This is precisely why I collect GU. You can spend $100k on an old baseball card, but when the world collapses, what have you got? However, in a pinch, you can burn vintage GU bats as firewood, and sew together GU flannels to make blankets, and thus keep yourself warm in winter.

GU = intrinsic value. Cards, not so much.

Au Contraire, Mon Frere, you most certainly can burn cards as well as bats. And the more vintager, the better. The shiny stuff, not so much.

The shiny stuff is toxic, vintage, less so. Imagine inhaling a chrome green prizm stained glass atomic refractor.

To get the most btu for the buck, 1987-1989 Topps vending cases would be the best investment.

Yeah but, how do you keep it lit????

Market Crash?
 

Pricing for scarce pre-war immortals such as Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Gehrig, Jackson, etc. are absolutely solid. As one example, Joe Jackson boldly proved that in REA last night with two record-setting rookie card sales, and the $117K price tag for his ever-elusive M101-6 issue. Don't see any retreat on those numbers in the near future. Regarding post-WWII cards, special attention is being placed on eye appeal for the grade (especially centering), with standout aesthetics as well as overall scarcity still driving strong premiums. Of course, this applies to the white whale players such as Mantle, Jackie, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Koufax, Williams, etc. "So-so" visual appeal cards are experiencing value declines (especially for second-tier Hall of Famers), and as predicted by many, modern cards are taking a beating. Stick with baseball's "best of the best" all-timers, and you cannot go wrong.

T206 cards are cards made with lead paint so I think its a push.

I thought the 49 Bowman Robinsons in REA was interesting speaking to the earlier point of people buying the card not the grade. A more recently graded 7.5 went for the same price as an 8 that went for a lot less than that same exact card sold for. $21k. Both were down from last sale even the 7.5. That being said there were 6 other copies for sale too. The 7.5 does have better eye appeal than the 8 for sure.

Deals galore. Just a little market correction, no big deal.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...42db43e858.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure how this fits into the story, but here is one high-grade vintage "immortal" that went shockingly low compared to even lower grade examples in recent years. Behold, a PSA 6 T205 Walter Johnson in REA (Although, to be fair, I have a hard time imagining that that top border was not trimmed, which is why I didn't bid on it - and maybe I wasn't the only one):

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=161510

But, for comparison, and there were much higher examples I could have chosen over the last couple of years, here is a PSA 4.5 that sold in Memory Lane just three months ago for more:

https://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/...e?itemid=78191

Yeah even if not trimmed, not a 6.

Is it just me or is it an optical illusion that the PSA6 T205 WaJo shows signs of trimming on the upper left corner. My eye sight must be getting worse... That just looks horrible. Makes me want to find out who the submitter for the card was, but we'll never know.

i dont care for the top edge

I would like to believe that the majority of Net54 members love baseball and its history and collect prewar to remind us of "when it was a game." At heart we are collectors who love our cards but, of course, keep a close eye on values. And when it behooves us, we will sell to upgrade or put the money into something else vintage.
Our board and a few like it are a financial prop against a collapse of prewar and AH's, like REA, LOTG and Heritage, benefit enormously for our support of prewar and some of our members, more well-heeled than others, are able to fork over significant sums for top items. That's just capitalism.

Why does the market have to "crash"? If past performance is any indication of behavior, what is most likely to crash is level of activity on scarce and rare vintage cards. A lot of would-be sellers elect to sit it out for a while when prices level off or decline. If you look at price data for certain cards, there are often gaps of years with none sold, followed by multiple sales in a relatively short amount of time.

What is the "market" anyway? There is a vast difference between the market for a 1914 Ruth Baltimore News card, a 1933 Goudey Ruth card, and an Ohtani sparkly signed card. The latter two are commodities: you can get one any day of the week if you have the money. The Ruth is a true rarity. Commodity cards are more volatile, IMO, because the owners include many who make their livings selling cards and who need to keep the cash flow going. They can only differentiate their goods by price. A rarity, you can set the price and anyone who wants it has to pay it.

Obviously there's no requirement that the market has to crash.

I do think when you have a 100-300% runup in prices over a short window, the mind tends to wander in the direction of whether that's really sustainable, or whether we might be in for a pullback of 30-50% or more, depending on your definition of crash.

The rest of your points are certainly taken. At the same time, anyone sitting on the sidelines and refusing to sell if prices decline will have to outlast a whole host of other potential stressors that might force an untimely liquidation. Anything from financial pressure to divorce to demise are all factors that come into play. And if we're being honest, as a group in the aggregate, we probably have our fair share (and then some) of those stressors given our personal demographics.

Or maybe the first sale wasn't completed and so the price was spurious, and the second sale is the actual market price.

Could be!

Of course, it seems like people are willing to accept high sales as real when they want to suggest that the market is going up. When it’s coming back down, then the high sale was never real, so it should be ignored!

[QUOTE=Aquarian Sports Cards;2394538]Or maybe the first sale wasn't completed and so the price was spurious, and the second sale is the actual market price.[/QUOTE

BINGO

Yep. Spin the data to fit the thesis.

I thought Net54 was a "no spin zone" !!!

3 month diff and at least 1 less serious bidder

Just some food for thought:

Found another data point

1968 Topps 3-D Uncut sheet with Clemente and 2 proof cards

Spring 2018 REA Lot#1651 sold for $39,000

Summer 2023 REA Lot#1402 sold for $29,400

Fall 2023 REA Lot#2149 hi bid $13,000 - not sold reserve not met

Looks like the exact same sheet, with the exact same description for both auctions.

What a difference 3 months make and what a difference 5 years make!!!

Yeah...

Appreciate the added data point, because it helps to suggest that maybe the 2023 sale wasn't a fake sale. Unless we're going to argue that the 2018 sale was also fake. I suppose as long as there can be 1 fake sale, then there can be multiple fake sales. Hell, they might all be fake sales. Aside from my own purchases, I suppose it's hard to really know for sure about anything else.

At the same time, even assuming all of these are good sales, I wouldn't read too much into these data points. This is just too much of a specialty item. A bidder or two can make a big difference, depending on whether they're paying attention, and whether they're in or out of the market at the moment for this piece.

+1 Awesome eye appeal cards are very strong. Others are mediocre.....
.

You guys got to stop screwing with us sheep. Do we hold? Do we sell? Please tell us what we need to do.

I suppose it all depends on if the valuation is going to result in any financial issues for the card owners. I could burn every card I have and not worry about my financial well being because I don't consider the cardboard I have as being worth ANYTHING. Ok, so I only have a stack of Greg Jefferies rookie cards...

Edited to add - when I ick the bucket, that pile of Greg Jefferies will be a bonus to my family.

Attachment 600267