Scarcity and Value Cards vs Memorabilia

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason Mishelow

As readers of this forum know I mainly collect early baseball books (pre-1910) I recently picked up an obscure title called Brawn and Brain (1889) which has some great essay's written (ghosted ?) by ten top players of the era detaling pitching technique playig first base ect- some really great content. Now I only paid 30 bucks for this book and I don't have an illusions that it is going to shyrocket in value. But why not? If I wanted to buy a another copy of this book I don't think I could, there are no copies on line at any price, I have never seen it at a show or shop. In contrast if I wanted to buy an old judge I could do it easily, there are probably between 100-200 avaliable at any point on 50 different websites. So i guess the heart of my question is why are cards and the supposed scarcity of the cards so prefered over other types of memrobilia that are much more scarce. I don't thinks its aesthetics becuase people will go crazy over even the most pedestrian looking card if its rare enough, it can't really be memories of opening packs at the connor store becuase none of us have any real connection to a product disributed in the 1890's. If we are drawn to this stuff becuase of the love of the history of the game why does a faded photo or crude woodcut become so much more prized than the words of the players written down in volumes that are truly rare

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I personally would rather have an old judge card over a book, but I'd rather have a book over a woodcut. I like vintage baseball books and have many (no 19th century), but I would much rather own a rare N172 card like one of the Omaha players over just about any 19th century baseball book. One because it fits my collection and two because it is aesthetically more interesting to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

The last thing I wish to encourage is interest in 19th century baseball books. Dull, dull, dull

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Theberge

Jason,

I've never quite understood why cards go for the prices they do, but I'm glad they're the favorite commodity as it keeps memorabilia relatively within reach (and I do mean relatively as there are some very expensive pieces of memorabilia out there).

It just comes down to supply and demand. I guess more folks can relate to cards. I also believe the desire to obtain something is influenced by the desire of others to have it as well. Who doesn't want a Mantle rookie card? Everybody's got to have one. It's actually a really cool card. You can get one any day of the week, it's just going to cost you big time (I'll see at least a couple dozen of them at a show in Wilmington MA in a couple of weeks).

Of course, there are the truly rare cards, but there are plenty of cards that are expensive despite many of them being out there. Again, lots of people want them. Simple supply and larger demand.

I guess my closest analogy would be diamonds. They're expensive, but there isn't a mall in country that doesn't have a store you can't buy one in. Why are they expensive? They're fairly rare (I guess) but nearly every female wants one on her finger (i.e. HIGH demand) if she's getting married (and I'm generalizing, but I sure know my wife wouldn't have accepted a 1912 Press pin in lieu of her ring - )

If you show someone a unique item, like a rare book, however, not many people may be able to relate to it. It's unfamiliar to them and therefore is it less collectible/expensive. Memorabilia also has a ton of niches in comparison to card collecting. Some collect game used bats, some pennants, some books, some pins, some a certain team, some a team from a certain era, etc. Specializing cuts down the overall demand for an item which would therefore be reflected in it's price. I would love to get certain Red Sox pins, but if I saw a great Nebraska Indians pin I would have no interest in it. Therefore, the price of these pins would be reflected if Dan and I were the only one's bidding on pins in a certain auction.

I think the take home is collect for the enjoyment of collecting and have fun doing it. I certainly can't figure it out.

I'm going to go cry myself to sleep now...

[Archive]

Posted By: Clint

I think people look for instant gratification when it comes to cards or memorabilia. It's like when you were a kid, you usually chose the books with pictures. No matter how rare something is if it doesn't appeal to most people the value isn't going to go up. I don't collect books, but do collect sporting goods catalogs. The catalogs have pictures, some even color. I guess I'm still a kid at heart.

Great question.

