What you say about already 'owning' a 1972 set when you have $1,500 in your pocket, is spot on.
In my mind, I still own a 1933 Ruth, because it would only be a matter of days for me to get one in my hand(by purchasing it). It won't be any harder, or any more expensive to have this mindset for the next 50 years. The cards will always be there, and the competition to get them is going to dwindle some(and possibly dwindle to a great degree).
In my example of a PSA 8 Schmidt, I think the same way, but instead of having the card in hand, I have the money in hand. It is extremely easy to get one, so I don't worry about it if I don't have it in my desk drawer at this moment. >>
Hoopster and Guy,
Makes sense, if your position is that the State ot the hobby in 15-20 years will remain stagnant. Otherwise, I disagree.
When I got back in the hobby around 2001, I passed on cards like a Walter Payton PSA 8 rookie for $100, a PSA 8 Bradshaw rookie for $125, and a PSA 7 1955 Topps Jim Thorpe for $175. If any of you guys have those cards at that price, I'll gladly paypal you tonight. Sure, I still have that money, just like you still have your $1500. But in 20 years, $1500 in your wallet will still be $1500. The question is........in 15 years, will that be enough to buy the '72 set??
Sure it will still be available, but if you don't invest your money somewhere............
I was never a big stamp collector, but was apalled at the state of the hobby the way it is now. Its a buyer's market out there. The stamp forum is a ghost town. Its not fun in that forum compared to sportscards or coins.
The late 80s saw a peek in the sportscard hobby, but it began to decline in the 90s. There was a slight recession nationwide during that time and card shops began to close.
Third party grading gave another boost in the hobby because now dealers could not pass off their cards as mint to unsuspecting customers. When I see how a PSA 8 looks like and what a dealer wanted to pass off as MINT in the late 80s, I feel vindicated. Dealers took A LOT of liberty. The hobby was safer and graded cards were selling at a premium--much higher than book value.
Ebay was also good for the hobby as collectors can select from a nationwide market as opposed to relying on their neighborhood. The combination of grading and ebay made it easy to buy decent cards for a collection and at a faster pace than before too.
How will cards do in 20 years is anyone's guess. Ebay and third party grading have brought the world's attention to card collecting. International stars are competing in the MLB. This new attention from other reaches of the world maybe just what the hobby needs.
I understand Hoopster's rationale. He claims there is a trend where there will be less and less card collectors in the decades to come, so prices will slowly drop too. Not enough young kids are into this hobby, so it is bound to contract, not expand. It may also be the case that only the cards in the most pristine condition will still command a higher value and the mediocre cards would be virtually worthless.
Vintage cards might be least affected because they have proven to be resilient and have a following of collectors who were too young to care about the individual players, but somehow now they do.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Those three cards you mention Peyton and Bradshaw's RC and a PSA 7 1955 Thorpe all went up dramatically because they are part of highly competitive set registries. A big question in 10 to 15 years is will the set registry still be around and as strong?
I say the idea was sound and resonated with collectors however I feel a 3rd party set registry that allowed SGC, PSA and BGS (maybe) to be added would actually trump any other. That would be a true set registry. As it stands any set registry is only as strong as the grading company who started it. If PSA has any big issues in the future it would implode registry sets value.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
<< <i>When I got back in the hobby around 2001, I passed on cards like a Walter Payton PSA 8 rookie for $100, a PSA 8 Bradshaw rookie for $125, and a PSA 7 1955 Topps Jim Thorpe for $175 >>
When you were back in the hobby around 2001 did you buy at least $100 to $175 worth of cards? If you did you can sell them now and easily have enough money to buy some of cards at their current prices. If you can't do that, that should tell you how good these investments really are
What you say about already 'owning' a 1972 set when you have $1,500 in your pocket, is spot on.
In my mind, I still own a 1933 Ruth, because it would only be a matter of days for me to get one in my hand(by purchasing it). It won't be any harder, or any more expensive to have this mindset for the next 50 years. The cards will always be there, and the competition to get them is going to dwindle some(and possibly dwindle to a great degree).
In my example of a PSA 8 Schmidt, I think the same way, but instead of having the card in hand, I have the money in hand. It is extremely easy to get one, so I don't worry about it if I don't have it in my desk drawer at this moment. >>
Hoopster and Guy,
Makes sense, if your position is that the State ot the hobby in 15-20 years will remain stagnant. Otherwise, I disagree.
When I got back in the hobby around 2001, I passed on cards like a Walter Payton PSA 8 rookie for $100, a PSA 8 Bradshaw rookie for $125, and a PSA 7 1955 Topps Jim Thorpe for $175. If any of you guys have those cards at that price, I'll gladly paypal you tonight. Sure, I still have that money, just like you still have your $1500. But in 20 years, $1500 in your wallet will still be $1500. The question is........in 15 years, will that be enough to buy the '72 set??
