Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750251)

These threads get made out of fear, I think. And the fear is that our collections will cease to have buyers. Threads like this get made all the time and the discussion has taken place over and over again. That's because this fear is very real. But then every time the discussion takes place there's always people who pretend like everything is fine and have some counterpoint to every point someone makes re: the eventual demise of the value aspect of the hobby.

Listen, if these fears were totally unfounded this thread wouldn't be made so often. There's nothing wrong with accepting you've poured money into something that may one day have little value. Just sell soon and buy again later.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 1750252)

People like you were saying sell, sell, sell back in the early 70s when the Wagner card was probably selling for $10,000. How did that work out?

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750256)

Well that's not really true since my theory is predicated on the boomers collections entering the market en masse after a die off, which didn't happen in the 70s. Also the exact people spending money on the Wagner are the people I'm talking about exiting the market. Unless there's some firebrand tech kid in his 20s who buys the next Wagner.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 1750236)

Wow. . . I think you guys are making this a lot more complicated than it has to be.

Charlie Chaplain's last great movie was 1940. 78 years ago.


I was in Port St. Lucie last week for the very first day of the Mets Spring training. The parking lot was crowded by 9 am. By 10 am all of the fences were lined with people including many many young kids holding cards, caps, and other stuff screaming for autographs. Young kids running in jerseys from field to field trying to see the top stars. All holding something to be signed.

I didn't think to ask any of them if they knew who Charlie Chaplain was.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750264)

Let me know where this kid is when you find him. I have cards he may like.

Originally Posted by seanofjapan (Post 1750265)

Er...Babe Ruth hit his last home run 83 years ago and most little kids don't know who he is either. They also line up for movies today and ask movie stars for autographs. Not sure how this is relevant.

My point was simply that Ruth and Chaplin as cultural figures are about equalyy recognizable to the general public today. Most people have probably never seen a Chaplin film (or a Ruth home run of course) but could tell you who he is if you showed them a picture. So its odd that cards of one are worth a ton while those of the other aren't. There are a lot of reasons which we all know why that is the case of course, but they all really boil down to the simple fact that American kids grew accustomed to trading baseball cards rather than movie cards. As American kids (and future adults) no longer have that association, this distinction will likely be less and less important. 200 years from now somebody interested in 20th century antiques probably isn't going to value baseball cards per se as highly as we do above other stuff.

Originally Posted by seanofjapan (Post 1750265)

Er...Babe Ruth hit his last home run 83 years ago and most little kids don't know who he is either. They also line up for movies today and ask movie stars for autographs. Not sure how this is relevant.

My point was simply that Ruth and Chaplin as cultural figures are about equalyy recognizable to the general public today. Most people have probably never seen a Chaplin film (or a Ruth home run of course) but could tell you who he is if you showed them a picture. So its odd that cards of one are worth a ton while those of the other aren't. There are a lot of reasons which we all know why that is the case of course, but they all really boil down to the simple fact that American kids grew accustomed to trading baseball cards rather than movie cards. As American kids (and future adults) no longer have that association, this distinction will likely be less and less important. 200 years from now somebody interested in 20th century antiques probably isn't going to value baseball cards per se as highly as we do above other stuff.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 1750259)

That exactly who WILL buy the next Wagner. Bingo.

Originally Posted by joshuanip (Post 1750274)

I disagree. Don’t know Babe Ruth? Maybe in Tibet. Maybe in Japan, wait they have Sudaroo to compare to Babe Ruth. OK just Tibet.

My wife knows who Babe Ruth is. Why? For the same reason why my son will know who Babe Ruth is because I will tell him.

Originally Posted by buymycards (Post 1750037)

I'm still waiting for Beanie Baby prices to rebound.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750264)

Let me know where this kid is when you find him. I have cards he may like.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750264)

Let me know where this kid is when you find him. I have cards he may like.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1750292)

Charlie Chaplin cards may not have much value, but an original movie poster from one of his silents is worth a bundle. So he certainly is not forgotten.

And a few posters have cited the weakness in stamp and coin collecting, and as at one time a collector of both, they are at least partially correct. Those coins and stamps that are somewhat esoteric, that need to be studied, and are raw, are suffering. There is simply a smaller number of serious collectors these days. And the ones who still do collect them have a lot of gray hair. That collecting pool isn't getting any younger.