Clint

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

One of the greatest questions ever asked and something that is a never-ending topic of discussion with a number of my collecting friends. Yes, like everything else, supply and demand dictate price. In the case of memorabilia, some of the items are beyond scarce; they are unique. Yet their prices, compared to many card prices, hardly reflect this. The demand is just not there. The reason in part is because memorabilia usually doesn't attract the investor crowd and, of course, doesn't have a set registry crowd. These two groups of card buyers, many members of which being very affluent individuals, greatly shift the card demand curve to result in very high prices. Also too, collector demand for an item requires an appreciation of it, which in the case of some items of memorabilia requires a particular degree of knowledge that often times few collectors possess.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy

It really comes down to collector interest and trends people go through to value any piece of memorabilia more so for books, magazines, catalogs and other publications. I have been buying and selling antiques and sports items for years. Even though I enjoy having memorabilia - cards will always interest collectors more than books and other sports memorabilia. The interest in autographs has gone up over the last five years, but will never come close to card collecting. I understand that some books out there are very rare, but collecting books in general only interest people that like history and reading. Over the years I have had some really nice pieces and takes the right person to come along and appreciate the value for books and other types of memorabilia.

Jimmy

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jason- nobody laments the lack of interest in rare baseball books more than me, as that was always my collecting passion. I think part of it has to do with the way the world, and our culture, has changed.

This whole hobby exploded when the baby boomer generation came of age and began to earn enough money to afford baseball collectibles. When I wrote my baseball article in 1995, a rare baseball book was a very valuable commodity, while an Old Judge was a rather inexpensive baseball card. I can remember selling Old Judge commons in the $25-75 range and HOFers for $150-200 at a time when I could sell some baseball books for thousands of dollars without much trouble.

But the baby boomers are getting older and many are retiring, both from their careers, and subsequently from the hobby. And a new generation of 30+ year olds are the core collector base. And for whatever reasons, they collect much differently then we did. I wish I could figure out exactly what it is, but everything in a slab is golden, while a copy of The Base Ball Players Pocket Companion is a complete mystery. And I regret to say it very well may not change. With newspapers and books slowly giving way to the internet, we are undoubtedly entering a new cultural phase.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Barry

Received the Dumouchelle list yesterday. Thanks very much. There are many interesting items in there to examine. The prices from May 1991 have gone up for a few items, but many have gone down.

As for baseball books, I think many card collectors don't realize the beauty of many of these books. That said, as an investment, it is not likely in the foreseeable future (if ever) to match cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: writehooks

Great question, Jason. And all of the responses – particularly Barry's – have included some salient points.

Perhaps because I've been fortunate enough to have a few books published, I'm particularly sensitive to the relative lack of respect granted printed material. From my observations, it's definitely a generational thing. My speciality is boxing ephemera, books and programs, but at every show I also make sure to bring along a small cache of pre-1960s books and publications (programs and media guides) from baseball and hockey to counter-balance the "same old, same old" card stock that I and every other dealer seems to have in abundance.

The over-40 crowd instantly gravitates to the printed stuff, with boxing programs, vintage copies of Ring and old baseball and hockey publications being by far the most popular. What I find most interesting (and gratifying) is that, rather than merely giving these items the cursory inspection they give the cards, collectors old enough to remember devouring the Sporting News every week or charting their favorite fighter's rise up Ring's monthly top 10 inevitably want to talk about it. A program, book or magazine serves as a kind of historic freeze-frame, triggering memories, opinions and observtions in ways that a card never seems able to match.

How this translates into perceived value isn't quite as clear-cut. Unless they're hardwired for vintage issues, most over-40 collectors don't care much about cards, but at every show I still sell a lot of post-1980s issues to the younger set. On the other hand, the same "old guys" who shake their head in stunned amazement when they see a $100 price tag on a three-year-old Sydney Crosby card don't bat an eye at paying three or four times that figure for a mid-60s boxing program.

Just my two cents ...

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

First, everything everyone has already said.

