC back then, the same guys would've been buying one at a time for $5,000 and would've lost their a$$ regardless because the card still would've eventually dropped back down to earth.
Soon enough, Pujols will have some type of slump or season ending injury and his cards will drop a level. Then people will get bored with him once he hits his later years and "only" hits 35 HRs a year and his cards will drop again. Same with Brady, same with Kobe, same with LeBron.... Hell, it might even take until they retire, but their cards will drop because no key cards in the history of modern card collecting have ever maintained their peak value over the long run.
No sure if it was this thread but someone showed a chart of Rookie card values. Almost every peak was before the player was even in the Majors, or within their first year!
The Beckett doesn't list anything prior to 1948 Bowman, so I'll start there: 1989 EX prices - 1989 Prices with inflation to 2007- 2008 July SMR PSA 5 prices - (inflation of 1989 money to 2007 value)
1948 musial = $350 ($606) vs $365 1948-49 leaf jackie = not listed 1949 Bowman Jackie = $350 ($606) vs $425 1952 mantle = $3600 ($6234) vs $15,000 1952 mays = $600 ($1039) vs $850 1954 hank aaron = $600 ($1039) vs $625 1955 koufax = $325 ($563) vs $350 1957 frank robinson = $100 ($173) vs $100 1959 gibson = $150 ($208) vs $120 1963 rose = $400 ($692) vs $350 1964 rose = $100 ($173) vs $65
Midgrade vintage hasn't done well, except for Mickey Mantle cards.
Yes, the higher the grade, the better the investment, specially since the emphasis on condition wasn't as strong as it is now that the graders have entered the ring and got everyone involved. If you paid 25% mark-up over book for a PSA 9 quality card vintage card, you'd have made some major money.
I think the biggest difference from 20 years ago is Ebay and the relative ease of getting cards you need. I think the prices were inflated back in the late 80's due to little competition with vintage cards. There were probably 7 or 8 card shops relatively close to me in the late 80's early 90's and none of them had great vintage collections. They could pretty much charge whatever they wanted and set the market for the area. With the advent of Ebay the market is now open to anyway with internet access and now there is more supply bringing the prices down.
I agree high grade vintage has really shot up because of its relative scarcity compared to mid-grade. Also, 3rd party grading has brought security for people willing to spend big money on cards. I know I would not buy vintage if it were not for grading companies. Text
<< <i>The Beckett doesn't list anything prior to 1948 Bowman, so I'll start there: 1989 EX prices - 1989 Prices with inflation to 2007- 2008 July SMR PSA 5 prices - (inflation of 1989 money to 2007 value)
1948 musial = $350 ($606) vs $365 1948-49 leaf jackie = not listed 1949 Bowman Jackie = $350 ($606) vs $425 1952 mantle = $3600 ($6234) vs $15,000 1952 mays = $600 ($1039) vs $850 1954 hank aaron = $600 ($1039) vs $625 1955 koufax = $325 ($563) vs $350 1957 frank robinson = $100 ($173) vs $100 1959 gibson = $150 ($208) vs $120 1963 rose = $400 ($692) vs $350 1964 rose = $100 ($173) vs $65
Midgrade vintage hasn't done well, except for Mickey Mantle cards.
Yes, the higher the grade, the better the investment, specially since the emphasis on condition wasn't as strong as it is now that the graders have entered the ring and got everyone involved. If you paid 25% mark-up over book for a PSA 9 quality card vintage card, you'd have made some major money. Text >>
I think the biggest difference from 20 years ago is Ebay and the relative ease of getting cards you need. I think the prices were inflated back in the late 80's due to little competition with vintage cards. There were probably 7 or 8 card shops relatively close to me in the late 80's early 90's and none of them had great vintage collections. They could pretty much charge whatever they wanted and set the market for the area. With the advent of Ebay the market is now open to anyway with internet access and now there is more supply bringing the prices down.
I agree high grade vintage has really shot up because of its relative scarcity compared to mid-grade. Also, 3rd party grading has brought security for people willing to spend big money on cards. I know I would not buy vintage if it were not for grading companies.
<< <i>Until MLB starts testing for human growth hormones (HGH) I won't touch any cards of Vlad, Manny or Pujols. I won't spend my hard earned money on any player from the steriod-HGH era unless I know they are unequivocably clean. I've already been burned with fakes and frauds like Bonds and McGwire and I won't let it happen again--period!!!!!!! >>
ha ha
What about Mantle and his greenies (amphetamines), Cobb and his cocaine, etc. ??