But as far as slabbed coins and stamps, ones of great rarity or top-notch condition, there is a ton of new money coming in. But these people aren't collectors in the same way. Many treat their purchases as portfolio assets. They don't study that much and probably don't have the time or inclination.

It's just a shift in what's popular and how people collect. There's an incredible amount of money among the top 1%, and they are only interested in world class pieces. A lower grade coin or stamp, regardless of its history, doesn't have much appeal. To them the most important thing is the number on the slab.

Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74 (Post 1750301)

A lot of us plan on being around for the next 30-40 years minimum so when exactly were you thinking? On that note, has there ever been an age demographic poll on Net54? I can't remember ever seeing one in my 5 or so years on the board. That might be interesting

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1750305)

You’re just spewing blab
If you ain’t got the slab.
Doo wa Doo wa Doo wa

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750306)

You can plan all you want. The fact is there are many 60 plus collectors, boomers if you will, who won't be around. I will turn 60 in 2045. If my parents are around they'll be nearly 100, as will the rest of their generation. Collections will be long gone by that point. And that's when you'll need this tech kid to buy your cards.

Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74 (Post 1750309)

I won't need the tech kid. All my key pre-war cards (Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, etc.) are in the VG range and all my mid-50's star RC's are in mid-grade 5-6 range. All I need is two guys who'd like to own a nice presentable piece of history. I'm pretty sure they'll be around, and this is coming from a 43-year old guy who doesn't even watch modern baseball

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750310)

I sincerely hope you're right. I have a stake in that future too. I'm just more pessimistic.

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1750314)

If this bothers you so much, maybe you should sell your collection and enjoy your life. Or buy art. For me, I enjoy cards. I have had far more ups than downs. I try to learn from my mistakes. I am content with how I am collecting. If I wasn't, I would sell out. Life is too short.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750319)

I have no idea where this comment comes from or what it means. This is a discussion about the future. When did I say I cared if the money dried up? I'm simply discussing what I think the future holds. My cards could fall to nothing and I'd be happy about it. I could then buy any card I want.

And for the last time, what does art have to do with baseball cards?

Originally Posted by joshuanip (Post 1750089)

Packs - store of value is also a utility.....I.E. gold, absolutely worthless, cant even use it for industrial reasons like a diamond, yet the shiny stuff retains value.

Originally Posted by seanofjapan (Post 1750211)

I'm all for that! If I don't make it to 90 I'll be very disappointed :)

But my point is that even if it doesn't happen all at once, and even if cards are disposed of via gifts rather than through estates, there will be a lot more of them coming into the market over a relatively predictable time period (I don't know the years but you could look at actuarial data on the US population to get a rough idea).

I'm not sure how it will play out, but I think its safe to say that most cards bequeathed in some way will end up on the market if for no other reason than the personal tastes of children and their parents are rarely in perfect alignment and selling will probably make sense to most.



Yes, though ironically the lack of "big data" from before the internet age makes it difficult for us to assess the relevance of that (for the purposes of the subject we are discussing) since there is so little to compare. If a Facebook group dedicated to vintage cards today has 500 members, since we don't know how many members a Facebook group dedicated to vintage cards would have had in (say) 1990 if Facebook had existed then, we don't know if that number suggests there are more or fewer people collecting (and the same for other information sources).



Yeah, but it takes time for these broader changes to be felt.



Oh yes, that was my mistake.

But I suppose that baseball cards are an interesting example which is quite different from stocks. Stock prices under efficient market hypothesis are supposed to reflect all known information about a stock (subject to debate about timing, insider information, etc), which mostly relates to its risk and expected future cash flows.

Baseball cards produce no cash flows, risk is harder to measure, and we pretty much already know all there is about most of them (no insider information), save for where there might be the odd attic find, but those are rare. Plus the market actors are way more irrational in the sense that most purchases are made on subjective considerations (favorite player, etc) rather than objective analysis. Plus there are no institutional investors spending time and money on analyzing the market and providing signals to other investors (instead it has fickle big shots who seem to make purchases for the same reasons small shots do - bragging rights, ability to have something they really really want, etc etc, none of which is predictable or rational). So the market definitely walks randomly, but way more so than with stocks, which I think makes it way more vulnerable to the things I was talking about in my earlier post.



