$5800+ for a T206 common

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Yes I know Rhoades arm extended is tougher than most commons but geez, a PSA 8 for that much money! You can buy a lot of HOF caramel cards in PSA 3 and 4 for that kind of money... To each his own.

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

That was a bargain Bob, check the price out on this 7.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=8828358745&ssPageName=STRK:MEBI:IT

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

are 6s normally going for 1200+ or is this price reflective of his inclusion for consideration for the HOF by the vet committee or some other reason?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8832140199&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEDW%3AIT&rd=1

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

I would have spent that $8000 on some e93, e94, e97 and e98 HOFers in lower grade ! or a few in high grade !

off topic - Bob do you have a website where i can see all of your caramels ?!?!

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

The gentlemen dropping the serious cash are PSA registry kingpins battling for supremacy. On the (very few) occassions when I have out bid these folks I usually wonder if I have overpaid as much as I celebrate my almost "cub-like" victory.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

I saw the auction before it ended since this was the first of this card graded over a 7, but it sure looks like the left edge is angle cut which I do not see how it could even grade that high.

these registry people are unbelievable for the prices they pay.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: John S

Let me offer this disclaimer first...."to each his own".

However, this is the exact type of behavior that has driven prices through the roof. Paying thousands for a t206 common has nothing to do with collecting or a passion for the history of the game. For many of these individuals it is about pure competition; and when they get bored with the baseball cards they will move on to another venue (best coins, best stamps, best car, etc.) to fuel their competitive fires. Reminds me of the new VW ads with the bullhorns if you have seen them. Unfortunately what they leave in their wake are inflated prices and a hobby that resembles a business more and more each day.

I too am guilty on occasion of being competitive when it comes to winning auctions, but I don't lose sleep worrying that someone's cards are graded higher than mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

I'm not sure that paying those prices for T206 6s and 7s is the "height of stupidity" (as the saying goes), but it seems at least "very tall" stupidity to me.

Anyone paying those prices should have no expectation of ever recouping their costs. But, I suspect that someone throwing that much cash around on a common T206 doesn't care about the money in the first place, so they will not be disappointed when they decide to sell.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

While I feel John S. has analyzed this phenomenon perfectly, there is in fact a chance that the people who pay these prices will recoup and in fact make a profit on their purchases; and that is by selling them to new set registry people who will eventually enter the hobby and want to put together their own best set. They can only sell these hyperinflated cards to each other, because typical collectors who pay $50-100 per common will not raise the ante to 6K-8K. But I think there will always be "collectors", and I use the term loosely, who will pay up for the best. Much of it is of course ego and owning the card is only part of the fun. Keeping it away from a fellow set registry collector is equally satisfying, and I'm sure the competition is stiff and at times even mean spirited. They collect differently than most, but paying 8K for a condition rarity makes perfect sense to them.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

You guys have it all wrong. You are thinking about what these dollars mean to you. What a dollar means to you can be different than what a dollar means to someone else. Instead of looking at a guy who spends more and "looking down" on their collecting habits, think about the starving child in (oh, pick a country) India would think about you spending $200 on a piece of cardboard! Jeezuz, for tha amount, the child could EAT for a whole year! How can you waste that good money? What a waste.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

oh, and also, I'll bet that for these guys- paying 8K for high grade commons will NOT stop them from picking up low graded caramel HOFers if they chose to. It's not like the 8K is a big part of their collecting budget. It's a drop in the bucket. They can buy this card, and a couple hundred more 1K commons...and still pick up all those caramel cards HOFers...and in even higher grade...if they wanted to.

Investment and making money back if they sell is one thing - but they probably don't give two shakes about that.

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

Just for the record, $8000 could feed an entire family of five in a place like the Philippines (where I lived for a while as a missionary) for about 15 years. I know money is relative and I dont care if someone spends 8K on a baseball card, but as long as the subject is brought up, it does make you kind of sick.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...it helps to sort of think of it as art. And PSA is an artist, of sorts. People are willing to pay for the best version of cards graded by PSA for many of the same reasons that attract collectors of art to Picasso, etc.