Comments
<< <i>You're quite wrong. Pujols would be in a situation much like Koufax was. Based on mere dominance, and the eye popping numbers put up. A career .332 batting average, and the fourth best slugging % in the history of MLB, at .621, is nothing the HOF could turn a blind eye to. Also, taking into acount he is accomplishing what no player has ever done in MLB, an MVP, and a World Series Championship, would be enough to get him elected if he went down today. >>
Actually, if Pujols retired today, he'd be ineligible for HoF voting because he hasn't played for the minimum requirement of 10 years.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>You're quite wrong. Pujols would be in a situation much like Koufax was. Based on mere dominance, and the eye popping numbers put up. A career .332 batting average, and the fourth best slugging % in the history of MLB, at .621, is nothing the HOF could turn a blind eye to. Also, taking into acount he is accomplishing what no player has ever done in MLB, an MVP, and a World Series Championship, would be enough to get him elected if he went down today. >>
Actually, if Pujols retired today, he'd be ineligible for HoF voting because he hasn't played for the minimum requirement of 10 years. >>
Honestly, if we get very literal, that is true. With that said, I did not literally mean "right this minute", in regards to a possibility that his career would end so suddenly(although my words could be taken that way). It's pretty safe to say Albert Pujols plays another 2 seasons, to say the least. That is what I base my statements on.
There can always be the "what if" game with anything in life.
EDIT: spell
<< <i>Interesting discussion. The question of "value" brings back an interesting conversation I had with a client yesterday. I am a probate attorney. This client is trying to sell her mom's house with the aid of a Realtor. It has been on the market for some months and one "low ball" offer about 30% less than asking. She told me, "nobody is willing to pay what it's worth." I explained to her that it's "worth" is when a buyer and seller agree on a price. Until then you are merely guessing what it's "worth." To extend this to baseball cards no card is "under valued." It is what it is today. What cards have the greatest chance of increasing in value in the future? That's a wild crap shoot of course but nothing is "undervalued." Take any card as an example and there are people that buy for different reasons. Since there was discussion of Mr. Pujols let's discus him. Is he "lock" for the hall of fame? Who knows. However, the current value of his cards factors in the liklihood of him making it to the HOF. Someone who thinks it is more likely might pay a little more than someone who thinks it less likely. Either way, his liklihood of making it to the HOF is already factored into the price. We all know what his numbers have been to date and we all have different expectations on what they will be in the future. Unless he does something drastically better or drastically worse than expected the value is not likely to fluctute/spike (up or down) greatly. If he hits 90 home runs in a year, something that is unexpected, I would think his cards would see a spike in value which may continue for the long term. On the other hand if he goes down with a career ending injury tomorrow his cards will likely decrease as that is unexpected. Do not compare him to Koufax or anybody else. When discussing "value" it doesn't matter what a Koufax rookie is as compared to a Pujols or whatever. Obviously they are apples and oranges. The factors include on the field stuff, off the field stuff, AND everything that effects comodities in general (like how is our economy doing). It's been said 1,000 times cards are not a good investment. They MIGHT appreciate more than the stock market (or whatever you like to collect) but when looking for a true investment they are NOT better in my opinion. They are a gamble like a very risky stock (or pork futures or whatever). I got a B+ in macro and a B- in micro so take my BS for what it cost you. Having said all that, I am going to stock pile a few Russell Westbrook rookie cards because I think he is the next Michael Jordan....
+1
few off the top of my head in the years i collect
81 topps henderson psa 9 only 180 or so compare that too surrounding years rare not to mention finding one squared up with 5050 centering your down into id say
20-30ish ebay prices 12-25 only seen 2 or 3 since jan
81 topps reggie jax psa 9 only 38 examples in 9 no tens card goes for as little as 30 and sold it at 150 before good card to pick up
As for regular issue cards, I'd have to go with the 1971 Topps set (because of the black borders which lead to condition scarcity) and the 1975 Topps sets (most popular set of the decade by far). I'd also keep an eye out on unopened late 70's basketball, which although before the Bird/Magic/Jordan era, are nice tight sets (132 cards each) and feature some great superstars. Because of the small set sizes, you can pull roughly three sets from a box, which is nice.
Also, I think 1972-73 basketball will do well (it's the set with Dr. J's RC and is very colorful), and that 1980-81 Topps Basketball with Bird & Magic's 2nd year cards is very hard to find centered and without print defects.
