One last thought and then we can just agree to disagree I don't need for you to say I'm right, and I can't be bothered accusing you of being wrong.

Let's go back to the very card in question. There have been 224 Sandbergs submitted. even if we go lowball and say there were 5,000,000 made that is less than one half of one hundreth of a percent or .00005. 6 have gotten PSA 10's. Let's say the world goes on a 1986 Topps grading spree driven by the overwhelming market forces that drive the price of a Sandberg to $2,000, and an additional 1,000 are graded. At current rates that would yield about 31 more PSA 10's. Now a whopping .0002448 of the possibles have been graded and we have 37 PSA 10's. Still worth $2,000? If it is maybe another 5,000 get graded. now we have about 160 MORE PSA 10's for almost 200 TOTAL and we've still only graded .0012448 of all the possible examples.

Let's take a look at the assertion that the "10" is necessarily rare. 6/224 = 2.67%. Not super easy, but far from impossible, especially considering the available cards to draw from! Also you maintain people are only trying to get 10's on this card. Well people must be pretty awful judges of cards because of those 224, 76 have graded 8 with a qualifier or lower. Kind of a side issue to be sure, but again the fact of the matter is paying a premium for a 1986 Topps card because it's "rare" in PSA 10 after 224 have been graded is the kind of thing that will drive people from this hobby, or attract leeches to it.

EDIT: OOPS missed one point, you say that "several hundred for cards that book at a less than a dollar is a lot." Well actually it's only a couple hundred. Also MORE 1985 Sandbergs have been submitted than 1986, and 1987 Sandbergs are virtually identical at 213. They must be tough in PSA 10 also? I'm going to start cracking junk wax for 50¢ cards and turn them into $2,000 apiece...

The most overvalued card is the MAGIE error. It's just a typo. If it wasn't a T206, it would be forgotten.


Attachment 236743

PSA 10 1986 Topps = PSA Registery + Ego.

[QUOTE I'm going to start cracking junk wax for 50¢ cards and turn them into $2,000 apiece...[/QUOTE]

Ha. The thought has crossed my mind at times, but then I figured, with grading fees, exorbitant shipping, and the low likelihood of getting a 10, it might cost $3000 to land a $2000 card. :D

any superfractor 1/1

I doubt that people who buy souvenir beers or souvenir sodas at the ballpark actually keep 'em as souvenirs. :eek:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8266/8...11d24e1e_c.jpg
(Photo taken April 24, 2013. © Gary Dunaier. Link to upload on Flickr.com: here.)

That Stephen Strasburg 1/1 that sold for $16,000 a few years ago has to fall into this category on some level. The guy who paid $16K quickly flipped it for $24K. What makes this more amazing is that both transactions took place before Strasburg ever threw a pitch in the majors!

wasn't there some ultra rare Alex Gordon error or recalled card or something that went absolutely berserk? I pay no attention to new stuff so I may be confusing it with something else.

This Alex Gordon?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2006-Topps-A...-/370618653697

I'm too much into the cards from the '50's , '60's , and early '70's to even begin to understand or justify prices for " current " rookies.

As a side note, I wonder how many who have said the '52 Mantle is overvalued are actual owners of the card?

And if you presently own the card, do you believe the card is in fact, overvalued?

I don't own a "52 Mantle, nor will I ever be able to afford one. But like it or not, this IS the definitive card in card collecting.

Rarity and scarcity does not always translate to big dollars. While other cards are more difficult to find, the '52 Mantle is iconic and THE card to own.

I'll never forget a post I read form a longtime member that read ( in part ), " The only people who feel Mantles are overvalued are people who don't own one ".

I have (For now) a '52 Mantle and I think they are priced about right. :)

.

Dare I say there may be a part of you that believes the card may be a tad undervalued!!! :D

Only when I bought it :).


.

It's true, but the causal arrow runs in the direction opposite of what is being insinuated; only the people who don't think Mantles are overvalued are buying (and not selling) Mantles. They are outliers in any model that tries to predict the prices of cards strictly as a function of card age, rarity, condition, and player quality -- for all the reasons people have already stated -- and those are not reasons that make me want to own the cards anyway (other than the '51 as a rookie card collector) nor are they reasons that lead me to believe that the run-up is likely to continue over the next several years, let alone decades. I have owned a '52 Topps Mantle once. I got a pretty good deal on it and quickly flipped it for a small profit just over a decade ago. I'm not looking to buy one now, but if the same opportunity arose I'd do the same thing and spend the profit on a card or cards that I want to keep. I wish I had my E126 Ruth back, so maybe I'd go with that. Better player, tougher card, and better-looking card if you ask me.