Moreover, there are a number of reasons that people want to spend any money on baseball cards, which, by definition, are luxury items -- right down to that $2.99 pack of Topps cards. I would bet that the reasons for that purchase are as varied as the reasons for a $10,000 Unglaub card.

There is no objective way to judge this purchase. Even if everyone but the customer thought it was a stupid purchase, the customer would still be right because, in the end, his supply and demand curve intersected at that point for him.

I do want to say that limited resources play a large part in all of our collecting habits, even for the most wealthy. We all pay what our own wallets will bear, factoring in trade-offs in other areas. If money were no object at all, then the $1,000+ bidders on the PSA 7 commons cards would have continued to bid each other up into the zillions -- but they didn't, they stopped, and one bidder was crowned owner. The reasons that the underbidders stopped bidding are very telling, in my opinion.

We all collect to our abilities and we all believe that certain prices are too high to pay for cardboard lithos of players. Where you land on that scale is a very personal decision, which factors in a variety of life choices. At the end of the day, harping about these prices is a struggle between and among classes. Those at the lower end of the spectrum may feel that the registry people are flashing their wealth, and that makes them feel bad or angry. Those at the higher end have a number of reasons for their purchases that may not have anything to do with flashing their wealth.

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

well said, paul.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Todd

Barry describes what we used to call the "bigger fool" theory in the coin business. Yes it's foolish to pay six grand for a proof 3-cent nickel (look it up), but there's sure to be someone willing to pay even more in a month or two.

Than the "fools" wised up, went away, or went broke, and now--20 years later--you can buy the same items for a fourth of what they used to run.

Patience, good people.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

in another thread. My take on this is aberation is that both bidders put in a top bid that each felt would assuredly guarantee them the card. I'm reasonably sure that neither even gave thought that anothr lunatic may be doing the same thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

You are probably right about the two high snipe bids but these guys are keenly aware of who they are bidding against.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

It involves the $135 million Klimt that recently sold. The piece sums up the manner in which rich men compete with one another over their collectibles. Here is a link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-secrest28jun28,0,5304163.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Does Julie know about this Klimt painting?

Seriously, I think there is a real problem inherent in these guying paying gadzillions for PSA 7s and 8s in the T206 set, one which I am sure they haven't even stopped to consider: there are a lot of collectors who have completed their T206 sets (less the Big 4) and an awful lot of those cards were acquired during the 70's, 80's and 90's and were purchased in what was then called "exmt" condition. These raw cards are floating around out there in collections and I'll bet you that many of them are high grade cards. For instance, although my set is average exish, my Schirm appears to be every bit as nice as the PSA 7 one which sold on ebay for a ton and I have others that also appear to be very, very sharp. like many collectors who completed this set a while ago, I have neither the time nor the inclination to have these commons slabbed and graded. My T205, 206, 207 and 212 sets are all in pocket pages and ungraded (as opposed to my caramel cards which with the exception of my E90-1 set are predominantly graded). I know of some old time collectors out there who have some really beautiful cards which are likewise ungraded and will remain so as long as they remain in the hands of those guys who grew up believing grading card companies were an abomination. Yes, these collectors do exist, just because they don't often post on this board does not mean they don't. Just a thought...
P.S. With regard to the post about my caramel card collection which has been entirely accumulated over the last 5-6 years and which I have acquired much, much more recently than the tobaccos, I do wish I were not so technologically illiterate when it comes to web pages and things, I'd love to be able to design and produce a website to display them as so many here have. For me, it is all I can do to figure out how to display scans and images of cards for sale on ebay and occasional postings here. I envy you guys who are masters at the art (and have the patience) to produce such sharp looking web pages to display their cards...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

Bob, i hope you do get a website up sometime ! i'd love to see your E cards. i can't get a good deal on ebay anymore. the only decent deal i got for e cards on ebay was : e98 Brown for $39 in low grade (orange), e98 Bender low grade for $31 (orange )and a e98 Tinker low grade for $33( red

i'd really love to get these sets, or most of them : e93, e94, e97 and e98. if you have any dupes i'd be interested !

