The New York Times puts their two cents into the Jeter memorabilia story
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/yo...1&ref=business

A shameless plug for my quote in the article :),,, though obviously the reporter got it wrong by calling me a card dealer. I have no idea how he came up with that one. I guess a reporter's notes are not always kept accurately. Who would have thought that was possible? :).

That's a great article. I identify with the writer. All of my DJ3K stuff is a reminder of my being able to hoist my 6-year old up into the air to watch Jeter's ball disappear over the left field wall. Right before he hit it, he hit a foul ball, which prompted my son to say, "C'mon Derek, what's the problem? You can do it!"

I dont collect these as investments. If anything, my interest is more aligned with the pure collector going after Ruth's autograph in the 1930s, when resale wasnt in mind. A lot of modern collectors feel that way. Sure, the keepsakes cost money today, sometimes, but theyre still valid reminders of the moment something in the sports world made us feel connected.

The writers last paragraph expresses exactly how I feel about the modern items you have such public disdain for. Now, to see about sending my ticket stubs to Steiner for Jeter to sign......

The old stuff is king. Its that simple.

Old stuff rules
 

FWIW, I agree with Scott. Like all collectibles, scarcity dictates value and desirabilty. What's interesting about a collectible that's manufactured and in huge supply (hundreds to thousands)??

I would personally rather chase items that are a challenge to find, not just a challenge to afford.... ;)

Scarcity = supply
Desirability = demand

While supply can impact demand, value is dictated by where the two intersect. As has been pointed out, the T206 Wagner is not the scarcest baseball card.

The reason Steiner can sell a minty fresh autographed ball of Derek Jeter for hundreds of dollars, even though there are literally tens of thousands of them, is because they are desirable to tens of thousands of people. Demand will surely only go down from this time forward, but it is certainly there right now.

Collect what you love.

I think the problem I have is the lack of any connection w Jeter and the like . The Man sits in a room, prob w a nice adult beverage, scribbles his name, collects a fat check and is gone. Fan sends in 600.00 or w/e and gets a nice signed ball, but thts it. Jeter is just like an imaginary figure. I know this angle is a bit off the main issue maybe, but its my problem with it.

I can remember meeting Brooks Robinson at a card show and him chatting for a minute or two to express h is interest. And, when I was just 8, going to Fenway for autograph time before a Red Sox game. Two guys were signing, Ken Tatum and Bob Montgomery. Were they stars? No. But, fans loved them, and enjoyed meeting them.

This isn't a shot at Jeter or Steiner or anyone else . Its just that is like a "huge machine" as the sport is too most times. If people want a "sanitized" autograph like this tho, its their choice, just not for me.

In the end, this is the GREATEST Hobby in the world, and we should enjoy it however we can within our means, if that means owning ten cards. a case of 91 upper deck baseball, or a 33 goudey set in the top three PSA Registry. Just my rant, have a good day all.

What we collect
 

;)"Collect what you love"

That's absolutely what I've been doing for over 39 years.

BTW, with regards to sports collectibles, I've never been driven by what other people collect, only what I liked. Take baseball ticket collecting as an excellent example. When I began collecting tickets in 1972, very few people collected regular game day tickets. I always believed that the date on every ticket had a direct link to history tied to a specific game in baseball history, which I thought was cool. I basically began collecting what other people viewed as garbage- used ticket stubs had no value. Although ticket collecting is still much more fringe, than say collecting baseball cards, today many people collect tickets to memorable sporting events, milestones, etc.

How much something was worth was never part of the thought process, but admittedly I do think it's wise to think in terms of an exit plan as a collector. Most likely we won't be taking things to the grave with us. I know I won't. When I look at rare/scarce collectibles in my personal collection, I believe that as collectors we never truly "own" an item for eternity. We're merely caretakers of historical treasures that will eventually be passed on to the next caregiver.

Like almost all collectibles, sports memoribilia is an intrinsic hobby. At the end of the day an item's true value is only what another collector is willing to pay...

Good collecting!
__________________

Sorry to hear that Scott...this is how I plan to go :)

Awesome!
 

Mike,
Now THAT'S funny!! :D

" ...a box of Derek Jeter-signed baseballs in the company warehouse."

To me, that says it all. My Mickey Mantle single-signed Cronin ball was signed for me outside the Stadium in 1966. It was never goods in a warehouse. My Ruth-signed red-and-blue stitched Barnard ball was signed for a little girl at Ruth's hotel in St. Louis, the day before the 1928 WS began. It was never goods in a warehouse. My Lou Gehrig-signed 5x7 of him with his arm around a young boy was signed for that boy during spring training 1929. It was never goods in a warehouse. I could go on, but I'm sure even T206Collector gets the point.