The only people who own Mantles are the people who feel they aren't overvalued.

52 Mantles
 

I have 2, both variations. Bought them years ago. I have no idea if they are overvalued or not. I am glad I bought them long ago and not needing to get them now.

I have them because I am an obsessive Topps set collector who tries to get all recognized variations with all my sets. It's hobby for me. I know it is an investment for some, or a combination hobby and investment. It's a broad hobby. Room for all

This post boggles my mind.


Why are there different prices for similar models of cars? Is every Porsche created equal?

Condition has mattered in card collecting since I got started in 1985. It will never change.

Would you be more comfortable owning a painting that was ripped and stained then one that is in pristine condition and you can clearly see the image without any distractions to the eye?

Agreed. ...It's almost exactly opposite of what is stated :). And as for condition, it has always been something collectors have focused on since at least the 1930s. Better looking specimens are more desirable and therefore more valuable. It seems like common sense to me.

.

Not like Charmin Ultra Soft!

Does that hold true for WOMEN too??? :D

This is true sure, but lately the difference between super excellent and super duper excellent has gone off the reservation. There once was more of a graduated price ramp from "poor" all the way to "mint" and you could see a logical path along the way. Now, you see some cards are "poor" at $500 and "mint" at $500,000 and that doesn't seem to follow any path of logic at all. I mean people spend what they want and buy what they want, and that's their bidness (the high end market doesn't impact me much) but eventually, this is all going to crash and burn as the prices don't seem to reflect any sort of rational decision making but rather a falsely manufactured profit chase. People buying $90,000 Rose PSA 9's then flipping em for $150k to another who buys hoping to flip for $200k....etc eventually, someone is gonna lose their shirt and the resulting domino effect could bring the entire high end market crashing down (thus impacting the lower markets along the way)


edited to add: paintings aren't really applicable because fine art is "one off" creations whereas cards are a manufactured commodity. There aren't 50,000 "Starry Night" original paintings floating around out there in various states of condition.

Greater fool theory

This quote "The only people who feel Mantles are overvalued are people who don't own one" ignores a few logical follow up questions.

a) Are the people that own and think it isn't over-valued the ones hyping the value?
b) Is the reason people that don't own it continue not to own it because they feel it is over valued and have other cards they would rather spend their money on?

I don't own a 51 Bowman Mantle and believe it is under-valued in comparison to his second year card with several design flaws that was double printed.

I would not call it the "definitive" card in card collecting. It is the definitive card in card investing.
Yet there is no "definitive" card in collecting because collecting varies by people. There are collectors that don't collect Topps or any card made since their inception. Also, though I have heard of HOF rookie collections, I have never heard of a 2nd year HOF collection.

Looking thru PWCC
 

I went through the top 4 pages of PWCC looking for pre war cards from highest priced all the way down to $600. Saw not one single pre war card. No Cobb's, No Ruth's, No Gehrig's, No Walter Johnson's, etc. Hmmm.

Would love to see when some HOFer T206's or other pre war HOFers come up for auction what they go for. Then will be able to get a better handle on the stuff "we" collect.

If we only had a crystal ball!

My post from another forum on Bren't post that is did on both boards. I think this sums up the current market.


Nice to see you post on the forum about the topic Brent.

One of the hardest parts of investing is being early in a trend and staying on the bull. It is so much easier said than done. Scads of people have said I wanted to buy that stock at $10 and now it is $100. Had I put x amount in it I would have x. Yeah sure. Along the way you have to deal with death defying pullbacks that can easily shake a human out. The easy part is you can go right back into the market and get your shares back essentially anytime you want just at a different price good or bad. With rare cards you can't so there is a much different attachment and fear of selling.

You make a great point about supply. The total population is only one metric to look at. The immediate supply is more important and there are a multitude of cards locked up in collections that buyers know aren't coming to market.


I personally view most high end cards as appealing to a persons bragging rights. The higher the prices go the more bragging rights associated with them and the more others want them.

I sum up the market with a line from this clip.

The illusion has become real and the more real it becomes the more desperate they want it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVjCRWbvM4c


My wrestling cards were considered garbage, worthless, only for losers, gay and any other negative comment one can make. It wasn't just people in the card collecting community but personal friends and associates in the financial services industry. Now that they aren't worthless they are cool, awesome, so unique and so on. People hate things at low prices and love them at high prices.