Fair enough, but here is an interesting card that always gives me pause for thought about how much the market is dependent on the slightest and most irrational of whims.

As an icon of 1920s culture, Charlie Chaplin is probably about as recognizable and popular as Babe Ruth in America (and considerably more well known internationally). He is huge. This card is from the 1926 Player's Straight Line Caricatures set. Its a really striking card that captures his image perfectly and with an artistic style that is totally suitable to the era. While Ruth cards generally start in the thousands of dollars, you can find this card on Ebay usually for under $10 (in fact you can probably get the whole set it came in for under $20).

The discrepancy doesn't make much sense, the Chaplin card wasn't produced in greater numbers than most Ruth cards and he is culturally about equal. The only reason I can think of for the Chaplin card being so cheap relative to Ruth stuff is that American kids in the 50s were accustomed to seeing baseball players on cards but not movie stars (well, movie star cards existed but weren't as popular). So that association in their minds grew into the modern hobby, while movie cards never took off the same way.

But that association no longer really exists in kid's minds today. While there is a lot of path dependence at work which props up the baseball card hobby, there are so many things like this Chaplin card that are equally interesting out there (at a fraction of the price) which can compete for the attention of younger people with an interest in history. Thus my pessemistic forecast about the future of baseball card prices!

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750319)

I have no idea where this comment comes from or what it means. This is a discussion about the future. When did I say I cared if the money dried up? I'm simply discussing what I think the future holds. My cards could fall to nothing and I'd be happy about it. I could then buy any card I want.

And for the last time, what does art have to do with baseball cards?

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1750332)

I have no idea where any of your posts are coming from.This thread started with the OP posting his opinion and you posting your doom and gloom vision of the hobby followed by a bunch of people disagreeing with you. Your negativity isn't going to change people's minds. Just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1750308)

You're correct Frank, it's all about the slab. It's the single most important innovation to our hobby since its popularity grew in the 1970's.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750338)

Again, I'm lost. Plenty of people brought up what the future holds for the hobby. In fact, it's a topic frequently discussed. I'm not trying to change your mind. I don't care what you do with your cards. I'm sharing my opinions because I'm a collector who has thought about these things too.

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1750344)

In the second half of the 80s, multi-millionaires and billionaires entered the hobby. People who own their own companies, some who own sports teams. Dealers called them "whales." It doesn't matter that baby boomers are dying off. Your posts and negativity make no sense. This thread is about Heritage Platinum Night and the prices their auction brings. The top 1% is the primary audience for this auction, not baby boomers or your average collector. It doesn't matter if there are 5 or 5 millions average collectors, it won't change these prices at all.

Barring a complete collapse of the US economy, this dynamic is never changing. There will always be super rich. There will always be sports. The hobby will be fine. The number of people watching baseball has been on the decline over the last ~20 years. Yet still salaries continue to rise. Values of franchises continue to rise. Values of quality cards and collectibles like in Heritage will continue to rise. Your collapse is not happening.

Originally Posted by Orioles1954 (Post 1750354)

I think you're right. What I DO see being negatively impacted are complete set collectors. I mainly see older folks building sets but younger collectors who transition toward vintage are gravitating toward singles. A-list Hall of Famers (Mantle, Koufax, Clemente, Aaron, Mays, Williams, etc.) will be fine but mid-grade Hall of Famers will see a dip, IMO.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1750358)

I'm getting tired of this Chicken Little crap.

I've been collecting since I was a kid and odds are that my family will be opening eBay packages the day after my funeral. Last week I bought a 100+ year old card and a 2017 card. As long as there are cards to collect and I have the ability to do so, I'm in it, and I suspect that many other collectors are the same way. We don't really care whether the 'market' is stratospheric on PSA whatevers because we are passionate about collecting, not 'investing'.

This is supposed to be fun, a hobby, a pastime. If you really worry that the hobby is going to the grave with the boomers, sell your stuff and get out. If you can't handle the idea of your cards losing value, sell your stuff and get out. Then you can stop bothering the rest of us with the money anxiety that many of us really don't care about.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1750358)

I'm getting tired of this Chicken Little crap.