The rationalization that the number of cards printed will be able to help Pujols/Brady/whoever maintain their price levels proves how little people know about the card market. Traditional supply and demand theories really don't apply in the hobby as much as people think. How many Griffey UD RCs are there? 50 million? If supply and demand had any effect on this card it would be worth around $3. Instead, it was worth $100 at one point and you had investors buying lots of 1000 at a time. Well, if there was a #'d/1000 version of the Griffey RC back then, the same guys would've been buying one at a time for $5,000 and would've lost their a$$ regardless because the card still would've eventually dropped back down to earth.
Soon enough, Pujols will have some type of slump or season ending injury and his cards will drop a level. Then people will get bored with him once he hits his later years and "only" hits 35 HRs a year and his cards will drop again. Same with Brady, same with Kobe, same with LeBron.... Hell, it might even take until they retire, but their cards will drop because no key cards in the history of modern card collecting have ever maintained their peak value over the long run.
1989 EX prices - 1989 Prices with inflation to 2007- 2008 July SMR PSA 5 prices - (inflation of 1989 money to 2007 value)
1948 musial = $350 ($606) vs $365
1948-49 leaf jackie = not listed
1949 Bowman Jackie = $350 ($606) vs $425
1952 mantle = $3600 ($6234) vs $15,000
1952 mays = $600 ($1039) vs $850
1954 hank aaron = $600 ($1039) vs $625
1955 koufax = $325 ($563) vs $350
1957 frank robinson = $100 ($173) vs $100
1959 gibson = $150 ($208) vs $120
1963 rose = $400 ($692) vs $350
1964 rose = $100 ($173) vs $65
Midgrade vintage hasn't done well, except for Mickey Mantle cards.
Yes, the higher the grade, the better the investment, specially since the emphasis on condition wasn't as strong as it is now that the graders have entered the ring and got everyone involved. If you paid 25% mark-up over book for a PSA 9 quality card vintage card, you'd have made some major money.
I think the biggest difference from 20 years ago is Ebay and the relative ease of getting cards you need. I think the prices were inflated back in the late 80's due to little competition with vintage cards. There were probably 7 or 8 card shops relatively close to me in the late 80's early 90's and none of them had great vintage collections. They could pretty much charge whatever they wanted and set the market for the area. With the advent of Ebay the market is now open to anyway with internet access and now there is more supply bringing the prices down.
I agree high grade vintage has really shot up because of its relative scarcity compared to mid-grade. Also, 3rd party grading has brought security for people willing to spend big money on cards. I know I would not buy vintage if it were not for grading companies.
Text
<< <i>The Beckett doesn't list anything prior to 1948 Bowman, so I'll start there:
1989 EX prices - 1989 Prices with inflation to 2007- 2008 July SMR PSA 5 prices - (inflation of 1989 money to 2007 value)
1948 musial = $350 ($606) vs $365
1948-49 leaf jackie = not listed
1949 Bowman Jackie = $350 ($606) vs $425
1952 mantle = $3600 ($6234) vs $15,000
1952 mays = $600 ($1039) vs $850
1954 hank aaron = $600 ($1039) vs $625
1955 koufax = $325 ($563) vs $350
1957 frank robinson = $100 ($173) vs $100
1959 gibson = $150 ($208) vs $120
1963 rose = $400 ($692) vs $350
1964 rose = $100 ($173) vs $65
Midgrade vintage hasn't done well, except for Mickey Mantle cards.
Yes, the higher the grade, the better the investment, specially since the emphasis on condition wasn't as strong as it is now that the graders have entered the ring and got everyone involved. If you paid 25% mark-up over book for a PSA 9 quality card vintage card, you'd have made some major money. Text >>
I think the biggest difference from 20 years ago is Ebay and the relative ease of getting cards you need. I think the prices were inflated back in the late 80's due to little competition with vintage cards. There were probably 7 or 8 card shops relatively close to me in the late 80's early 90's and none of them had great vintage collections. They could pretty much charge whatever they wanted and set the market for the area. With the advent of Ebay the market is now open to anyway with internet access and now there is more supply bringing the prices down.
I agree high grade vintage has really shot up because of its relative scarcity compared to mid-grade. Also, 3rd party grading has brought security for people willing to spend big money on cards. I know I would not buy vintage if it were not for grading companies.
<< <i>Until MLB starts testing for human growth hormones (HGH) I won't touch any cards of Vlad, Manny or Pujols. I won't spend my hard earned money on any player from the steriod-HGH era unless I know they are unequivocably clean. I've already been burned with fakes and frauds like Bonds and McGwire and I won't let it happen again--period!!!!!!! >>
ha ha
What about Mantle and his greenies (amphetamines), Cobb and his cocaine, etc. ??
Every era had its advantages and disadvantages.