Article from today, interesting read. I would imagine nice vintage and pre-war cards to fall into this same category (as art).

Diversify with fine art
The younger generation of investors increasingly believes that “a traditional portfolio of stock and bonds is not going to deliver above-average returns over time,” according to Jeff Busconi, chief operating officer at Bank of America Private Bank.

Fine art is the perfect alternative investment for savvy and high net worth investors who are looking to diversify their portfolio. It’s notably consistent, as contemporary art has outperformed the S&P 500 by 131% for the past 26 years.

Previously, there was no way to invest unless you had millions to buy an entire painting. But Masterworks has completely changed that. Instead of buying a single painting for millions of dollars, you can now invest in shares of individual works.

With this revolutionary investment platform, all you have to do is select which shares you want to buy and Masterworks will handle the rest.

Exactly why I was saying what I was. There are many people I've heard exclaim they'll never do business with the likes of some sellers/AHs. Also, some business formats/platforms are set up more for the investor types than the true collector types as well. I would classify Goldin as playing more to the investor type, and REA to the collector type. Nothing wrong with either, but the investor type IMO would be much more likely to take advantage of a vault service.

When it comes to investing I like to follow many of the Buffet/Munger ways. I’ve never heard them interested in hard assets such as Gold or Art. They despise crypto, as do I. I wonder if they agree with what your first quoted comment, that traditional portfolio of stock and bonds is not going to deliver above-average returns over time,” according to Jeff Busconi, chief operating officer at Bank of America Private Bank. Somehow I think they’d rather invest in Farmland instead of non-wealth producing assets.

Yes, very true what you say about the way of the older Buffet/Munger. But the article is about the younger generation of investors.

These alternative investment structures for illiquid assets like this have been around for a few years now.

In concept it’s certainly intriguing.

I think my biggest concerns are:

1) I don’t actually own all of the thing, but instead I just own some small fraction of it. I’d rather own all of something to enjoy it personally, rather than own 0.001% of something that I will never actually see.

2) Admin costs for these investments tend to be high, which eats into your returns pretty dramatically.

3) I’m worried about shady characters and fraud. Do I really own part of a Van Gogh? Or did I just get part of a fake? Did they only sell 10 million shares, or did they sell 500 million shares, and I own a lot less than I thought? What happens if the people running the show take the asset and flee to Brazil? I know that there’s supposed to be safeguards for a lot of this stuff, but I’m not ready to really trust it just yet. Hopefully the crypto goons have taught us to be wary about other goons pitching alternative investments.

4) While it’s supposed to be liquid, I suspect that in times of economic stress, you might struggle to find buyers, or have to sell at fire sale prices to cash out your investment.

Not really unexpected that for investments of this type things would start to go this way, is it? And in relation to earlier comments made about differences in business practices and strategies between the likes of REA and Goldin, which of the two could any of you see as more likely to also start doing something similar for their customer base, offering to buy and hold a major collectible item that no one can really afford to ever buy themselves, and then offering to sell partial interests in it to the general public?

For a T206 collector that could never afford one of the "Big Four" cards themselves, this could at least be a way for them to buy a partial interest in say a T206 Wagner, and afford them some level of ownership. It isn't perfect, and certainly not what most any true collector would really want. But in the world of reality where there are only an extremely limited number of T206 Wagner cards that exist, and at prices that are beyond most every collector's ability to ever afford, that may be the only way such a collector could ever theoretically own a complete T206 set.

I keep hearing and seeing things about Goldin's 100 greatest collectible cards, or something along those lines they are working on, and soon to come out with. For the average collector, or a new, younger collector just starting out in the hobby, how many of those 100 greatest collectible cards do you think any of them may be able to afford? But what if someone like Goldin actually goes out and acquires one of every one of those 100 cards, and then offers collectors the chance to buy an interest in the ownership of the entire collection? You can easily go and buy and sell shares in things like an S&P 500 index fund, why not something like a 100 greatest cards collectible fund? At this recently ended Mint Collective convention out in Las Vegas, I can most definitely see that being a very possible, and viable, topic being discussed among members of the collecting industry.