I've been collecting since I was a kid and odds are that my family will be opening eBay packages the day after my funeral. Last week I bought a 100+ year old card and a 2017 card.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1750358)

I'm getting tired of this Chicken Little crap.

I've been collecting since I was a kid and odds are that my family will be opening eBay packages the day after my funeral. Last week I bought a 100+ year old card and a 2017 card. As long as there are cards to collect and I have the ability to do so, I'm in it, and I suspect that many other collectors are the same way. We don't really care whether the 'market' is stratospheric on PSA whatevers because we are passionate about collecting, not 'investing'.

This is supposed to be fun, a hobby, a pastime. If you really worry that the hobby is going to the grave with the boomers, sell your stuff and get out. If you can't handle the idea of your cards losing value, sell your stuff and get out. Then you can stop bothering the rest of us with the money anxiety that many of us really don't care about.

Originally Posted by Epps (Post 1750369)

While not baseball card specific, pretty interesting article on collectible investment that could be a factor in the recent ascent of prices.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/c...154436529.html

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1750358)

I'm getting tired of this Chicken Little crap.

I've been collecting since I was a kid and odds are that my family will be opening eBay packages the day after my funeral. Last week I bought a 100+ year old card and a 2017 card. As long as there are cards to collect and I have the ability to do so, I'm in it, and I suspect that many other collectors are the same way. We don't really care whether the 'market' is stratospheric on PSA whatevers because we are passionate about collecting, not 'investing'.

This is supposed to be fun, a hobby, a pastime. If you really worry that the hobby is going to the grave with the boomers, sell your stuff and get out. If you can't handle the idea of your cards losing value, sell your stuff and get out. Then you can stop bothering the rest of us with the money anxiety that many of us really don't care about.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1750358)

I'm getting tired of this Chicken Little crap.

I've been collecting since I was a kid and odds are that my family will be opening eBay packages the day after my funeral. Last week I bought a 100+ year old card and a 2017 card. As long as there are cards to collect and I have the ability to do so, I'm in it, and I suspect that many other collectors are the same way. We don't really care whether the 'market' is stratospheric on PSA whatevers because we are passionate about collecting, not 'investing'.

This is supposed to be fun, a hobby, a pastime. If you really worry that the hobby is going to the grave with the boomers, sell your stuff and get out. If you can't handle the idea of your cards losing value, sell your stuff and get out. Then you can stop bothering the rest of us with the money anxiety that many of us really don't care about.

Originally Posted by joshuanip (Post 1750025)

I disagree with your opinion on the utility of cards. As stated earlier, the TPGs and online venues have increased the utility of the cards. For art, its a 1 of 1 market (sans the giglees, lithos, and other crap out there). For cards, there is more than one and a standardized grading system, so you have a baseline of what the market is. That baseline is accretive to the utility and thus value of the asset.

But hell, as others say, who cares, we are all dead eventually (and what else am I going to do in the meantime).

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1749980)

... I'll venture to say that most people collect baseball cards because they collected them as children...

Originally Posted by Stampsfan (Post 1750404)

People who collect Ming vases didn't collect them as a kid. People who collect rare pieces of art didn't collect that as a kid. Not so sure there is a correlation any more.

Originally Posted by orly57 (Post 1750464)

I feel like pigeonholing people under the rubric of "gen x" or "millennial" does not take into account individual tastes. The year I was born is not what defines me as an individual or a collector; my collecting gene, my love of history, and my love of baseball is what makes me collect baseball cards. We, the members of this great forum, are collectors by nature, not by choice. To say that "millenials" will not collect baseball cards seems silly. All it takes is a few thousand millenials with money to keep the hobby thriving. And being a millennial will not remove in certain individuals that innate need to collect cool stuff that I refer to as the collecting gene. Nor will all millenials hate baseball or History. Human beings are too complex to box into groups by era of birth.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1750405)

I don't think you're seeing the connection the right way. I collect all types of baseball memorabilia. I didn't collect RPPCs as a kid, but I do now because of my appreciation that grew out of collecting baseball cards. Saying something like "they didn't collect Ming vases as a child" totally ignores any previous appreciation of a related interest, like art, history, or heritage.

