Posted By:
davidcyclebackAs with any big event or record-breaking memorabilia, the sales of the item is determined several years after the even, not right after. Typically, with the hype and new bidders and short attention spans, many will overbid. The later, lower prices aren't that the value went down, but the sales prices corrected to match real value. Even though someone paid that much, the Mark McGwire ball was never worth $3 million-- or, at least, no one would argue it would sell for anything close to that much if it were auctioned today or tomorrow.
I am skeptical that the Bonds 756 ball is worth $1 million. I'm not saying that someone doesn't want to pay $1 million today, as someone evidently does, but one person willing to pay $500 for a bolgna sandwhich doesn't make a bologna sandwhich worth $500.
Also realize that verified game used balls from the 1970s and earlier are substantially rarer than today. These days, pick the first three digits in your phone number and you could probably a player's ball, bat, left sock, undershirt, hankie and corn pad from that game-- each autographed and with laminated COA and hologram. 1970s game used balls (Aaron's era) will always be rare, and 2000s game used balls will always be common. When there's a overall plentitude, or $9.99 all you can eat buffet selection, of a type of memorabilia, that will always lower the value of the item long term ... Greg Maddux is a better and more popular pitcher than Jack Chesbro was, but a Chesbro game used glove will always be more valuable than a Maddux glove. It's not just than Chesbro gloves are rarer than Maddux gloves, but MLB game used gloves in general from Chesbro's are substantially rarer than game used gloves for today's players. It's likely you can obtain more Maddux (or Roger Clements or Tom Glavine or Curt Schilling) game used gloves than you can obtain game used gloves for all HOF pitcher who played before WWI combined. This type population enviroment greatly effects valuation of a single glove.