Second, that shift you're looking for explanation of, which seems to coincide with the timing of the baby boomers is....... TELEVISION!
Guys younger than 45 like myself grew up with the tv as a close and ready companion, and though I read considerably as a kid (unlike many of my mates) there is no doubt tv and the instant information fix it provides became a real friend. Reading an old dusty book just doesn't entice in the same way that holding a card that reminds me of parts of my youth, no matter how rare and wonderful the tome.

Third, and feeding directly from second, is the fact that human beings take in information in ways they show preference to......Some are very visual, some auditory, others like to 'do' so as to relate and understand concepts. While we all do a little of each, the visual is most easy to stimulate and connect a majority in our world to, so quick ever moving stimulus like tv/billboards/packaging and tiny soundbites of content are what much of society has moved to.
A baseball card, with image on front and tiny bit of text on back, fits perfectly with our mildly a.d.d culture. Thus the current and likely future status of memorabilia versus cards.



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

You know, one thing to keep in mind about baseball books is that not all of them are readable. Max just showed two interior pages from the gorgeous 1885 ABC Book, which is a great rarity but just a child's alphabet book; and the Base Ball Players Pocket Companion which I cited as one of the most important early books ever written, is really a constitution and set of rules.

So we are not just talking about whether or not we like to read books, but their collectable value. Very few of the thousand dollar plus books make for much of a read, but they are great artifacts. Yet they garner little attention.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

They're still books Barry, and we just don't do books like we used to.
When people look at a book, its only of interest to them if there is a plan to read it. Otherwise - what's the point? Why collect something for which there is seemingly no purpose? Now a few such as yourself will of course and therein lies your market and relevant bidding factors.

When they make a one page book that's 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 with a picture on the front and a bit of text on the back - I promise it will earn the same money as a card .


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Another thing to consider is that most information that could only be found in books 10 years ago is now available with a Google search...You can even get the Spalding guides on CD ROM or in reprinted books. No doubt there are some beautiful books out there as Max illustrated for us and those are likely to remain collectible, but generic ballplayer type items will never again IMO be on the same level value wise as a baseball card of a real player.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

The Declaration of Independence is just a document yet because everybody knows what it is it would sell for a fortune. The problem with a lot of baseball publications/documents in my view goes deeper than people not reading as much or liking their items to be more visual. To really appreciate them and therefore be willing to spend the big bucks people need more of a knowledge of baseball history, particularly 19th century baseball history. Take the Pocket Companion Barry refers to. How many people know that that is the first book (excluding team constitutions-which were not publicly distributed) devoted exclusively to baseball and that it deals directly with the rules under which the game was to be played (the New York game versus the Massachusetts game), which at the time was hardly a settled matter.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think everyone agrees that baseball books will never again enjoy the popularity they once did, and while an occasional new collector may jump into that area, it will never be the way it once was. Most books are not visual but they have other qualitites that make them desirable. But it's a very small audience indeed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I actually think there is more interest now in the history of baseball than there ever has been. I do not collect 19th century baseball books, but I have a keen interest in 19th century baseball. I personally would think that from a collector standpoint book collectors would be pleased with the current market unless they put money into it in the 90s when the market was soaring and they looked upon their collection as an investment.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan- the greatest book collection ever auctioned took place in 1991, at the DuMouchelles sale. As Max and I were discussing, while a few books are more expensive today, some of the prices were higher in 1991. Can you imagine holding onto a baseball collectible for 16 years that lost value? It's a bit distressing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I'm sure it is distressing, but with all the talk about hedge funds over on the other side the antique book market along with nearly every other collectible market over the years is a good reason why collectibles are not a sound investment. I know my collection and how much I spend pales in comparison to many on these forums, but I never -NEVER- look at any of my items as something I'm going to retire on. I will buy a lot of items that I will flip in order to attain the items I will keep, but I won't wait long before I flip what I don't want. I am serious when I say I wish this stuff wasn't worth much of anything because I truly want every N172 & N173 Omaha player and will never be able to attain those subsets unless there is a serious card market dip.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike H