Originally Posted by orly57 (Post 1750464)

I feel like pigeonholing people under the rubric of "gen x" or "millennial" does not take into account individual tastes. The year I was born is not what defines me as an individual or a collector; my collecting gene, my love of history, and my love of baseball is what makes me collect baseball cards. We, the members of this great forum, are collectors by nature, not by choice. To say that "millenials" will not collect baseball cards seems silly. All it takes is a few thousand millenials with money to keep the hobby thriving. And being a millennial will not remove in certain individuals that innate need to collect cool stuff that I refer to as the collecting gene. Nor will all millenials hate baseball or History. Human beings are too complex to box into groups by era of birth.

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1750304)

. If you want to sell your Wagner, 52 Mantle, Ruth's, Cobb's, etc. I don't see the problem. If you are looking for someone to sell your 1985-1994 sets to, I don't think that is going to go well for you.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1750308)

You're correct Frank, it's all about the slab. It's the single most important innovation to our hobby since its popularity grew in the 1970's.

Originally Posted by LincolnVT (Post 1750503)

Buy the best of the best and see an up-side and some financial gain in the long run...or...collect what you like, maybe see some financial gain and be happy in the long run. We're talking baseball cards here folks...America's Hobby...let's not make it only about the money. I've put some hard earned work dollars in to some pieces that I hope will appreciate in my lifetime or in my sons lifetime, but my 1988 ungraded Ken Griffey Jr. Vermont Mariners Minor League card is the only one on the mantle.

Originally Posted by LincolnVT (Post 1750511)

PS -- This was an invitation to pick a debate with me about my choice to collect and financially invest in baseball cards.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1750358)

I'm getting tired of this Chicken Little crap.

I've been collecting since I was a kid and odds are that my family will be opening eBay packages the day after my funeral. Last week I bought a 100+ year old card and a 2017 card. As long as there are cards to collect and I have the ability to do so, I'm in it, and I suspect that many other collectors are the same way. We don't really care whether the 'market' is stratospheric on PSA whatevers because we are passionate about collecting, not 'investing'.

This is supposed to be fun, a hobby, a pastime. If you really worry that the hobby is going to the grave with the boomers, sell your stuff and get out. If you can't handle the idea of your cards losing value, sell your stuff and get out. Then you can stop bothering the rest of us with the money anxiety that many of us really don't care about.

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 1750254)

Or collect what you enjoy, with funds your family will not need...

Originally Posted by Rich Falvo (Post 1750664)

I would love to build more 50's to 70's sets, but the fun in that was going to shops and shows with my want lists and working the set. Now, there are very few shows and shops around here anymore. It's not nearly as much fun trying to build a 700 card set buying the cards individually or in small lots online.

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1750641)

Collectors should generally be comfortable with the value in their collection, whatever the circumstances might be. If you feel you have too much tied up in it it is easy to right-size it. It is way more fun when it isn't financially burdening, not that any of us would ever do that. :(

To reiterate others, I don't think baseball card collecting will die off in any of our lifetimes. That said there are fewer and fewer 50s-70s Topps set collectors, just starting sets, and there is an overabundance of those cards in low to mid grade. If I had millions of those I might be a little concerned.

.

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 1750381)

Based on this post, I have one question:





Adam - while I do realize it's a little late in the game, but, would your family be willing to adopt me? I'm 62 and fat, but I am house-broken.

Originally Posted by btcarfagno (Post 1750746)

What perplexes me a bit are the numbers of vintage collectors that were thrown around earlier in the thread. I mean...250,000 to 1,000,000 vintage baseball card collectors? There's no way on God's green earth that the number is anywhere close to those levels. I mean, you get literally two or three new collectors working on certain vintage issues and prices can skyrocket.

If you include even the most casual of collectors of vintage, the number likely doesn't approach 10,000.

As such, it wouldn't take much "new blood" into the hobby to keep things going. There will be ebbs and flows for individual issues or players as there always has been. But to think that the hobby would need to replace 250,000 or more collectors in order for prices not to bottom out is absurd.

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 1750381)

Based on this post, I have one question:


Adam - while I do realize it's a little late in the game, but, would your family be willing to adopt me? I'm 62 and fat, but I am house-broken.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1749993)

The market for antique furniture has pretty much collapsed. Anyone I know who were collectors or dealers for a long period of time say the same exact thing- the antique market is dead. Not everything goes up forever.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1749998)

Agreed.