So hows the e94 master set going ? i'm trying to imagine how much all of those Cobb's would cost.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

How long will it take to flush out those high grade raw cards at these current prices?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

It doesn't matter what price PSA 8-10s go for, the high grade cards that locked up in old-time collections aren't going to ever be slabbed unless who ever inherits them decides to sell them. The current owners of these cards will never slab them. I know a number of these old time collectors and their cards will never been slabbed, regardless of how high prices get.

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

by not selling at current prices, it means they are effectively buying at those prices (minus a transaction cost).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

what?

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

I can't really see comparing baseball cards to art as art is created and art is very much limited. Art is a persons vision...even if most of us argue the merit of some art. Has anyone seen the work of Jeff Koons who doesn't even create his own art?

This common T card comes in all kinds of shapes and forms and you can't exactly buy a smaller Munch for a lot less (unless you talk about a different work of art, maybe smaller...a sketch, doodle), something produced from a machine and cranked out in the millions and millions lost along the way, littered in the streets in the turn of the century.

You can purchase a $10 version of this card, or go nuts and spend "foolishly" (IMO) a $7,000 version of the same thing, just prettier. We have 8 million people in this country that are millionaires and if they want to spend $6,000, let them. The great thing about cards is that you can obtain a love and addiction at any income, unlike most of us who will never own an original Picasso or stupid rare, Faberge egg or a chair that a King in the fourteenth century once sat on in England. Too each is own.

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

Comparing Art to baseball cards might be a bit off ...but comparing it to coins for example its not too distant.

Prices for coins as a whole ( classic coins) are way higher than cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

"what?"

Let's take a card that would sell for $1,000 in an auction. Let's say the transaction costs is about $100. Let's add another cost - call it a "get out of bed" cost of $200. This cost is the effort the seller needs to go through to selling it. Some just don't want to put up the energy. So the owner of the card can have $700 for his card.

Every morning the owner wakes up, he has his choice of $700 or the card. If he elects to keep the card, he is giving up $700 for the card. The $700 is not in his pocket, but it easily can be.

This is not any different than if:
He is not the owner of the card, but he has $700 in his pocket. He wakes up one morning and swaps the $700 for the card. He is $700 poorer, but he owns the card.

In the first scenario where he already owned the card but chose not to sell, he is choosing to own the card rather than take $700.

These two scenarios are the same thing, but phrased differently. At the end of the day, the person has the choice of $700 or the card.

Therefore, if an owner decides not to sell an asset he owns, then he is in effect buying. Transaction costs and 'get out of bed' costs can sometimes be pretty big. That easily stops some people from selling some of their assets. Thus there may be a big difference between the market price and the actual sales...in the example above, I put in a difference of $700 and $1000.

For a $4,000 card, maybe the difference is a $3,000 and $4,000. So if one of the old-time owners has a card that should sell for 4K in an auction, and he chooses not to sell, then he is in effect willing to pay 3K for it.

I know a lot will not agree with this logic. Flame away!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

What you are describing is "opportunity costs".....ie giving up one thing or things for another (or others).....

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I understand the theory behind what you are saying, but if you actually believe that they are buying the card again every time another similar card sells when they already own it, then you are confused. You buy something once, period. It's doesn't cost you X number of dollars every time a simialr card sells. Each time a similar card does sell, the owner does a mental check to see if it is worthwhile to sell the card and use the money for something that they feel is more important or more productive, they are not buying the card again. Opportunity cost is merely the decision to buy one thing instead of another or not buy anything at all.

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

If they don't sell, they are saying they'd prefer to have the card rather than have the cash.