And before any of you start shaking your heads and muttering that that will never happen and so on, how many of you can remember back to when you could go to the corner store to pick up some bread or milk, and you would also be able to grab a pack of baseball cards at the register as you were checking out? Would any of you back then, in your wildest dreams, have ever imagined things like Breakers and the card market/industry like it is today with the wild and astronomical prices we're seeing, or the idea of TPGs, the internet and Ebay, and on and on? Even mentioning the fact that baseball cards could ever possibly be thought of as actual legitimate investments one day would have gotten you laughed at by most everyone. Just go ask all those old collectors with their boxes of Gregg Jeffries rookie cards they're still waiting to be able to retire on. Baseball is one of those unique things that is permanently embedded in the fabric of American life, that crosses and embraces all generations, and is growing more and more on the international market as well. Soccer may be the current biggest international sport, but baseball seems to be rising and growing. like basketball has. And unlike soccer, baseball was invented and started in the U.S., so we have an even more intrinsic desire and affection for the sport, and their related collectibles, cards, and history. So, does anyone really think there wouldn't be an extremely viable, potential market for people to buy into such an idea as owning a piece of the 100 greatest baseball cards of all time. And how many times have I seen/read on this forum, people telling/advising others to look to buy the nicest condition cards, of the greatest players, from the most widely collected sets they can, if they want to have the best possible chance to grow the value of their collections? And now how many of these 100 greatest cards that Golding is supposedly coming out with do you think will exactly fit that investment advisory advice and goals?

And such an idea would likely appeal to an even larger part of the population that wouldn't normally think of collecting baseball cards at all. Now you've got people investing in the idea of Americana, Mom, and apple pie, along with potentially making a buck or two down the road...........

Bob, I 100% agree with everything you said. Many on this board like things how they are and bemoan innovation. I don’t blame them, I hate change too! But where there is money involved, there is innovation, and we are seeing that in the hobby/asset class (why I struggled initially with the terminology). Those who don’t recognize the innovation may miss opportunities, or worse, get left behind.

I think fractional shares makes sense for a very few things that are super rare and super expensive - t206 Wagner, BN Ruth, PSA/SGC 9+ 1952 Topps Mantle, etc. That said, buying into a card mutual fund of diversified cards makes sense and is not very different from a stock or bond mutual fund. Nicolo makes some good points that one would have to consider, but if you can get comfortable with the sponsor and the fee structure, I card mutual fund makes. Frankly, I have dabbled with the idea of starting one and seeding it with my collection at FMV (as determined by appraisal).

You looking to get out of the game, with this execution as your exit ramp?

Or maybe it’s more of a thought exercise rather than anything serious?

I am not seriously considering it, at this point.... It certainly could be an exit down the line, especially if I keep some skin in the game and serve as the operator; it could be my "next act". I have recapitalized several real estate portfolios, why not recapitalize a baseball card portfolio?! But to answer your specific question, maybe at some point, but not now (a) because I am not ready to give up full control over my cards, (b) I dont currently have the time to manage a mutual fund of cards, and (c) I dont believe the "market" is best for valuations (thus the thread) -- I think I would rather be a buyer than a seller right now, although I am not actively buying much either.

At what cost? My sense with baseball cards is that you pay a substantial premium and that you never can physically have the card. To me, fractional ownership seems like a great deal for the organizer and a bad deal for the investor.

It's a bet on the come, embracing it strictly as an investment and bragging rights at the local pub that you own a piece of xyz famous card.

The bet is that the portfolio, minus admin fees, will appreciate more than an alternative investment. You would also have to consider how many investors would show up at initial subscription, if its poorly subscribed value goes down, over subscribed, value goes up, as well as your ability to move in and out of the fund, someone may have to be a market maker if there is a run on the fund.

Might make sense for some but for me it would take all the fun out of collecting.

Ryan-I disagree. Equity or debt mutual funds make sense because there is price transparency on the components. Arbs will keep the value in an appropriate range. Not so on a collectibles fund. If you can’t set value based on components then you are left solely with determining a market by best bid/offer. If an event happens the volatility could go through the roof. Are you going to trust the fund provider to tell you what the shares are worth?

No. I would be the fund provider…. But I hear what you are saying Jay. Sponsorship becomes SO much more important

Here's an interesting interview with Bryan Dwyer on NASDAQ Trade Talks, talking about the memorabilia side of the collecting industry, but I think, most all of what he says would apply to the card side as well. So even though many people think of REA as maybe more "collector" oriented, they recognize the investor and investment aspect as well.

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

Not to get tooooooooooo crazy here, but I suspect you'll have to comply with securities laws, which make the entire exercise a lot more exciting. Because the penalty for failure includes serious jail time, and that would end your trip real quick.

I don't have anything like your collection but the fractional share of a card, set or something like that has been intriguing to me as well. Buying a Wagner in a partnership of some semblance has always been the musing. Would be interesting to see as, like you, have also done some recapitalization in the real estate market (smaller scale, I'm sure, and different asset class). Doubtful I ever go that route but always interesting to think through!!

That goes without saying. As someone who raises and invests funds, I am very aware of the federal and state compliance burdens associated with private offerings, and I believe something like this would qualify as a security for SEC purposes. Alas, it’s an idea right now, nothing more.