Telling someone you own a perfect mint Michael Jordan rookie sounds great. The first question is how much is it worth. (2010) $6,500. Wow that is pretty cool. Fast forward to 2016 and it is $35,000+. Man that is so awesome!!! Bingo.

Not always
 

Having been through a couple of hot "crazies", I'd have to say no.

Yep.

PWCC regularly auctions all sorts of prewar card every month. I think the prewar section is already complete for June, which is why you don't see it. You can do a search on the auction history for PWCC here: Link, and you'll see plenty of Ruth, Cobb, and Johnson cards.

Yeah they started the month with the oldest stuff and worked in order to the newest stuff right now I think. I was ogling a lot of stuff that ended up out of my range.

must admit I blew it on the lot of cards with a musial auto tho, ended up going for $50 and I assumed it would go too high and let it lapse. DOH!

Aquarian
 

You don't know what you are talking about. I know for a fact two different large submitters have handed in lots in the hundreds to thousand of various 1986 stars. They only had the tens or in a very few cases the 9s slabbed. These cards never make the pop but we're still subbed for grading. That's why some big submitters only have 9-10 cards for sale. Also 200+ of a 25 cent modern card seems like a lot of subs to me. I don't care how many were produced the average owner of a 1986 topps set doesn't even know what the hell Psa or sgc is. So sorry still think you're way off base.

Same artist or different?
There are quite a few artists whose work I like enough that I'd take a damaged painting - Or for many of them a print if they made them- than a nice example of a painting by an artist I don't like.

Of course, that's from an enjoyment perspective.

So, a really bad anything by da Vinci over a nice Picasso.
Or maybe even a genuine Escher print over a nice Picasso.

Now of course, if I'm not actually paying the "real" price for it I'll go with whatever is likely to sell for more


And I've never been all that picky about condition with cards, If I buy a boxful, and some are nicer than the ones I already have I'll upgrade, but I rarely go out of my way to upgrade.

Steve B

Well said.

Well I am glad you understood it. I reread it and couldn't. haha. I cleaned up some grammar and I hope it makes more sense now.

I think there are great many people who would like a '52T Mantle and who could afford one at current levels who don't buy one bc they think it is overvalued.
It's simple really, it's not worth what it would cost them to them. Not everyone is green with envy to own this card.

I don't envy those who have a 1952 Topps Mantle - I wish I DID have one.

IF I had one, I'd keep it!

But I don't have one and would not pay the going rate to own one now. I would not be happy to own "a Beater", but I would NOT spend what it takes to own a "nice" one.

Does THAT make sense?

What would you buy?
 

OK. Recently a nicely centered PSA 5 Topps 1952 Mickey Mantle went for $125,000.

If you were given $125,000. and had to spend it on 1-3 cards, what would you buy?

I would go for a minimum PSA 5, T206 Cobb green and the best 1920's something Ruth's (1 or 2 cards) with remainder of money.

The Graduate
 

Maybe when Mr McGuire recommended plastics to Benjamin Braddock back in 1967 he was predicting PSA

Al you may be on to something.
I think I remember them also discussing flips and poppage in some of the outtakes.

Most overvalued card?


ANY I've posted on the bSt boards!


I own a 1952 topps Mantle, with the same pop as a PSA 9.

I'd have to think about selling it at a psa 9 price!

Most over-valued card
 

A lot of the new high rollers grew up in the era of 80-90s rookie cards. Back then, they couldn't afford 50s HOFers their parents told em about. So now they are buying their childhood back as collectors tend to do. They ignore the junk wax that burned them and go for the thing they could never afford as kids but ogled at card shops/shows/Beckett magazine. Demand for post war rookies is high accordingly. Investors manipulating prices only puts gas on the fire. If people hold out and don't dump in unison, this could sustain for awhile (I hope.)

The question I have is whether pre war will ever see another bump or if there's no new blood that will ever give a damn beyond the pantheon names like Ruth, Cobb, Honus. I don't see a massive spike in That category ever being possible. Though I bet it keeps getting propped up by the post war market.

At least I hope so as that's where my monies at. My dad told me stories about dizzy dean, George sisler and those types. So my interest in baseball history and collecting has remained there. I have a bunch of 48-69 stuff but am not as emotionally attached to it. It's going to auction and I'm hanging onto the pre war .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Like I tell everyone, I'm a terrible baseball card businessperson and even I have been doing ok. It scares me.