Although I am saying they are buying the cards over and over again, they are not taking the funds out of their pockets to pay for the card, but they are using the funds that the card could have gotten to repurchase the card.

The bottomline is this:
when an old-timer has a card that could be worth 3K in his pocket decides not to sell it, then he is taking the card over the cash.

when new money buys a card and takes 3K out of his pocket to buy it, then he is taking the card over the cash.

Both people are taking the card over the cash in both cases. In my mind, that's the same thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

It's far from the same thing. The current market value of the card may be $3k, but the old-timer may only have $100 tied up in the card. If the market goes soft and the price drops to $2.5k, the old-timer is not likely to sell, but the new comer who paid $3k is very likely to be dumping his card to try and cut his loses. Just because two people own the same exact thing does not mean that the money tied up in those items is the same. This greatly affects whether a person is willing to sell or not.

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I know I won't convince you to see my logic. I know you know you won't convince me to see yours. Probably best to end it here. It won't be worth the energy for either of us. Let's see if others have anything to say about this topic. I'd be interested to see what others think.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

King- I think I understand what you are saying except I think the $200 cost of rolling out of bed is too high. I'd love to find a job rolling out of bed for $200 a pop. I could do it all day. But I'm being glib. The one part of your example I might find fault with is for the person who is laying out the $3000, there is anywhere from some pain to much pain writing a check for that amount. Since we are talking about commons needed to build a set, he will probably have to write that same check dozens of time. But for the oldtime collector who has the cards and chooses not to sell them, it is an entirely painless and passive process. There are probably more collectors who already own sets and choose to keep them than there are new collectors starting a T206 set knowing just how much it will cost them to complete it in high grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

I think the distinction here is that by keeping the card, the old timer is, effectively, "willing to buy" the card for that price, not that he is "actually" buying the card by keeping it. But maybe I'm missing something (not unusual).

And Leon's opprtunity cost point is well taken ... if the old timer who paid $100 for a T206 common that might sell for $3000, what does he give up by keeping the card? Well, leaving aside sale costs, he currently has an asset worth $3000, with a $2900 gain.

If he doesn't sell and the value of the card drops in the future, part of his opportunity cost is the difference between $2900 and the then-current price of the card. But, one also has to take into account the lost earnings on what would have been the proceeds of the sale, which could have been more profitably invested. This "lost profits" cost accrues even if the card does not drop in value. Let's say the card stays at $3000 for 10 years -- the old timer has lost earnings on $3000 that he could have invested elsewhere for that 10 years (he still has the $3000, but it "could have been" a lot more at the end of that 10 years).

So, if the card drops in value to $1000, his opportunity cost from not selling at $3000 is $1900, plus whatever he could have been earning on the full $3000 in the interim.

If the card continues to increase in value, then the opportunity cost is (obviously) much less or perhaps nonexistant.

And what does this say about the buyer of the $3000 T206 common? I'm sure opportunity costs mean little to such buyers, but if you think about it ... the buyer has a $3000 cost basis in a T206 common. If the card does not increase in value, there is not only opportunity costs from lost earnings, but there is a real loss.

So, the lesson learned here for sellers is to sell at the top, cash out, and invest wisely. And, from the buyer's perspective, don't buy into bubbles (or, put another way, try not to buy depreciating assets). Sounds easy enough, but then again, this is a hobby, or an addiction, or whatever.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

But if we all knew exactly when to buy low and sell high, nobody would have to work. Is that $3000 common going up or down? That's the question, and we'll have to wait and see.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

Cmoking,

Usually the investors in high grade vintage cards -- the ones that defend the people who purchase PSA 8 Unglaub cards -- just flat out disagree with the point made earlier about the countless mint raw vintage cards in old school collections. Here, you have made a different point, which assumes that each of these guys exist, and describes how they are giving up oodles of cash by sitting on these cards. There are, in my estimation, two important points missing from the analysis:

(1) Cash flow is different from opportunity costs and assets, though in theory I do agree with you that someone with mint raw Unglaub cards could have himself $1,000+ if he would just spend the five or so minutes and $10 to have PSA grade the thing and then put it on ebay.