The point is that Bob’s discussion of card mutual funds is valid and could one day become a reality. Indeed, I have heard whispers of one about a year ago and I am very sure there are partnerships/LLCs of multiple partners/members that are currently buying cards, which is effectively fractional shares by another name

As an alternative way to look at things in regard to atypical or non-ordinary types of investments, at least with sports cards you still have an actual physical asset to back it up, totally unlike things like NFTs or digital currencies. Is that really any different than the vast number of publicly traded company stocks existing today that never have, and likely never will, pay any of their investors any dividends? When you own shares of such publicly traded companies you technically own a piece of all the physical assets that make up that company. Is that really any different than if you own a fractional piece of a sports card(s)?

Now if you say the big difference is that the publicly traded company is operating and is in business, and can therefore grow its value by expanding and making more money, while the sports card(s) doesn't grow or produce anything, that is true. But then the publicly traded company also has a much greater chance of having a major downturn in business, reducing their value, or changes to technologies and markets, that will eventually negatively affect them. Just look at retail companies like Sears or J.C. Penny, and how changing technology and markets impacted businesses like them. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone has to worry about Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb suddenly getting injured or having a bad year, so that the interest and demand for their cards go down. So on some levels, investing in such "blue chip" sports cards may actually be a lot smarter, and maybe even more conservative, than investing in many companies on the stock markets.

But then what about investing in things like precious metals, gold for example. Gold in and of itself doesn't produce or generate any income whatsoever, unlike the ability a publicly traded company has. In that respect, gold is really no different than a sports card, and its value is totally subject to the whims of the public at large. (However, I do realize that gold does have an industrial application and multiple uses as an actual metal, but that its value would be considerably less than it is if that were the only factor in determining what gold is worth.) Gold prices fluctuate on perceived market value by the public at large. And what is also interesting is that the supply of gold is ever growing. To my knowledge, there is still gold being found and mined today. So, in the ever-present law of supply and demand, one would normally assume that as more gold is mined, once the industrial demands have been satisfied of course, that any excess production would cause gold prices to continually drop over time as there is constantly more and more of it available in the world, and unlike other resources such as oil or coal, it is not a consumable resource. And another question to then ask, why is gold (and silver to a somewhat lesser extent) viewed as such a universal currency/commodity? Why did humans originally pick and assign this value to gold (and silver), and not so to other elements and resources, like say zinc, iron, or copper, that all have much more practical and useful purposes in our society today? Is it at all possible because early humans found gold (and silver) deposits, and even though they didn't really have any practical uses for them at that time, they liked and were attracted to them because they were shiny, and early humans liked to collect and keep such shiny things that for some reason made them happy? And then over time, as more and more early humans started populating the Earth, this somewhat universal desire and attraction to these shiny metals they all liked to collect (and you can include the shiny stones (diamonds, rubies, etc.) as well) turned into some of the first forms of universally recognized currency among these early humans. And because the human animal, and all its instincts and traits, are really no different today than it was back then, this intrinsic and instinctual desire to collect and hold such things, shiny or not, is still embedded in our human thinking and being today. And those early human instincts and desires have of course been passed down through the thousands of years, till today. So maybe that is why we all view gold and silver as such valuable alternative currencies today, because early man like to collect the shiny stuff! (And that maybe helps to better explain why the modern card collectors are so attracted to the "shiny stuff" themselves. Card companies finally caught on and invoked those early human animal instincts to attract the new, younger collectors out there. LOL)

Things like gold/silver, and even digital currencies that are still being mined and constantly added to as far as supply is concerned, have made millionaires of countless many people, especially younger people today that have gone full into many of these new types of investments. And people trade and invest in them with no true intrinsic value other than mostly people see them as a type of alternative currency if you will. So why not the same potential view and treatment as such an investment with baseball or other cards that are highly desired and collected among a large part of the world's population? The bottom line is, God forbid we have a nuclear war that destroys most of the human population and that turns the world back into the dark ages, or even worse. But you know what, regardless of how bad things may have then become, some humans will come across a piece of gold or silver jewelry, or maybe a couple of baseball cards (especially the shiny ones LOL) that somehow survived the devastation and destruction, and will grab and keep and cherish them as their valuable and prized collectibles. And then who knows, maybe in future millennia baseball/sports cards end up becoming a universally recognized de facto currency for a new world.

Human nature!!!!!!

Bingo! Compliance with securities laws is the way to legitimize the effort. Not skirt it, embrace it. If the fractional interest promoters can manage that, they have a chance at selling people on it not being a giant scam. If they act like the crypto bros, not so much.

