Cards making the rounds

[Peter_Spaeth]

Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that many of the cards in auctions seem to be literally the same cards we just saw in other auctions?

As an example, the 52 Mantle SGC 84 that is now in Goodwin (lot 633) is listed as having been sold in Clean Sweep in 9/07, Mile High in 10/08, and Goodwin in 2/09.

Given the buyer's premium that goes to the house, are people really flipping these cards for a loss? Or......

[Leon]

I will take what's behind door #2 ... "or"

[Matt]

I'd bet there is a mix in there of legit consignment(s) and door #2. I've noticed that with other cards and it is upsetting.

[Leon]

Here is a D322 card that sold very recently....there are just so many examples...I guess someone really wanted this a year ago.....

6/26/09	Legendary	Auction | Image			11	$480.00
3/6/08	Goodwin					$3,511.00

[Jewish-collector]

I was just telling Rob Lifson a few months ago that one of the high end cards that he sold in a previous REA auction was in one of the other auction's current catalog. He wasn't aware of that, but says as long as it's theirs, they can do whatever they want with it. My best guess is that the consigner knew of a card coming up in the future that he wanted MORE than that card he currently owned and didn't want to use additional money for the one he really wanted.

I had said that you could probably make a nice living out of just winning cards in auctions & then reconsigning those same cards 5 years later in the same or other auction house. Say you win cards in 2001 & then reconsign them in 2006, win cards in 2002 & reconsign them in 2007, etc,...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

I was just telling Rob Lifson a few months ago that one of the high end cards that he sold in a previous REA auction was in one of the other auction's current catalog. He wasn't aware of that, but says as long as it's theirs, they can do whatever they want with it. My best guess is that the consigner knew of a card coming up in the future that he wanted MORE than that card he currently owned and didn't want to use additional money for the one he really wanted.

I had said that you could probably make a nice living out of just winning cards in auctions & then reconsigning those same cards 5 years later in the same or other auction house. Say you win cards in 2001 & then reconsign them in 2006, win cards in 2002 & reconsign them in 2007, etc,...

Losing 800% in a year doesn't sound like a great investment strategy....there are a lot of these examples. They are quite interesting...

[barrysloate]

Can you mathematically lose 800% on an investment?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Can you mathematically lose 800% on an investment?

Behind door #2 anything is possible.

[barrysloate]

If I buy something for $1000, and sell it for $200, I believe I've lost 80% of my original investment.

[Potomac Yank]

Hush ... keep it low.
You nailed it.

Leon ... that's a beautiful example.

May it take awhile before the flippers at Flip Haven catch on.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If I buy something for $1000, and sell it for $200, I believe I've lost 80% of my original investment.

hey Barry.....the numbers are so staggering I think I went the wrong way in my calculation..... ....at any rare it is 7.3x less than it went for last time.

[smtjoy]

I just purchased a card where I was thinking some of the same things. The same card sold 4 times in 2007 with each time the price going down. Odd that each time they were sold by the same seller twice within a month. Glad I'm not a flipper, a line of people losing money.

7/5/09 eBay Auction | Image just_collect y***t 12 $1,535.00
12/10/07 eBay Image cal_juris maryhelperkeller 19 $1,735.00
12/2/07 eBay Image cal_juris maryhelperkeller 14 $1,876.00
10/2/07 eBay Image yorktownsc thegreatlarry 24 $2,175.00
9/10/07 eBay Image yorktownsc pto807 19 $3,700.00

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Can you mathematically lose 800% on an investment?

if I buy something for $10 and then when I sell it I have to actually pay someone $70 to take it off my hands, that would be a 800% loss.

[canjond]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If I buy something for $1000, and sell it for $200, I believe I've lost 80% of my original investment.

But if you buy it for $1000 and sell it for $20...

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by canjond

But if you buy it for $1000 and sell it for $20...

no, you're only losing 98%.

[daviddbreadman]

I may be naive but what is between the lines here. Are you guys saying that people are legitimately buying card and then selling them for losses or are you saying there is something else behind the scenes that I don't understand going on here?