But, more importantly,

(2) The earlier post about the old school collectors was suggesting that purchases of PSA 8 Unglaub cards for $1,000+ did not accurately take into account relative scarcity. Thus, one day, when all of those veterans take you up on your offer to have their cards slabbed, there may be a lot less cash to go around. Why? Because the supply will be a multiple of what it is now. Long gone are the times when people would throw away their vintage baseball cards. Supply is no longer dwindling. Given the record prices, and passage of time, more and more raw card collectors -- or their children upon their deaths -- will have their Mint Unglaubs graded. The supply of all PSA, SGC and GAI vintage cards will only go up in years to come -- as measured by population reports. Of course, if demand keeps up with supply, then Unglaub will keep his price up. But, if for whatever reason demand for PSA 8 Unglaub's does not keep up -- like in the case of the true master artists like Rembrandt losing out in favor of Klimt these days -- then you will see these prices plummet.

What will happen is anyone's guess. But to presume either way is just that -- a guess.

Personally, I'd rather try to be figuring out what the next Klimt is going to be. The cat is out of the bag with respect to PSA 8 Unglaubs....

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

So far, for me, home prices have continued to rise since my initial purchase in 1970; sometimes more so than others. I could have (and did) sell my home at any point in this appreciation. When I chose to not sell, I had a real value in the house. So real that a bank would loan me money against the value, eventhough I put in no where near that value.

Same for cards, bullion,and anything else which you buy. I wonder how liquid banks consider a card collection to be.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I don't think any bank would take a baseball card collection for collateral. There is too much they wouldn't know about vintage cards, and I am sure they deem collectables too volatile. Houses they understand, that's why they gladly write mortgages.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

If there are high grade cards sitting in collections that will never change hands (which I dont doubt). You might as well consider these cards non existant in the market place, which makes some high grade T206's sold in auctions scarce and worth the high dollars paid for them.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

pcraven, you are little off your assumption too. I'll use a card I own as an example. My m101-5 Thorpe card would bring a couple thouusand dollars if a similar one showed up on the market. Just because the card sold for $3k and I am unwilling to sell my mine for that price does not mean that I would be willing to buy the card if I did not posses it.

Some of us, through dumb luck, shrewd buying or generousity of others, are able to acquire cards that we could not otherwise afford. Keeping these cards does not mean we are willing or inclinded to purchase these same cards at the current market value. I have about a dozen cards in my collection that I acquired a few years ago that I would not be able to afford today because I bought them for that segment of the market took off and these cards are basically off limits as far as selling them because I could never hope to replace them.

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

They are non-existant in the marketplace ... until they show up. Like an $800,000. set of CJs.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Every card is non-existant in the marketplace until it is offered for sale.

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

I understand the fact that they do come up for sale every once and a while from a find or stash of cards. But most of the cards in private collections that will never leave those collections most likely wont come up for sale. Where did the CJ set come from? A collection or a "find"?

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Jay: I am not making any assumptions, I was merely repeating part of King's earlier posts ... in one of them he says "So if one of the old-time owners has a card that should sell for 4K in an auction, and he chooses not to sell, then he is in effect willing to pay 3K for it."

I am not saying that King is right or wrong, or that anyone keeping a card is willing to buy that same card at current market prices.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

"This 'lost profits' cost accrues even if the card does not drop in value. Let's say the card stays at $3000 for 10 years -- the old timer has lost earnings on $3000 that he could have invested elsewhere for that 10 years."

PC - Ive got to disagree with your theory on lost profits in part. If the card does not drop in value, the owner has only lost profits if the value of the card does not increase as fast as an alternative investment. Its entirely possible that the card in appreciating faster than, say, $3000 worth of Microsoft stock. It is also possible for the stock market to decrease while card values increase. Finally, even if the card value drops, the owner has only lost profits if the alternative investment has not decreased in value as much as the card.