Nic, I've said that very thing before here on the forum as well. The way the card industry (and it is more of an industry now than just a hobby, sorry to say) is going today, it does seem to be only a matter of time before someone really does start treating it more like a true investment for more people, and that gets the government to eventually have to start paying more and more attention to what is going on, and eventually expand regulatory oversight to the entire industry once it does get big enough.

Truth is, before now the card hobby hasn't been big and valuable enough for anyone in government to really care. It's a hobby! But with all the increasing value, things like "vaults" being created and companies maybe now starting to push fractional interests in cards, the whole business is starting to look more and more like some investment companies. You and I are long-time CPAs, and of anyone here on this forum, you know exactly how what the TPGs do for this card hobby industry is an outright joke, with absolutely no true oversight, regulation, standardization, and with virtually no consequences or accountability whatsoever for anything they do. Yet we both know that CPAs and TPGs main purpose is to provide the exact same thing.......an OPINION on the state or condition of something! As CPAs though, we go through sooooo much more crap and oversight because our opinions can end up affecting the entire financial markets of the world. But no one in authority apparently gives a rat's ass about a bunch of nerdy collectors accumulating pieces of cardboard. At least not yet!

People on here, and elsewhere, had (and occasionally still do) talked long and hard about the FBI investigation into certain players in the card "hobby" industry, and the allegations of alteration fraud and other illegal activities they were suspected of being involved in. And since then many of those same people have bemoaned how it appears nothing has, or ever will, come or be done about any of it. If the card "hobby" industry were subject to some of these much higher levels of scrutiny and oversight as a truly recognized type of investment industry, with true governmental required oversight, like the SEC and FTC has over businesses here in the U.S., I'd venture to guess how much different those FBI investigations may have (or yet) turned out. I say "may" because technically they are still supposedly in an ongoing investigation, but nobody knows or has heard of anything new being done in regard to those investigations for some time now.

I have touted here on the forum before how any of us card collectors can be one of three different things; a dealer, collector/hobbyist, or an investor, and how technically anyone can actually be all three at the exact same time. They just have to organize and keep their activities separate, and be sure to prepare and keep as accurate and complete records and data about their separate activities as possible for if/when any of the tax authorities may come calling with questions. I've explained the main different tax consequences/attributes that go with each of these three different types of card owners they can be. And I've seen you post once or twice mentioning the same thing about card collectors being one of these three types as well, so I know we agree on that. What hasn't to my knowledge been directly challenged in tax law going up against the IRS yet is if they will truly recognize that someone selling their baseball cards could strictly be nothing more than an investor. And therefore, when they sell a card they held strictly as an investment, any profit on that sale should be subject to the same maximum 20% federal tax rate on the LTCG, just like from the sales of other traditional investments, like stocks and bonds, and NOT be subject to the currently higher 28% maximum federal tax rate on LTCGs from the sale of a collectible, such as a baseball card. The other major difference is that if a card you sell is a true investment, and not just a collectible, any losses on the sale of an investment would be potentially deductible against other gains and taxable income, but losses as purely collectibles are absolutely not deductible at all, not even against other gains from selling other baseball cards. I'm waiting for one these deep-pocket collectors/investors to sell say a T206 Wagner card for a few million of profit, and then take on the IRS and claim the most they owe in federal taxes on the gain is only 20%, and not 28%. Until you get to a case with enough potential dollars involved, I don't see anyone wasting the time and expense to fight the IRS for maybe just a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. But I firmly believe the argument is valid, and there for someone to eventually act on.

And in response to others who had asked what is maybe the difference between a baseball card being a collectible item or being an investment item, though I couldn't/still can't give them an exact, perfect and irrefutable definition and answer, the simplest way I had/have to put and describe it to everyone was, a collectible is something you would put on a shelf or hang on the wall in your man cave or office to show off and tell others about, an investment is something you'd be more likely to keep in your bank safe deposit box or in one of these new vault services that have just in recent years started operating. So when you take an operation like a PWCC or Goldin that has and operates a vault service for their clientele, and they also offer related/combined services to buy and sell those items on behalf of their clientele, it certainly starts to sound/look very similar to what you do when you call or otherwise contact your investment/financial planner/advisor/broker and ask them to buy/sell some stocks or other investments for you, doesn't it?

And what is the old saying, if it swims like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a................................................. .....

Exactly right, and just think how that could also then apply to scrutiny and oversight of TPGs who review and opine on the sports cards and other items now being sold as investments. Just like the rules and regulations that CPAs who opine on the financial statements of publicly traded companies have to follow.