Sure it will still be available, but if you don't invest your money somewhere............ >>
That's a good point Shawn, although I think the thrust of this is that because items like 1972 sets are so readily available I can pick one up anytime the mood strikes me. Whether it goes up, or down, in value won't change the fact that they're still going to be pretty available. And so, given this, I'd rather spend money on items that are hard to find, and which I may not be able to track down at the 'market price' later on down the road.
<< <i>A big question in 10 to 15 years is will the set registry still be around and as strong"
good question....im gonna say no. >>
Barring some major whistle-blower type of scandal coming out of the back rooms of PSA, I can't imagine that the registry will go away in 15 years. If anything, I think that it will just evolve and get better in that time.
In 10-15 years, Gen-Xers are going to have a fair amount of cash to play with. Guys like me who were 10 years old when Griffey Jr. was a rookie are going to be collecting. I can't say that there were too many hardcore baseball card collectors in the generations following mine, though. So in 10-15 I think the hobby will be much like it is now. In 30 years, I think that it will begin to fade tremendously.
I always make an effort not to desire things outside of my budget, sports cards included. If I were to buy a Ripken rookie, I would have no desire for a Topps Traded PSA 10 and be as equally content with a regular issue in a 9 holder (actually I like the photography on the 83 issues more, so that would likely be my choice. . . ). I guess when Americans now spend more than they earn, I shouldn't be too suprised that isn't the norm >>
Not desiring things outside your budget is wise...but kind of a change of subject, however to try to claim this is this an American thing is ignorant. I have been to Oman and seen the gold trade first hand, I have been to Morocco and watched the fossil trade exploded (and then implode), I set up tables at the major mineral trades across Europe. The more desired item is always going to be worth more then the less desired. This is true world wide. From Russian gemstones to Chinese artifacts.
Using your example, which is flawed, as we were talking on same player-same year, not same card different grade, I would agree that a PSA 9 Topps Traded Ripken rc is a much better bargain then a PSA 10, does not change the fact the PSA 10 is more desired....and worth more.
The general rule of economics is supply vs demand equals value. However, this is more limited to commodities then collectibles. Collectibles is very much a demand driven market....supply being a factor but less so. The demand for say Roger Clemens or Mark McGwire is much less then recent history and therefore they are worth much less. You could buy up 10% of the supply, destroy them, and it would not make anyone on eBay pay more for the next one.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Comments
<< <i>Boopotts,
What you say about already 'owning' a 1972 set when you have $1,500 in your pocket, is spot on.
In my mind, I still own a 1933 Ruth, because it would only be a matter of days for me to get one in my hand(by purchasing it). It won't be any harder, or any more expensive to have this mindset for the next 50 years. The cards will always be there, and the competition to get them is going to dwindle some(and possibly dwindle to a great degree).
In my example of a PSA 8 Schmidt, I think the same way, but instead of having the card in hand, I have the money in hand. It is extremely easy to get one, so I don't worry about it if I don't have it in my desk drawer at this moment. >>
Hoopster and Guy,
Makes sense, if your position is that the State ot the hobby in 15-20 years will remain stagnant. Otherwise, I disagree.
When I got back in the hobby around 2001, I passed on cards like a Walter Payton PSA 8 rookie for $100, a PSA 8 Bradshaw rookie for $125, and a PSA 7 1955 Topps Jim Thorpe for $175. If any of you guys have those cards at that price, I'll gladly paypal you tonight. Sure, I still have that money, just like you still have your $1500. But in 20 years, $1500 in your wallet will still be $1500. The question is........in 15 years, will that be enough to buy the '72 set??
Sure it will still be available, but if you don't invest your money somewhere............
The late 80s saw a peek in the sportscard hobby, but it began to decline in the 90s. There was a slight recession nationwide during that time and card shops began to close.
Third party grading gave another boost in the hobby because now dealers could not pass off their cards as mint to unsuspecting customers. When I see how a PSA 8 looks like and what a dealer wanted to pass off as MINT in the late 80s, I feel vindicated. Dealers took A LOT of liberty. The hobby was safer and graded cards were selling at a premium--much higher than book value.
Ebay was also good for the hobby as collectors can select from a nationwide market as opposed to relying on their neighborhood. The combination of grading and ebay made it easy to buy decent cards for a collection and at a faster pace than before too.
How will cards do in 20 years is anyone's guess. Ebay and third party grading have brought the world's attention to card collecting. International stars are competing in the MLB. This new attention from other reaches of the world maybe just what the hobby needs.
I understand Hoopster's rationale. He claims there is a trend where there will be less and less card collectors in the decades to come, so prices will slowly drop too. Not enough young kids are into this hobby, so it is bound to contract, not expand. It may also be the case that only the cards in the most pristine condition will still command a higher value and the mediocre cards would be virtually worthless.