As far as King's comments, I understand what he is trying to say. Not sure that I agree or disagree 100%. I will say, that like Jay, I have cards that I was able to purchase cheap relative to what they would cost now. Im unlikely to ever sell those cards because I am not willing to repurchase them at today's prices.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Warren Buffet said it best when asked how it felt to lose $1 billion dollars when the market crashed in 1989; ask me how it feels to lose a $1 billion when I light a $1 billion dollars in cash on fire.

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

JK: you are correct. In theory, there can be "lost opportunity" (or not) regardless of which direction the card goes in, depending on how other alternative investments perform. In my example, I was only trying to illustrate that opportunity costs can arise from holding a $3000 card for ten years (assuming no increase in market value) -- the same holds true for holding Microsoft stock for the same period of time with no increase (which, if you've owned and held Microsoft since 1999, you know all about it!)

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If you sell something (stock, card, other), you have to put the
money into something else. When considering selling, you have
have to take into account the something else. If in 1999 you transfered
your Microsoft profits into Enron stock, you will now wish you
kept your money in Microsoft even if the Microsoft stock has gone down the
lasts few years.

It's like when a sports team fires a good coach because he only went 9-7.
The organizations often don't ask what should be the obvious
question: "If we fire this coach, can we hire someone better?" If the answer
to the question is no or unlikely, you should probably keep your current
coach. Duly note that teams regularly fire their 8-8 or 9-7 coachs, then look
for a new coach-- as opposed to identifying a better coach, then firing their
current coach.

Whether or not taking the $$ on a high end T206 is the best idea, I don't
know. However, there are worse places to keep your money than in
high grade T206s.

Looking at the current prices and stability of T206s, perhaps the best investing
advise would be to sell T206s and invest that money in T206s.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I own SoCal real estate. My wife and I are living in a house that we could not come close to affording in today's market. Every time we think of selling out we have to ask where would we go. Ditto for the cards. I could sell off my rarest cards but where would I ever get them again.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

Nicely said David. It's all about what you want to do with that $6,000. If you put it into the bank, you will basically have $6,000 in one year if you do nothing with it.

If you purchase a short term bond or something, you will make something, but not all that much on that figure.

If you put $6,000 into your yehicle, you are basically losing that money, as with an electronics that simply give you pleasure.

If you buy a fad (Beanie Babies, that small time frame where people were buying Pez, "new" trading cards of the next great thing etc.), you will have invested poorly and will never see that $6,000 again. Didn't someone pay $50,000 for a Lebron James card last year? What will that be worth in five years?

Over the past twenty+ years, price guides prove that cards are in fact an "investment" as the average increase from one yearly price guide to the next is roughly 20% and it doesn't appear to be a fluke as the marketability of the cardboard proves correct.

Today, odd things happen everyday in the card market and it's difficult to predict the spending habits of the consumer and too often than not, we scratch our heads. I saw a T206 Jack Chesbro Graded as a PSA5 sell for $590, $536 and $455 in a span of ten days. Even in the other thread, the n28 Cap Anson PSA 5 where it was sold in a six month scan:

6/24/06 Ebay $2676.77
3/30/06 eBay $3585.00
1/8/06 eBay $4227.77

How do you feel if you paid $4227 for it, and now saw it sell for less than half?

I buy a card because I like it and want it and I don't think about it's value and what it will be worth five-ten years from now. I also don't go crazy in bidding wars and I'm a rather cautious spender, usually coming in third or fourth in the current times. Would I ever buy a T206 common for $6,000. Um NO! I would rather buy twenty low grade 1914 Cracker Jacks or a collection of maybe (150) T206 commons that aren't spectacular, but will fill some holes.

Cards in my opinions aren't art but stocks with the price guide being the unpredicatable price someone in the future will pay for the item.

DJ