Like how a CPA cannot ever charge a contingent fee for any work or services they provide so they maintain their independence and do not have any potential bias or conflicts of interest, in both fact AND APPEARANCE! If that were similarly applied to TPGs, then they could technically only charge the exact same amount to grade a 1988 Gregg Jefferies rookie card as they would for grading a '52 Topps Mantle card, assuming they were providing the same exact service(s)/work. Now, how nice would that be that you are only charged for the actual work/services they perform, and not for what they can maybe get away with? Also, in the case of owners/employees of a TPG, they likely would never be allowed to have their own cards/items be graded or otherwise serviced by the same TPG they owned/worked for. For example, David Hall owned one of, if not the most celebrated T206 card collections of all time at one point, to my understanding. He also was behind the creation of, and at one time a major owner of, Collectors Universe I believe, which also (or at least did) own PSA as a wholly owned subsidiary. I wonder while still an owner who he may have had grading his T206 cards? Likewise, now that CU/PSA have been taken over by private ownership (and is no longer publicly traded), including by such as Nat Turner, I wonder who he has/would have do the work of grading any cards he may want to get graded now? That kind of thing happening would be a totally improper and unbelievably and absolutely biased conflict of interest occurrence and should never be (or have been) allowed to happen.

One of the things I've noticed about crypto and meme stocks and card investing is how similarly the participants behave. There is an almost palpable sense of giving the middle finger to The Man in all of it, hence the hostility of the young towards mainstream investments like mutual funds. The card 'bros i see at shows would be right at home selling weed. Same style as the drug dealers who used to supply our highs in college. That makes it harder to promote an investment angle on cards. Too many players want to be 'playas', not investors, and stubbornly resist efforts to professionalize the hobby or make it look like a mainstream investment. So many collectors also like the sheer transgressiveness of buying and selling in cash in a field without much regulation. It gives them that "G's and keys" swagger to throw around cash, feel like a street guy, but with cards and without any real danger. Look at some of the linguistic stylings of the hobby: buyer's premium is "vig", cards are "product", etc. The fact that the authorities don't really seem to care actually is a selling point.

The Singer interview in the current WSJ is apt. Fed’s response to every crisis is to print money and the rise of crypto is a libertarian impulse for the disdain on the fed’s disrespect to fiat currency… article is bearish on crypto which I agree on, it root principles to crypto and art/cards are the same. An alternative store of value. But art and cards have another thing going for them, they can’t be produced in any more quantities that that exist out there. There will be “finds” but supply is pretty much set (sans e98 prior to bsf). And there is something tangible to the asset unlike “ether” assets.

Always thought and still think employment is the highest coefficient in card prices (as it affects demand (by people’s wherewithal) and supply (as people need to sell to fund cost of living). And with that metric we’re doing pretty good.

Of course there’s asset beta, which is what we are feeling today, as people “trade” based on how far cards appreciated and where they think cards will go. But as a long term driver, it’s hard to argue against the initial point as to why cards are a good store of value in a diversified asset portfolio.

It is hard to argue against alternative value stores in inflationary times. Whether it is a store or a scam is the question and at least with a card (or gold or real estate) there is something tangible, as long as you actually have possession of it. The rest is just speculating on the potential gains of one asset versus another over time. For example, I wouldn't have wanted to invest in New York City commercial real estate in 2019. It may be tangible but remote working has made a disaster of it. I'll say one thing for cards in particular:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20Mantle.jpeg

They're a lot prettier to look at than a deed.

Over/Under on the PSA 1955 Koufax in Goldin was set at $345k.

We are at $258k w/ BP on the one in REA, with 4 days left.

I took the under, but doubting that a little

A Paige mint 9 just sold for $211k at Mile High. A stones throw away from the last sale of $228k which was the only post-pandemic sale and up 7x from the last time one sold in 2018! So the super high end rare stuff is certainly strong. The less rare stuff not so much it seems. I noticed the Seaver rookie for instance still is well off it’s highs from the past few year as one example of a card that while isn’t rare with around 100 mint example, still doesn’t come up every other auction.

Too Painful
 

Thanks, Ryan. I’d like to participate, but it’s too painful. In the mid 90’s, I had a chance to buy one for $1,800 (“2 x High Beckett”)… AND I PASSED!

hi whos buying these cards hedge funds,high end collectors ,,who lol..i just bought a 48 leaf joe gordon almost had a heart attack.