Another point to consider is awareness Jason. You had never seen or heard of your book prior to discovering it. Everyone knows about OJs, Mantle rookies, and t206. If you could somehow make everyone interested in baseball history aware of a particular outstanding and visually appealling book, it would have more value because some would have an interest. A piece that isn't known is a piece of little monitary value. That can change, but is not likely to change at a rate that will meaningfully impact the sale price of many pieces of memorabilia. I love the unique item with that "look" but if I don't see it I don't buy it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Good point Mike and that's probably one reason why so few memorabilia collectors share their new finds with people because they'd like the prices to stay down.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

That's a really good question. As someone with almost zippo knowledge about memorabilia, I'll still try to ring in.

Maybe it's because the card end is more structured, and more known. It lends itself to concrete goals that two collectors that have never met might have in common just because cards are so easily categorized that it is inevitable that people will have overlapping goals and interests. I think people also gravitate toward structure and things they can mentally and emotionally tally, so to speak.

An E96 Jennings is an E96 Jennings. Everyone knows what it is. There are many out there. They are recognizable, and many people might want one for a variety of reasons. Maybe they want a HOF'er. Maybe they want a Detroiter. Maybe they want an E96. Maybe they like the blue/green background.

A card is identified with many things. A team. A player. A position. A year. A set or issue. The categories are all concrete, all definable, and all understandable. An old-time collector in Maine can pick up an E96 Jennings at a mall show because it's the last E96 he needs for his set or the last HOF'er he needs. A young internet collector in San Diego can grab an E96 Jennings off of ebay because it's the last E96 he needs for his set, or the last HOF'er he needs.

So cards are more easily categorized, arranged, sliced and diced, and purchased based on the commonality of awareness among collectors. I think people like the sense of order.

To me, memorabilia is much more fluid, elusive and obtuse. I know there are different kinds of gloves, but are there sets or teams or player or even manufacturers or years that can divide themselves into categories or goals? Are glove-collecting goals or categories as easily definable as for cards, or are they more individualized? (I honestly don't know.)

Maybe the reason that a card has more demand and goes for more than a much more scarce piece of memorabilia is because it fits so easily into so many pigeonholes based on common knowledge and interests.

Just my hare-brained thinking on it.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joann- I was a card collector in the 1980's, and sold them all (do you think too soon?) to pursue early baseball photography, such as CdV's and tintypes, rare books, scorecards, documents, color lithography, and anything I could get my hands on that was earlier than 1875. And for each piece I bought, or considered buying, I had none of the safety or familiarity you spoke of.

And I loved every minute of it. That was the challenge that I was looking for that was missing from card collecting. Every object had to be examined and assessed, each had to be researched for its historical significance, and a whole new window was opened to me.

I think today's collector, to a degree, doesn't have as much imagination. He can pick up that E96 Jennings and everything he needs to know about it is a computer click away. You can not imagine how much research I sometimes had to do before I would decide whether or not to purchase a rare historical artifact. And sharing that research with other collectors was a big part of that fun.

Today when I sit with my collector friends I hear discussions about slabs and set registries. It just isn't satisfying for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Barry, that's exactly how I feel about collecting, and I feel my collection tells a story that hasn't been told...maybe no one wants to hear that story, but hey! Half the fun is turning up something new and researching it. I do feel though that many of the card collectors on this forum do have a great love for the history of the game and they do research it via their cards they collect....if that makes any sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan- I know you collect the way I used to, and if not everyone is steeped in the history of Nebraska baseball you can still love it. And I'm sure that card collectors do their own research too, but to me the cards start looking the same after awhile. Do you know how many thousands of T206's I've handled? I'm often asked why I don't collect them anymore, but I've probably broken up at least ten sets over the years, so their novelty has worn off. I always liked the new challenge, and for me it was the pre-league material. I was always able to find something that I had never seen before.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Theberge

Barry wrote:

"Can you imagine holding onto a baseball collectible for 16 years that lost value? It's a bit distressing"

I guess it all depends on why somebody decided to accumulate baseball collectibles in the first place. Why do folks spend their cash on these things rather than fancy cars, boats, country club memberships, season tickets, or anything else for that matter, that don't necessarily hold their monetary value at all?