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

I just purchased a card where I was thinking some of the same things. The same card sold 4 times in 2007 with each time the price going down. Odd that each time they were sold by the same seller twice within a month. Glad I'm not a flipper, a line of people losing money.

7/5/09 eBay Auction | Image just_collect y***t 12 $1,535.00
12/10/07 eBay Image cal_juris maryhelperkeller 19 $1,735.00
12/2/07 eBay Image cal_juris maryhelperkeller 14 $1,876.00
10/2/07 eBay Image yorktownsc thegreatlarry 24 $2,175.00
9/10/07 eBay Image yorktownsc pto807 19 $3,700.00

How is it possible for one seller to sell the card twice in a short period? Was there a reserve the first time?

[glynparson]

That would be 98%. As was pointed out above the only way to lose more then 100% is if you pay someone to take it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by daviddbreadman

I may be naive but what is between the lines here. Are you guys saying that people are legitimately buying card and then selling them for losses or are you saying there is something else behind the scenes that I don't understand going on here?

David, we are suggesting there is more here than meets the eye.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by glynparson

That would be 98%. As was pointed out above the only way to lose more then 100% is if you pay someone to take it.

which by the way would make you the world's worst card flipper.

[tbob]

I've noticed those really nice bakery cards going for quite a bit less than they did a year ago. Of all the cards I have seen auctioned and re-auctioned, the bakery cards seem to be taking the biggest hits.

[Matt]

Here is a memorable one:
PSA 6 Herpolsheimer's Joe Jackson (same card all 5 times)

7/31/08 eBay london_venture Anonymous $6,521.00
3/24/08 eBay joejacksone90-1 rosie7495 Best Offer $8,500.00
2/14/08 Mile High $9,815.95
9/14/07 SCP $6,848.40
4/29/07 REA $7,637.50

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Can you mathematically lose 800% on an investment?

a little more realistic scenario...

I buy something for $10 and sell it through Mastro/Legendary for $20. They never pay me my $20 and also sue me for another $70.

[smtjoy]

The card I was listing prices for was an E95 Wagner SGC 30 btw.

[FrankWakefield]

Hey Barry, I read it....


If I bought a card for $100. Held it 2 years, then gave you $700 to take it from me... that would be an 800% loss. Makes me wonder if any of the card investors (I know everyone here is a collector) have ever claimed a loss or an offsetting loss in their income taxes... Surely folks who consider cards an investment would be doing that.

Good point, mathematically, and practically, I think not... Bicem's scenario is as unlikely as mine.

[tbob]

I guess the bottom line is for most of us to be buyers now and not sellers...
Probably a good time to start building a new set, I know I have built some 50's sets lately because the prices were right. I know with the 50's cards I have done a lot more comparative shopping than I ever did before, using ebay and on-line sales to constantly upgrade.
Because the market is a little touchy now, not as many pre-war caramel cards coming out of the woodwork.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tbob

I guess the bottom line is for most of us to be buyers now and not sellers...

I don't think this issue has anything to do with the current state of the economy. I think the lesson here is maybe to put a little less stock into the numbers that auction houses say things "sold" for.

[Potomac Yank]

Buy it at $89.95 .....

Try to give it away for $4,999.99 ... make sure that you say FREE SHIPPING.

Keep it low, and don't wake them up.

[calvindog]

Plow's Candy Cobb PSA 4 The card that defies the worsening economy - and keeps on getting "sold." (Same card all four times)

5/8/09 Goodwin $21,494.30
9/1/07 Mastro $14,383.20
4/27/07 Mastro $13,698.00
4/3/06 Mastro $12,773.40

[canjond]

Originally Posted by glynparson

That would be 98%. As was pointed out above the only way to lose more then 100% is if you pay someone to take it.

Good call - glad it's friday.

[T206Collector]

...certain cards enter the market -- circulate around a bit -- and then drop out of existence "forever" when they find the right home.

