PSA market data

[raulus]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Card Ladder was bought by Collectors:

https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...latform-ladder

They should have access to past sales data kept by PSA and Goldin. If the 2000-2010 ( which would include data from the Great Recession) is suspect then I would not think the current collected data is any more reliable.

Perhaps sparse is a better word than suspect. I'm not convinced that a lot of the sales data was picked up during the window from 2000-2010.

Go ahead and do a search using the PSA data for any given card at any given grade, particularly cards with a lot of historical volume. My experience is that the data thins out dramatically starting at around 2010, give or take. Often the data drops dramatically, by a factor of 5x or 10x as you go back in time prior to 2010. So either there were fewer sales back then, or just as likely, the data tracking systems weren't capturing as many sales.

Of course, it could also be an issue where there just weren't as many PSA-graded cards period during that era, in which case there wouldn't be as many sales. But as such, the data is a lot less robust, and therefore much more difficult when it comes to parsing the data to reach reliable conclusions.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by raulus

Perhaps sparse is a better word than suspect. I'm not convinced that a lot of the sales data was picked up during the window from 2000-2010.

I agree that data is sparse. But sparse data is better than no data. It just means that you have to look at ANY kind of data with a critical eye.

[Touch'EmAll]

These numbers - from what cards ? Are we talking playing days Ruth's in higher grade ? Are we talking Cobb beaters? Or low tier HOFers from semi-obscure sets? Or Cracker Jack commons ?

Our portfolios might contain nice Ruth's and Cobb's for which we have realized nice paper profits. But our holdings also contain much lesser cards of lesser players.

Would be interesting to see how the percentages came about and from which cards.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

These numbers - from what cards ? Are we talking playing days Ruth's in higher grade ? Are we talking Cobb beaters? Or low tier HOFers from semi-obscure sets? Or Cracker Jack commons ?

Our portfolios might contain nice Ruth's and Cobb's for which we have realized nice paper profits. But our holdings also contain much lesser cards of lesser players.

Would be interesting to see how the percentages came about and from which cards.

I think the data Peter cited is an attempt to aggregate the entire market for any given era. As you noted, there are a lot of smaller data points within those groupings.

I think you can drill down on some of the data using the free resources on cardladder. But you probably need a premium account if you want to get very much. I’m not a premium user, so I can’t speak to the precise functionality, although their marketing puffery makes it seem like you can basically track everything in your collection over time no different than if you were tracking stocks in your portfolio.

Note: I agree with the earlier observations that baseball cards are not stocks, so please don’t infer that my comments above would suggest otherwise.

[Mike D.]

Player Trends (1-Month Return)
• Nolan Arenado +31%

I find it interesting that Arenado is getting some love. I think he's a great player and on track to someday get into the Hall of Fame. But "players over 30 who play in the Midwest" isn't exactly the normal "hype machine" player who'd top a list like this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Player Trends (1-Month Return)
• Nolan Arenado +31%

I find it interesting that Arenado is getting some love. I think he's a great player and on track to someday get into the Hall of Fame. But "players over 30 who play in the Midwest" isn't exactly the normal "hype machine" player who'd top a list like this.

I think this year he probably crossed the line from possible HOFer to probable and maybe that explains it.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think this year he probably crossed the line from possible HOFer to probable and maybe that explains it.

Maybe that's it...and I think that he's trending that way surprised a lot of people.

Of course, it's an "percentage basis" change, so maybe the number was very low, then by just going up a little bit, made for a large "percentage increase". Or maybe one person subbed 1,000 Arenado cards. Tough to say. Interesting, though!