I do agree that it would be distressing to see things lose their value, but it's not the end of the world. Been there, done that, especially with real estate in the past. Life goes on.

While it's nice to think that whatever we're buying is going to at least hold it's value, if you collect for the shear enjoyment of the item, or just for the sake of collecting and interacting with people of like interest, it won't hurt so much if this stuff does lose value.

I guess what I'm saying is that part of the "value" of anything in this world is the enjoyment it gives us while we're still breathing. I think a lot has to be said of that, rather than what it does to add to our portfolios in the years to come.

People collect for different reasons. Some are really into the financial aspect of it. Good for them. Others (Like Dan for an example, there are a lot of other guys on here with the same philosophy) are in it for the enjoyment of picking up new stuff solely for the love of the hobby and the history of the items. At times it may be expensive picking something up, but that's not why they do it, nor do these folks tend to flaunt how much it cost to do so. These guys, in my opinion, are the true collectors out there.

I've been collecting old beer stuff for thirty years with my dad. I'm happy to report that the stuff has become more valuable over the years, but to be honest, it wouldn't be the end of the world if this stuff got LESS expensive (wouldn't that be great, it would just mean I could get more stuff). I've met and known friends in that hobby for over thirty years. That's a lot of value in my book.

I never once considered our collection to be part of my portfolio, and I honestly don't need to justify myself to anyone that thinks that I'm wrong (or worse yet, IGNORANT or misinformed - oops thinking of a thread on the other side) for thinking that.

What do I think of Hedge funds infiltrating into the hobby? Couldn't care less. I've seen highs and lows in collecting anything for thirty years. If you think you can honestly see what the market is going to bear in the future, I think you may be in for a few suprises. You have no control over the demand for certain items in the years to come.

I have an attic full of beer cans that we thought and were generally speculated to be worth a fortune years from when we bought them. As RI didn't have a return fee back then, I can't even get 5 cents a piece for them now. I've read where the price on toys from the 30s and 40s are dropping as that childhood generation is slowly fading away. Toys from the 60s and 70s are going through the roof however. My generation can't relate to Tom Mix and Buck Rogers, but we can relate to Fred Flintstone and Herman Munster. Who would think think that a 1781 piece of German stoneware is worth less than a 1961 tiki mug?

These are just examples that show you can't always tell what is going to be hot twenty years from now. Some stuff that we can relate to now may be (a mint Herman Munster doll in the box), and a beer can that is only five years younger, may not be.

Anyway, I think a lot of folks have some great remarks on this thread. I especially enjoyed Dan's, Joanne's and Barry's posts further down. It's glad to see more people enjoy this thing we do as a hobby rather than something cold and dictating. I would be delighted if the stuff I am collecting started to get less expensive

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Greg- perhaps my own situation is different from others on the board in that selling baseball memorabilia is my sole source of income. So while I did get a lot of enjoyment collecting in the days I was active, I always had to watch the bottom line. And it was important to me that things that I collected did appreciate somewhat in value.

When collecting is purely a hobby then of course you can look at it differently.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Theberge

Agreed Barry. I hope I didn't imply that I didn't think highly of those who do it for a living. I have many friends who do the same as well. You guys are the lifeblood of our hobbies and without you there would be no hobby.

Of course, I think it would be exceptionally imprudent to not spend one's money wisely on one's purchases, but I strongly feel there should be something else to any hobby than just "how much is it worth?".

What worries me is that there are some who seem to be caught up primarily with the financial aspect of things, where monatary value has, at least on the surface, the appearance of priority.