[Rich Klein]

From the early 1950's which he inscribed to a doctor and that one kept making the rounds as well. The doctor was the brother of a leading Brooklyn political figure so I would suspect the signature was good -0- but I swear it was sold at least four times between 2005 and June 2007 all from "good" auction houses.

My speculation; which is worth the paper I'm typing this on; is that there were probably hidden reserves on the ball each and every time. Or that the buyer had a friend put bids on for him/her. And of course; there could actually have been four different transactions -- but I remember seeing that ball for the fourth time in that 18 month period and wondering why I kept seeing the same signed baseball.

I wonder how often that holds true for these cards as well

Rich

[Peter_Spaeth]

Rich that would certainly be one (speculative of course) explanation for door #2. An even more cynical one (speculative of course) would be that certain cards are not really for sale at all, but are listed, along with a final "price," simply for the purpose of showing high or even "record" prices garnered by the auction house.

Or each and every price could actually have been realized.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or each and every price could actually have been realized.

That phrase should really start with "Once upon a time....."

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Plow's Candy Cobb PSA 4 The card that defies the worsening economy - and keeps on getting "sold." (Same card all four times)

5/8/09 Goodwin $21,494.30
9/1/07 Mastro $14,383.20
4/27/07 Mastro $13,698.00
4/3/06 Mastro $12,773.40

I was the consignor for this card the last time it was sold. I received the check a few weeks ago, so at least there was a bona fide sale there.

[cyseymour]

I'd just like to mention a couple possibilities other than the most cynical ones:

a) The high bidder failed to pay, and therefore the card needed to be relisted (Perhaps Goodwin, unlike Mastro, was wise enough not to send out the card before the bidder paid).

b) The other thing is that this is a hobby for many, and collectors, especially, don't always act rationally (i.e., a card of Jim Tyng sold for $20,000). A lot of collectors, I bet, buy an item and feel excited about getting it, enjoy it for some time, and then the thrill of owning the item wears off and they want to sell it. That might sound crazy to some, but it is the psychology of the collector.

c) When people buy cards, they usually purchase them thinking that they got a good deal. So they don't realize that they actually didn't get a good deal until they've sold it in auction.

One way to look at it is kind of like day-traders in the stock market. 90% or more lose money, many going almost broke. That's why you should never buy a card and try to flip it. If you didn't want it, don't buy it in the first place. Also, the best cards I buy, I find, are the ones I'm least excited about when they actually arrive in the mail. If I'm not excited about it, that means I didn't chase after the card. If I'm jumping up and down with excitement about "winning" the card, it probably means I chased after it at auction.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I'd just like to mention a couple possibilities other than the most cynical ones:

a) The high bidder failed to pay, and therefore the card needed to be relisted (Perhaps Goodwin, unlike Mastro, was wise enough not to send out the card before the bidder paid).

Actually at this point I'd assume that one would have to be cynical to assume there was no fraud going on with some of these sales. I'm sure Mastro legitimately sold the E300 three times in 17 months and each time the winner didn't pay. That's believable.

[B O'Brien]

This one isn't prewar, but this is one that I owned, so I kept an eye on it. I felt a little sad for the winner that resold after only a couple weeks. I was lucky enough to to clear a 74% profit from my buy price, without actually ever touching the card (2.5 months time). The seller shipped directly to the auction house for me.
1967 PSA 9 Carew
12/14/08 Memory Lane Image 5 $4,163.02
9/19/08 Goodwin Image 11 $6,407.27

After the selling fees, that was a BIG hit.
Take care,
Bob

[alanu]

[QUOTE=smtjoy;735101]. Odd that each time they were sold by the same seller twice within a month.

I think that often means the first time the seller had a non-paying bidder

[Peter_Spaeth]

As an aside, does anyone think the current configuration of the hobby favors card doctors? We have no way to know who submits cards. We have no way to know who consigns cards. I wonder, if these two things were transparent, if we would buy all the cards we buy. Just a thought. Now, back to the thread.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As an aside, does anyone think the current configuration of the hobby favors card doctors?