Oh, and all of the above where given gratis by the poor put-upon athlete in question.

I will admit that things like the "Steiner Warehouse" strips bare the veil of nostalgia and shows the naked face of what it is -- commerce.

That said, David, not everyone has the opportunity to meet Derek Jeter (your Mickey Mantle) outside the stadium. Or the means to acquire Ruth and Gehrig items. To today's 16 year old Yankee fan with no realistic chance of meeting his hero, Jeter, what is he to do? Simply abandon the desire to have a signed item, or go with the flow and send an order in to the Steiner Warehouse?

If the athletes weren't such pigs-at-the-trough, the kid could do what kids have always (up 'till recently) done: write to the athlete who would (particularly in the off-season) be happy to sign. For free. And Brandon and his ilk would, perhaps, be driving a cab, or flogging schmatas in the garment district.

What bothers me most about Steiner is his prices. All of his items are grossly over-priced. $599 for a Derek Jeter signed baseball is not a "market driven" price. It is the reflection of a man's compulsion to make as much money as he possibly can. For some people that works. For me it doesn't. I realize no one has to pay the price he's asking, but it still bothers me personally.

The argument that fans are driving up the prices of autographed memorabilia doesn't hold water for me. Prices were way way way down in the early 90s even at card shows. It was only after athletes decided they wanted more money and "should" be paid more for writing their name that prices started to go up, in my opinion. And I believe that is why old timers never saw a market for their signatures.

I was just reading a story on Yahoo about US Women's goalkeeper Hope Solo. She will most likely be turning down every endorement opportunity she's been offered in favor of leading a quiet life. Poor business decision or positive life choice? Which is more "valuable"?

They have to price items that high to make sure there is no potential for someone to resell the item at an even higher price, thus preventing leakage.

Steiner prices
 

Hey Packs,

Your comment about Steiner's prices is spot on.

BTW, I attended the National in Cleveland in 1997 and paid $50 to get Sandy Koufax's signature because it afforded me the opportunity to meet Koufax once again in person and have him personally sign a theme ball that I was working on at the time. I asked him to add an inscription and he said he was more than happy to do this, with no additional inscription fee. Sandy was, as always, a complete gentleman. Unfortunately, he has become somewhat of a recluse.

Now Steiner has got his hooks into Koufax and it now costs $500-$600 for a basic sig (no inscription) when he has a "private signing". This has eliminated the possibility of many fans ever meeting Sandy or, heaven help them, being able to afford to get his autograph.

Call this the "Steiner effect". I'm not a fan of Brandon Steiner, needless to say... :(

This is EXACTLY my point. Sandy Koufax ain't doing card shows for $50 a pop.... And you want to blame Steiner? But when Jeter follows in Koufax's footsteps, you want to blame Jeter?

Which one is it? Stop thinking athletes have changed. Wake up and smell the 21st Century.

Of course athletes have changed. Bloodsuckers like Steiner have shown them, nay, produced for them, a new "business model." Extreme greed. And all it took to make it work was folks like you--ones not only happy to pay, but, more than that, honored to pay.

"Thank you, sir; may I have another."

Again, the kids started selling their stuff on ebay. Kids arent collecting cards anymore for fun. They do it for money, ever since the 1980s. Autographs are the same.

Let me draw it simply for you in outline format:

1. Koufax used to sign for free in the mail.
2. Many people started selling his autographs.
3. The value grew so much people started forging his signature.
4. Koufax started charging $50 for his autograph at shows
5. The value kept growing, and forgeries followed suit.
6. Steiner streamlined the process for the athletes, maximized the value to reduce leakage and put an end to forgeries.
7. Whining collectors started bitching that Koufax stopped signing freebies in the mail and blame Koufax and/or Steiner -- ignoring the fact that the rising price had everything to do with collector demand.

FWIW, I do blame Steiner. I've gotta believe that Steiner waving $500 per signature private signing paydays under athletes' noses is the problem, not the cure for what the hobby needs. Are you kidding me?? :eek:

Guys like him are killing the hobby for the average fan that doesn't have extremely deep pockets. Believe me, I can smell the stench of Steiner and the 21st century from across the country....