I guess what I'm trying to say, but usually always fail miserably to do so, is that the concept of taking the purity of a kid and his dad collecting baseball cards and bastardizing the hobby into somebody's cold and calculating hedge fund just to make a buck essentially makes me ill.

Then again, I'm a sentimentalist who always gets a huge lump in his throat every time I watch a certain movie and hear the line "Hey Dad, you wanna have a catch?" (at which time my wife usually laughs at me)

I'm just not exceptionally eloquent over the internet at times.

It's probably time to take a break from contributing for a while. Sometimes this is worse than trying to rationalize what I meant to say to my wife.

Be well

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Greg- you're doing fine. All your posts are well thought out. Don't stop posting!

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Amen. Don't stop posting Greg....I feel like this forum has been at it's best in the last week or so. I've noticed some of the card people coming over to join in and that's what we want. More discussion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Dan/Barry,

I have noticed what you mentioned about collecting non-cards since I have ventured into my sideline of images of female players pre-1920. It is cool that each is unique, and when I run across one it is seeing it (most of the time) for the very first time.

But I definitely feel more like I am in a fog. As I discussed upthread, I don't have the firm underpinnings of value, rarity, and context that I have with cards. As a result I have stumbled in the pricing/value arena, possibly offending someone once and definitely embarassing myself as well. But I'm getting better at it!

I do know what you mean about how cool it is to have unique things that don't appear on a hundred lists and price guides and registries and ebay searches. There is something more exciting about the discovery and acquisition.

However, as I have accumulated several I have noticed one jarring thing. When I show my cards (mainstream vintage) and the female images to people unfamiliar with the hobby, I have much more to say about the cards. I can talk about the player, the issue, the set, the era, the team - all kinds of stuff. (Aside: Know what is one of the most very basic things that really fascinates people the most? When you tell them that tobacco cards are the size that they are because that was the size of cigarette packages - 10 per pack and no filter. For some reason people find that very interesting.)

But with the female player images (PC's, cabs and photos) I usually have little or nothing to say beyond "here it is, doesn't it look cool?" There may be generic conversation about uniforms or what individual people look like, but I have no real knowledge to pass on. They fly or die on the image alone, and there is very little context I can add.

If I had more time to research maybe I could change that. I definitely am getting hooked on this aspect of collecting, but have to admit that I do sometimes miss the built-in "story" that automatically comes with most cards.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Joann, I rather enjoy your female ballplayer collection...and I think your area of collecting is nearly unexplored and thus why there is so little information available...but the good part is all that information is available in old newspapers, it's up to you to consolidate it. What was it like for the girls on a traveling club? How did the fans treat them? How many games did they play? What are the circumstances of Joe Wood playing for a Star Bloomer Girls team? What girls team was considered the best of the best and what were some of their feats?

I could really go on and on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Theberge

Joann,

I think your stuff is fantastic. Part of the wonder of history is that it wasn't all done by superstars where everything is known about them. I'm sure they would have appreciated that somebody out there had an interest in their lives decades after they parted from this earth.

Dan, great questions.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joann- for many years I have collected on and off tintypes and CdV's of ballplayers primarily from the 1860's and early 1870's. In virtually every case the player or team can not be identified. So I've collected them for the quality of the image, and the aesthetics of the pose.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I really do like this kind of collecting too, because each item is a new thing. It's fun to try to grab something that I see and like, and not always "an example of set ABC".

And one of these days when I am out of school, I would love to actually be able to research any or all of these. There have only been 2 or 3 books published on womens baseball (at least that go back prior to the famous WWII league), so there just isn't that much info out there.

I've thought about doing more research as Barry and Dan describe above. Now's not the time for me, but someday I will. (Isn't that a kick-a$$ little vision of the future? Going here and there to old newspaper archives in different towns trying to find a puzzle piece? Someday.)

Thanks all for the kind words about what I've gathered so far. It really is slowly taking over from the card part of my collecting. I have my large cab at work so I can take better photos, and will post them on this side when I have them.

Joann