Has there ever been a configuration of the hobby that did not favor card doctors?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Has there ever been a configuration of the hobby that did not favor card doctors?

Before auction houses became so predominant one could at least exercise some discretion where one bought but you are probably right. The irony is that third party grading was a response to card doctors. Laugh out loud.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Before auction houses became so predominant one could at least exercise some discretion where one bought but you are probably right. The irony is that third party grading was a response to card doctors. Laugh out loud.

I will go against the general sentiment and say that I still trust the grading companies overall. I am confident that they catch most of the problems especially in the condition categories I collect. I am naive though...

[Peter_Spaeth]

That's a big limitation though, Leon. I continue to be influenced by something a very significant dealer of raw cards said to me years ago. He said that he just did not understand where all the high grade cards were coming from unless many of them had been doctored, because with all the shows he attended, and all the deals that were presented to him, and all the people he spoke to in his circle, he just was not seeing material in that grade in any significant amount.

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

I just purchased a card where I was thinking some of the same things. The same card sold 4 times in 2007 with each time the price going down. Odd that each time they were sold by the same seller twice within a month. Glad I'm not a flipper, a line of people losing money.

7/5/09 eBay Auction | Image just_collect y***t 12 $1,535.00
12/10/07 eBay Image cal_juris maryhelperkeller 19 $1,735.00
12/2/07 eBay Image cal_juris maryhelperkeller 14 $1,876.00
10/2/07 eBay Image yorktownsc thegreatlarry 24 $2,175.00
9/10/07 eBay Image yorktownsc pto807 19 $3,700.00

thats because after each susequent buy/sell, there is one less serious bidder...after each round, less and less "serious" bidders, the price drops....the whale got what they wanted and moved on....

[DJR]

.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ScottFandango

thats because after each susequent buy/sell, there is one less serious bidder...after each round, less and less "serious" bidders, the price drops....the whale got what they wanted and moved on....

that whale was a well known dealer that is currently in a bit of news....

[Exhibitman]

Lots of my friends have drastically ratcheted back their purchases since last summer. I imagine the same is true of many others. That sort of pullback won't affect the ultra high priced stuff but definitely the four figure stuff if it is pervasive.

I've also noticed an increasing attitude of wait and see on many buyers' parts--we may be heading into a period where expectations of a decline in card prices actually fuel the decline.

Which is why it is best to "invest" in cards you like. Most of my stuff my family will have to pry from my cold, dead fingers...

Also, wasn't Yorktown the guy who went Bk and took a bunch of Mastro money with him? Buy high, sell low--not a formula for success...

[Rob D.]

Alleged questionable activity by auction houses aside, one facet of this board is the number of people who will buy a four-figure card, post it in the pick-ups thread and then two weeks later offer it for sale on the B/S/T for up to 40 percent more than they paid. If this board is a microcosm of the hobby, then my guess is that people are doing the same things in the major auctions, except instead of posting on the B/S/T they consign to the next upcoming auction. When the card doesn't sell (or "sells," if you know what I mean), it will soon turn up again.

Coupled with this practice is what motivates people to collect. My modus operandi has been, for the most part, to buy or trade for things with the intent of keeping them a long time. I know what I enjoy collecting and owning, so there are few instances in which I decide to get rid of something I've acquired. (The main exception being the purchase of a large group of cards in order to acquire and keep a few.)

But I see a lot of threads asking which sets people think are hot or which set is "better" to collect. There's certainly nothing wrong with gathering input from fellow collectors, but again, if someone isn't 100 percent sure when he or she begins pursuit of a set, then I suppose there's a good chance that within a year he or she will be looking to sell the cards that were just acquired. And if the person aggressively pursued the cards and overpaid, then he or she likely will take a loss when selling.

Simply put, if one of the reasons a person buys cards is to elicit "Great pickup!" responses on the board (or from a circle of collecting friends), as opposed to really liking the card or the set, then it makes sense to see the same cards being offered repeatedly.

[botn]

Jeff,

I was the consignor of the Cobb in Mastro's April 06 and was paid for the card.

Greg