They seem to change hands like musical chairs from auction house to auction house.

hi johnny your correct about that and the new stuff trades at huge loses

Agree 100% Rjackson
So is some, key word some of the vintage… 52 Mays PSA 8 and 52 Jackie PSA 8 well off their highs. A couple ended last night

Well, when it comes to that 52T Mays PSA 8, the centering/tilt acolytes will rant all day long about how it was sketchy in that regard. Plus it was an early cert, so there's that taint as well. In any event, $160K is still about 5x what it would have sold for pre-pandemic. But it is nice that it's no longer 8x or 10x!

http://milehighcardco.com/1952_Topps...-LOT92067.aspx

Jack, Ugh. I bet that would have a gone a long way toward the day payment on a super nice condo outside Nashville :)

Octavio, I imagine that 99% of the people seeking to buy a card like this, view the card as an asset/investment. Perhaps it is a speculator or Fund of sorts, who simply looks at the card as a commodity. Or, it could be someone, like me, who loves cards and really enjoys owning them, but is really looking at cards as a separate form of investment/asset. For example, Ken Kendrick probably bought the Gretzky Wagner bc he thought it would be awesome to own, but you know he 100% bought it expecting to make money and thinking it was a great place to invest $5mm (or whatever it sold for). Bottom line, the buyer is buying it for investment.

One thing I've thought about is whether being on a multiiplayer RC hurts value. Just seems that quite a few of the "gee, that should cost more" postwar rookies are multiplayer cards.

It certainly hasn't hurt the Ryan rookie being a multiplayer card....

Robert Edwards has a Koufax PSA 9 ending tomorrow. Let's see where that one ends.

I actually built a multivariate statistical model to measure the effects of a player's RC being a multi player card, which also measured the effects of their 2nd year card being their first solo card (and not, for those with solo RCs), and the effects of having the rookie cup on the card. The data I collected took all HOFers first 3 years of Topps cards (excluding 52 & 53) and their relative prices in similar grade/value ranges.

I'd have to dig to find it, but I seem to recall that having a multi player RC made it worth something like 30% less on average than it would have been were it to be a solo RC. And that having a 2nd year card with a rookie cup or trophy being a player's first solo card made it worth something like 20% more than it would have otherwise been were that not the case.

Also, they have been many huge finds of High grade 1968 topps. That also must weigh on prices

And the REA Koufax is officially over 345K. We have a winner!

Ha, I was just checking that! Now, the over/under was technically on the Goldin 9, which has not yet come to auction (it was in a preview that came out before we knew REA has a 9).

The over/under was $345k and its currently at $384k :eek:

On the second bet I’m going REA because it was first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the past 6-7 years, I have kept a running spreadsheet tracking items that I am interested for sale in current auctions. For each card I am interested in, I track the current bid, the cost with BP, and the cost of the next bid with BP; I also have a side sheet that adds taxes and other expenses, so I can estimate the all-in cost to me. As part of this spreadsheet, I do a deep valuation of the cards I track and I often account for the overall SGC-PSA population (both separate and combined). I color-code each item -- blue is within 10% high or low of my estimate, green is 10%+ lower than my estimate, and red is 10%+ higher than my estimate. In general, I am pretty good at estimating the final price (hammer + BP) on items I am interested in.

I did this for the REA auction last night. Of the 21 cards I tracked, 7 were within 10% of my estimate, 4 were below my estimate, and 10 (almost 50%) ended above my estimate. To me, that signals one of two things: (i) I am not good at estimating, which may be true, or (ii) the results in REA last night were quite strong.

Of particular note, Wagners are on fire, with every Wagner I followed ending at or above (sometimes substantially above) my estimate. Look at the M116 blue Wagner SGC 3, which finished about $4k higher than the blue SGC 3 Cobb -- Wagner outpricing Cobb in the same card and grade is not something you normally see

I'm going to go with that the results in REA were really strong last night, and that your estimates were accurate. I really wanted that Wagner PC976 Sepia postcard, but the price was just too high.

I have given up predicting REA results, especially with this one:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=139372

Was it Paying crazy for just the front of the card or Maybe someone on the DL who can re-back the card and get it through, with a 6 or who better. Who knows trust nothing you hear and only half of what you see.

It seems that people are finally getting what they've been asking for: "buy the card, not the grade." That seems to be what happened here, as it did last month when an SGC 2 Leaf Ted Williams with serious back damage went for over $20K. The people who bought it made multiple social media posts defending their purchase.

Your 10% advice came in handy last night at REA. There were 2-t205 upgrades for my set, one of which was something I never thought I'd upgrade. I thought I was out and then remembered our discussion in Chantilly a year or so ago when you said that if it was within 10%, it was a good idea to just get it since that kind of thing likely never comes up for auction. So I placed one more bid which fell within 10% of my number and won it. You can likely guess the card as I don't have many t205s I can even find to upgrade!

On your original comment, I missed on the under but as you've said, the Goldin Koufax was the question. It will be interesting to see how they compare. I have no idea which is stronger or if they're the same but I take the under there. We'll see!!