Never paid a red cent for anything Steiner has sold. Don't collect modern stuff unless I happen to have a ticket to the game and something special happens -- I've been to three no hitters, two perfect games, the Aaron Boone game, etc.

But I rest easily about the changing athlete and the rising fees. You give way too much credit to Steiner. That's like blaming PSA for the rising cost of baseball cards. Steiner and PSA fill a need in the market for collectibles. They didnt manufacture the demand, they answered it.

The greed you speak of began when the first kid waiting for Ruth after a game turned around and sold it to someone who wanted it more, even if he wasnt the original recipient. That's when the innocence you seem to miss so badly began to die.

So you do or you dont blame the athlete?

You're absolutely wrong. Your model makes no sense. As long as Koufax is signing for free, there's no market for his sold signature. Sure, a few will sell, but the market is small. Only when demand--you remember demand; you must, since you're constantly lecturing about it--for $50 signatures rises, will people pay. And that demand rises only when the supply of free signatures dries up. The logical next step, of course, is to realize that if they'll pay $50, they'll pay $60. And if supply is held down--no leakage--they might even pay $600.

Maybe Steiner will kill the hobby so dead I'll be able to get some great values on stadium seats.

Nonsense, once again. The difference between then and now, is, simply, that Ruth didn't give a shit. He just kept on signin' and signin'.

For free.

I'm wrong? Your answer is Koufax has to sign like Bob Feller? In fact, has a civic duty to sign like Feller?

According to you, Ruth wasnt a greedy bastard, but Koufax is?

Thanks for strengthening my point! There never was a market (shall we say "demand?) for $600 Feller signatures. Why? 'Cause he never stopped signing for nothing (or next to nothing.)

I agree that Ruth didnt give a shit; because his signature wasnt being sold after he left it on your orphan girl's ball... At least, not while he was still alive.

By Jove! I think he's got it!

Orphan? Do you ever stop makin' shit up?

Koufax obviously has better things to do with his life than set up shop at the concession stand at Land o Lakes park every day in March for the rest of his life.

As long as there is a demand for his signature (shall we say "market") you would require the athlete to flood the market with free signatures until the demand was covered? You fault the athlete for monetizing his signature. In what other industry do you intentionally dilute your market?

Of course I do. They never should have created the "market" in the first place. (Then there'd be nothing to "dilute.")

When will you wake up and realize that i am just baiting you into making ridiculous comments like "Sandy Koufax is a greedy bastard, but Babe Ruth wasn't"?

A more rationale opinion might take into account the fact that Babe Ruth never attended a baseball card show, and never saw the ball he signed for little Billy in the hospital sell for thousands at auction. But you apparently think comparing Koufax's behavior today is at all relevant to Ruth's behavior 80 years ago.

You dont see any relevant difference there? Seriously?

Here you actually fault the athlete because a fan sold his signature.

You didn't bait me. Anyone (who doesn't need to do it in order to feed his kids) who sells his signature for $600 a pop, is, indeed, a greedy bastard. It's really pretty simple, and very close to being black and white.

You can keep pretending, if it makes you feel better, that had Ruth only known he could sell his signature, he'd a stuck a price tag on it. There is, of course, not a shred of evidence for believing that. (Except, of course, extreme cynicism: "All people are greedy bastards; if one acts contrary to that, it must be because he didn't know he could.")

What are you talking about? If the athlete keeps signing for free, there's no market for the sold signature. A few will sell, but not many, and not for high prices. Only the athlete has the power to create a real market, by not "leaking."

Here's what I did after I read this post: I typed "Ruth Greed" into Google. It didnt take me long to find more than a shred of evidence that the Angelic Ruth might have been moved by the almighty dollar. Here's my favorite soundbite, but I encourage you to read all the rest of the articles on your own:


HOME >
SPORTS >
BASEBALL

ALEX BEAM
Barry and the Babe
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist *|* May 8, 2006

By the time you read this, San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds may have eclipsed Babe Ruth in the home run department. But there is one department in which Bonds will never overtake the Babe: the department of mythology.

Bonds has become a modern-day Iago, reviled on almost every street corner for his crimes against the sacred institution of baseball. (''An overweening monster" -- Slate magazine.) By contrast, Babe remains the subject of collective adoration, a chubby, jovial Falstaff cherished in loving memory through the gauze filters previously reserved for Doris Day in her 60s or Ronald Reagan in his 70s. Just the other day I heard Ruth compared to Albert Einstein and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the seminal figures of the 20th century.

The black man is the villain; the white guy is the hero. How many times have I seen this movie? Only about 50,000, I'd say.