Vintage cards might be least affected because they have proven to be resilient and have a following of collectors who were too young to care about the individual players, but somehow now they do.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I say the idea was sound and resonated with collectors however I feel a 3rd party set registry that allowed SGC, PSA and BGS (maybe) to be added would actually trump any other. That would be a true set registry. As it stands any set registry is only as strong as the grading company who started it. If PSA has any big issues in the future it would implode registry sets value.
good question....im gonna say no.
<< <i>When I got back in the hobby around 2001, I passed on cards like a Walter Payton PSA 8 rookie for $100, a PSA 8 Bradshaw rookie for $125, and a PSA 7 1955 Topps Jim Thorpe for $175 >>
When you were back in the hobby around 2001 did you buy at least $100 to $175 worth of cards? If you did you can sell them now and easily have enough money to buy some of cards at their current prices. If you can't do that, that should tell you how good these investments really are
<< <i>
<< <i>Boopotts,
What you say about already 'owning' a 1972 set when you have $1,500 in your pocket, is spot on.
In my mind, I still own a 1933 Ruth, because it would only be a matter of days for me to get one in my hand(by purchasing it). It won't be any harder, or any more expensive to have this mindset for the next 50 years. The cards will always be there, and the competition to get them is going to dwindle some(and possibly dwindle to a great degree).
In my example of a PSA 8 Schmidt, I think the same way, but instead of having the card in hand, I have the money in hand. It is extremely easy to get one, so I don't worry about it if I don't have it in my desk drawer at this moment. >>
Hoopster and Guy,
Makes sense, if your position is that the State ot the hobby in 15-20 years will remain stagnant. Otherwise, I disagree.
When I got back in the hobby around 2001, I passed on cards like a Walter Payton PSA 8 rookie for $100, a PSA 8 Bradshaw rookie for $125, and a PSA 7 1955 Topps Jim Thorpe for $175. If any of you guys have those cards at that price, I'll gladly paypal you tonight. Sure, I still have that money, just like you still have your $1500. But in 20 years, $1500 in your wallet will still be $1500. The question is........in 15 years, will that be enough to buy the '72 set??
Sure it will still be available, but if you don't invest your money somewhere............ >>
That's a good point Shawn, although I think the thrust of this is that because items like 1972 sets are so readily available I can pick one up anytime the mood strikes me. Whether it goes up, or down, in value won't change the fact that they're still going to be pretty available. And so, given this, I'd rather spend money on items that are hard to find, and which I may not be able to track down at the 'market price' later on down the road.
LOL maybe not, it may be worth 15.00 at the rate we are going. I'll take the cards.
Steve
<< <i>A big question in 10 to 15 years is will the set registry still be around and as strong"
good question....im gonna say no. >>
Barring some major whistle-blower type of scandal coming out of the back rooms of PSA, I can't imagine that the registry will go away in 15 years. If anything, I think that it will just evolve and get better in that time.
In 10-15 years, Gen-Xers are going to have a fair amount of cash to play with. Guys like me who were 10 years old when Griffey Jr. was a rookie are going to be collecting. I can't say that there were too many hardcore baseball card collectors in the generations following mine, though. So in 10-15 I think the hobby will be much like it is now. In 30 years, I think that it will begin to fade tremendously.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>and desirablity is different than value >>
Not when it comes to sport cards >>
I always make an effort not to desire things outside of my budget, sports cards included. If I were to buy a Ripken rookie, I would have no desire for a Topps Traded PSA 10 and be as equally content with a regular issue in a 9 holder (actually I like the photography on the 83 issues more, so that would likely be my choice. . . ). I guess when Americans now spend more than they earn, I shouldn't be too suprised that isn't the norm >>
Not desiring things outside your budget is wise...but kind of a change of subject, however to try to claim this is this an American thing is ignorant. I have been to Oman and seen the gold trade first hand, I have been to Morocco and watched the fossil trade exploded (and then implode), I set up tables at the major mineral trades across Europe. The more desired item is always going to be worth more then the less desired. This is true world wide. From Russian gemstones to Chinese artifacts.
Using your example, which is flawed, as we were talking on same player-same year, not same card different grade, I would agree that a PSA 9 Topps Traded Ripken rc is a much better bargain then a PSA 10, does not change the fact the PSA 10 is more desired....and worth more.
The general rule of economics is supply vs demand equals value. However, this is more limited to commodities then collectibles. Collectibles is very much a demand driven market....supply being a factor but less so. The demand for say Roger Clemens or Mark McGwire is much less then recent history and therefore they are worth much less. You could buy up 10% of the supply, destroy them, and it would not make anyone on eBay pay more for the next one.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.