Ryan, I do the same thing, but not as detailed as yours. just to give me an idea on trends. Some are up, some are down, my overall list is off about 10% from its peak but at 279% of what it was pre-pandemic. The twist with mine is that I track lower grades.

FWIW, the lots I tracked in REA finished quite strong. $4560 for a 1947 Bond Bread Robinson in a 1 is a nice price. A 2 sold for less last December. Lower grade 1952 T Mantle cards did well too. A PSA 2 went for $45,600 and an SGC 2 with lousy centering was $33,600.

I did notice a couple high end cards that were way off their highs. The PSA 9 Topps Jackie and the 24 Aguilitas Oscar Charleston both went for considerably less than 2021/2022 sales of comparable cards.

With the new video surfacing I wonder if it will affect the high grade market? Those assets could fall if they aren't believed in.
.

My thoughts too Leon,
That video really opened my eyes, I’m now starting to look at pew-war 6’s with a jaundiced eye.

Which video are you talking about?

See thread titled “Card Doctoring Video”

Former NFL player and suspected trimmer Evan Mathis confirmed it to the world by posting a 5 minute how to guide on TikTok… he then poked fun at Collectors/PSA owner Nat Turner saying that is how all his high grade cards got their grades… he did this with a paper cutter, wax paper, engineers ruler, file board, loupe, and the blunt end of an xacto knife type pen thing. Trimming on a budget

That paragraph is real, I wish I was trolling…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ryan, I thought the Collins Hornsby did very well. Strong price for a seldom seen card from a relatively obscure set.

The Wagner candy cards have to be the stars of this round of auctions so far though. Those Memory Lane prices looked very strong to me.

+1. I was surprised on the Collins Hornsby too. 54k is a good chunk of money..
.

Very strong price. I do think the card is worth that- I think it’s been a very undervalued card for a while and is now getting its due. That said, most of the pricing in memory lane was super strong indicating strength (and a testament to memory lane).

Another one coming to REA next week

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...085013188f.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the market does crash and the value of our cards plummets, the true collectors will still have their cards and with that comes the love of our favorite players, their times and even the game itself. Let's not forget the game.

I went back to my initial post and the PSA 9 introduced in that still has not yet gone on sale- It was a preview and the auction starts July 27th!

But since I started the thread, a PSA 9 Koufax did sell in REA (April) for $384k, which was well over the $345k over/under I set and, as you can see from the updated VCP info posted below, is on par with sales in 2022.

Ryan - ready to make an updated call? $450k?

I think we should increase the line. How about $470k

Regarding state of the market/hobby/industry- I woke up this morning, realized Heritage was open, and I placed 39 different initial/placeholder bids totaling just over $2.9mm with buyers premium. I fully expect none of those bids to win. In fact, I expect that by mid week, I will have $0 at rush and 0 high bids. (Keep in mind, it’s easy to get to $2.9mm when you place $300k bids on cards that will likely sell for $500k+). I don’t know if that means that the hobby is healthy economically or there is just a ton of great stuff now for sale, or both.

Certainly plenty of people with way too much money running around and buying stuff. Not sure how to interpret that phenomenon in terms of what it means for the market/hobby, except it sure is a nice time to be selling high quality stuff.

And I suspect the auction houses won’t complain!

Looks like the bidding is up to $170k so far ($204k with the juice), with 26 days left.

https://goldin.co/item/1955-topps-12...sa-mint-9ka38t

BTW- reading my post above, I was sarcastic with the $470k. But the REA sale shows, at the least, that PSA 9 Koufax’s are doing just fine.

And based on the stuff I was watching, and the one card I won, in REA, prewar seems to be just fine as well. Heritage ends this weekend, then LOTG and memory lane (mile high hasn’t even opened). So many amazing offerings and it appears strong prices persist. As a buyer, it’s a little surprising and quite annoying!

Final answer: $288k. Kind of a let down..

https://goldin.co/item/1955-topps-12...sa-mint-9ka38t

So was the Aaron at $480k!

Interesting. I had no idea the auction ended. A let down indeed. $288k is by FAR the lowest that card has sold for in the past 3 years (5 other sales)- 20% less the next lowest sale. I wonder whether it’s a canary in the coal mine for other high grade commodity cards or whether some other factor was at work.

I can’t believe that these numbers are disappointing. What’re we, nuts? I’ll take two vg cards and a condo in Kona instead.

But I digress.

Is there still a stink on Goldin? Perhaps there are players who don’t want to bid with him?

agreed!

I mean, if we're questioning our own sanity, there's probably a good reason.

And obviously $288k is only disappointing in the context that the last fistful went for $360-$400k. In isolation, getting that much bread for a single piece is certainly a nice haul.