Ruth may have been plodding, but he was far from lovable, as Leigh Montville's just-published biography, ''The Big Bam," makes clear. In fact, there is virtually no sin that has been attributed to Bonds that the Babe didn't commit first -- and more so.

Brutish behavior? Even though Ruth was the first baseball player to hire a full-time public relations aide, there were plenty of incidents his flack couldn't cover up. Ruth charged an umpire and on another occasion threw dust in an ump's eyes. More than once, the Babe plunged into the grandstands to take on a heckler, the kind of impulsive (and understandable) act that may shorten basketball player Ron Artest's career.

One of the offending fans called Ruth ''a low down bum." You don't need a fertile imagination to figure out what epithets Barry Bonds hears from the stands.

Like Bonds, and all superstars, the Babe lived a life almost completely apart from his teammates. After a youth spent in a work home, Ruth's greed as an adult proved to be insatiable. Contracts meant nothing to him, and he cannily lobbied in the press for huge raises, threatening to switch careers if his employers failed to meet his ever-increasing salary demands.

Did someone mention breaking the rules? Lusting after money, Ruth embarked on a lucrative exhibition tour scheduled right after the 1921 World Series, in open defiance of Article 4 of the Major League Code. Instead of cutting the cherubic miscreant a break, Commissioner Kenesaw Landis fined and suspended Ruth, and made the punishments stick. It was a rare loss for Ruth, the spoiled man-child who almost always got his way.

Yes, of course, Ruth was nice to children, and so is Bonds, at least according to the latest episode of ESPN's ''Bonds on Bonds." But both superstars were and are able to control what we see. One of Ruth's many ghostwriters thought his client's showy displays of affection for the younger set were ''a put-on and a sham." Others disagreed. Whatever the case, familial affection, to put it gently, was not the Babe's strong suit.

Oh shit! Ruth was a heel! (And I know it's true, 'cause Alex Beam (Who?) says so.)

D'oh, we were so close to an agreement here.

I think what you meant is "only the athlete has the power to dilute his market." This might be chicken egg territory, but I think the market arose from collector behavior, and the athlete can either try to tap into that market, or spare no effort to dilute the market. I think most athletes do a combination of both. And I certainly think, for the record, that Koufax is no worse than Ruth would have been in that department.

Babe Ruth would have ditched Christy Walsh for Scott Boras in a nanosecond. :)

Beam was citing a biography of Ruth as you can see in the article. Did you just ignore all manner of research when you spent good money on that little girl's baseball?

+1 (and a chuckle)

That Ruth book looks pretty good, actually. Very well reviewed by all accounts in the media, as well as by customers on Amazon...

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bam-Life-T...0877074&sr=1-4

You can keep believing whatever you like. Unfortunately, while we can imagine what Ruth might or might not have done in some alternate reality in which he meets Brandon Steiner, we'll never really know, will we?

Never really knowing didnt seem to prevent you from making all sorts of gross assumptions and hyperbolic statements above. All I did was try to provide a shred of circumstantial evidence to challenge your apparent knowledge of Ruth's futuristic autograph altruism.

It's on my bookshelf, right next to Robert Creamer's Babe, and quite a few others. One of the major differences between Creamer's and Montville's work is that Creamer actually spoke to hundreds of people who knew Ruth. Too bad every single one was dead by the time Montville went to work.

Gross assumptions and hyperbolic statements? Name one.

Like Billy Pilgrim, you seem to be "unstuck in time." Never once did I hypothesize about "Ruth's futuristic autograph altruism." I only stated--over and over again, what Ruth actually did.

Sign. For free.

You're the one who pathetically tried to justify what Jeter and Koufax and... do today, by telling us what Ruth would have done, had he only known he could.

Okay, so let me get this straight -- i was actually able to cite to an actual book on your actual bookshelf that at least provides a "shred of evidence" that Ruth actually did "give a shit" about money, and you not only want to debate the sources, but think that your gross assumptions about Ruth not giving a shit, and your hyperbolic statements "by Jove" about Sandy Koufax being a greedy bastard, were neither gross assumptions nor hyperbolic.

Honestly, being challenged to find a "shred of evidence" and within seconds being able to identify a book on your shelf, which I have never seen of course, is about the most amazing thing I've ever done in an argument with anyone in my life. I think I am going to have to rest my case right here, and go to sleep proud of my accomplishment, with a firm understanding that any further engagement on this topic is only bound to lose me points.