Adam, I myself am wondering whether the auction house has anything to do with the relatively/comparatively weak result. Of the 5 prior sales that range from $369k - $396k, two were REA and two Heritage, with the fifth being the oldest, on 5/23/21, in Goldin for $369k.

Personally, I have no issue with Ken or his AH and I have bought a number of stuff from his auction house when it was a smaller outfit. However, I don't think I have bought anything from Goldin since they were acquired by PSA, and, at this point, I dont even really follow their auctions. To me, Goldin, like PWCC, has become an almost purely modern venue and I dont feel like wading through pages of RPAs looking for a singular pre-war needle in the haystack. Plus, like PWCC, I am not a fan of the auction interface, which I find difficult to use and not intuitive. I am not a bidder on a 1955 Koufax PSA 9, regardless of whether its in Goldin or REA, but perhaps others did not notice/partake in the auction for similar reasons stated above.

It's an interesting concept. Just pondering a little bit myself, let's say there was a high grade mainline piece for a major HOFer that I was coveting, and had a war chest lying around to chase it. Along it comes in auction, and there's a chance to pick it up for 20% off the last sale.

I'm not convinced that I'd let a clunky interface or the need to do a little more homework to find it get in my way. If anything, I might be inclined to lean into those as a competitive advantage, especially if it prevents the competition from bidding as heavily, or even finding the auction.

And I think the market has long ago given us enough signals that for 99.999% of collectors, we're not about to let our moral code stand in the way of picking up high quality stuff, particularly at a good deal.

All of which is a long way of saying that I have a hard time believing those were the likely answer. I tend to be more of a believer that there was probably one more potential bidder out there who decided to not go nuts this time. He's feeling tapped out, maybe his dog just died, or he lost a bundle on some lame SPAC investment, had a mild heart attack, or his wife just filed for divorce and is suing for the collection and the house. Or maybe he just had a conflict that night with the Met Gala. For whatever reason, he dropped out of the bidding earlier, and therefore the price pooped out a few bids earlier than the last handful of auctions.

Whenever we talk about our moral code and its potential influence on certain auction houses, it brings to mind a joke from the economist joke book, which I've told here before, but will recount again, because it seems apropos in light of our sometimes flexible moral code. Apologies that it's a little salty, but the saltiness helps to convey the message.

An economist walks up to a woman and asks if she would sleep with him for $1 million.

She responds that she supposes that she would.

Whereupon the economist asks if she would sleep with him for $100.

To which she retorts, "What kind of a woman do you think I am?"

The economist wryly observes, "Madam, we have already established that. Now we are just negotiating on price."

Exactly, at some point the common man has to say "I can sell and buy what????" Although the people buying may have a condo or two in Kona

As far as the really high end, I don't think this was an isolated incident. In Heritage's August auction, they had a 1952 Topps Mantle SGC 9 for which they had an estimate of $6 million+. They started the bidding at 2 mil, and three days before closing it had only reached 2.35, when they posted a 4.5 million reserve. Half an hour before the end of the auction they suddenly reduced the reserve to 3.75 and got one bid, so they could say it sold, for 4.5 million. In the same auction, they had a 1933 Goudey Ruth 144 PSA 8.5 with an estimated value of 1.5 mil+ that barely made it to 1 million. I do think there are signs of softness at the high end.

Those are some fun data points.

I think for those of us that are chasing a lot of high end stuff, there's sometimes a bit of confirmation bias. We're chasing some nice stuff down (even just tracking it for market research purposes), and it always seems to sell for a crazy price. We see a few other pieces that go to the moon, and our lazy minds just assume that everything at the top end is going for all-time highs. If we see something that sells for less than the last few comps, we discount it as an aberration.

Obviously the data points you highlighted help to paint a more nuanced picture.

I agree the AH likely had little to do with the pricing. I also think the Mantle and Ruth examples above indicate that there is some softening for high-end commodity cards, which I think makes sense. I also think it may something to do with the fact that this was the 5th PSA 9 to trade in two years, 3 of which have sold in the last 6 months, adding validity to the theory that the "other bidder" wasn't there on this one to push the price to nearly $400k. Or perhaps that extra 1-2 bidders were not there because its much more attractive to have cash like that liquid, earning 5%, than in cardboard that may be sitting at top-of-the-market values.

Personally, I think its all of the above, but mainly I think we are seeing a sensible repricing on commodity-cards, which I note, tend to still be well above where things were before the pandemic (thus Adam's point).

Deleted

I disagree, if you dont like or trust an auction house, and you would spend that kind of money on a Koufax rookie i think it’s very plausible that you would look elsewhere. It’s not like it’s that scarce a card.