forever ever!

or

forever?

My experience
 

The pure investors clearly have the most to lose here. At least those of us who are mostly in it for collecting will still have something we want if prices drop. And I personally still can't figure out how to do the "investing" part of cards. Everything I've ever bought specifically on speculation seems to be worth less than what I paid, while much of what I've bought for collecting has gone up in value, but most of my stuff is mid grade.

Sometimes just buying the right card of the player is what separates investor from collector. I like all the players mentioned in this thread, however with newer players just look at the production runs of Leaf, Topps, Upper Deck, etc... And then look at 20 times more rarer minor league card runs of the same player. I'll take the Thomas Cape Cod, Charlotte Os Ripken, Platinum Best Griffey, Remar Oaks Martin, and DiMaggio Zeenuts any day over their first MLB mass produced cards.

The late 80s early 90s Topps and Bowman Tiffany sets were very limited in production relative to the mass market stuff, to me they are better than minor league cards in almost every instance.

80s & 90s
 

Topps Gallery Of Champions ( originally Immortals :)), 1984 to 1991...in silver, bronze and aluminum sets of 12, plus some bonus pewter "cards"

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ampions001.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ampions002.jpg
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/...ampions004.jpg

Reminds me of Highland Mint, Al. :D

The silvers do ok. My best 80s results came from 82 Blackless, 84 Encased, 85 Minis ( check prices on ebay), 88 Cloth and 89 Big Heads with Suckers...or Heads Up

Same guy has all the minis it seems on jacked up BINs.

With all due respect, Leon, it appears that some of these, perhaps the most knowledgeable, are cut from a different cloth. I'm speaking of Bob's post re the Cracker Jack Jackson, of course, but also of a M101 Ruth rookie in "7" that supposedly went to the owner of the Arizona Diamond Backs a few years ago. Was Al Taubman strictly investing in his $500 million or so art collection, auctioned off through Sotheby's fairly recently? One would think that if that was the case, it would have been up for auction before, rather than after, his death. Sure, art is art, but collectibles are also collectibles, and their appreciation/depreciation follow rather constant principles throughout their various iterations, almost like the laws of physics. That's why one particular 1964 Aston Martin recently changed hands for $11 million. This special edition model was supposed to have a manufacturing run of 25, but only 19 were made. Gee, might "rare and significant" have something to do with the above?

It's also why 1967 L88 Corvettes have recently changed hands for $3-$4 million--20 made, with 560 horsepower 427 racing engines that ultimately ended the Shelby Cobra's domination of Corvettes on the longer sports car racing tracks (165 mph top end for the much higher drag coefficient Cobras, versus about 190 mph for the L88 Vettes). These things will appreciate due to their, what was that phrase again, "rare and significant" nature, regardless of the initial motivation for their purchase, and in many cases, are simply being snapped up and disappearing from the market for quite a few years. They're being kept and held because well-healed, knowledgeable collectors LIKE them--sure, they like the thought that their value will increase, but do you really think that guys like John J. Pittman, who assembled a $40 million coin collection over his lifetime (purchasing mostly in the rare, undervalued, quiet areas, because as an Eastman Kodak chemical engineer, he could never afford the so-called "trophy" coins, such as the 1913 Liberty head nickel, 1804 silver dollar, 1894 S dime) and kept it for his entire lifetime was primarily motivated for investment? He LIKED his coins, which is why they only came up for auction AFTER his death, just as Bob quite obviously is delighted with his '15 Cracker Jack Jackson.

You're probably right that there is a significant amount of big dollar, near-mindless investing going on now, but IMHO, it would be incorrect to ascribe all the huge price increases we've been seeing in truly significant items largely to that factor. Just beware that if something seems overpriced relative to the existing number of examples, it probably is, and that these are the items, just as occurred in the coin and car collecting fields, that are in for the greatest correction in the market.

You are also correct that I have not been able to stay in touch with this truly great board you have fashioned as much as I would have liked for the last few months, due to an overwhelming work load (on the plus side, that heavy load has financed some long-sought after acquisitions). But the various collectible fields are far more alike than they are different, and the same principles will apply over time. I find the coin collecting field to be the closest parallel to cards, and it's history, having become an organized hobby roughly 120 years before cards, offers some unique insights as to where ours is likely going. The eminent Q. David Bowers, author, collector and coin dealer for more than half a century, wrote that, over time, the collector (as opposed to the investor) is king, because the former has taken the time to study the field, whereas the latter are often like lemmings, following the herd even as they plunge over the cliff. The collector, who in Bower's considerable experience enjoys the highest LONG TERM appreciation in his collection, buys and HOLDS, because he truly LIKES what he has obtained.

Hopefully, based on the above, the current market is not nearly as dominated by investment-only types as your post seems to indicate, but if it is, I would stay away from purchases where condition rarities seem to be hoisting up the prices of far lower condition examples to rationally unwarranted levels, where the latter are really not hard to come by. Persistent trends throughout the histories of other collecting fields make such "investments" a very, very risky proposition. Depending upon their significance, they will be cyclical in appreciation at best.

My very best wishes always,

Larry

Many lemmings these days it seems. :D

I went through my minor league card collecting phase in the mid to late '90's--they do offer, or at least appear to offer, far greater scarcity than mainstream cards of the same era. But they come with what was then a well-known caveat: a number of them have been reprinted in subsequent years when their value rose, including one of Mattingly's minor league cards, and the Modesto McGwire. Caveat emptor!

Regards,

Larry

PS: I also have and have always liked that particular Frank Thomas card!

Any card can be reprinted but I do understand what you are saying Larry. Like anything, you must do your homework. There are many minor league issues that have the serial number on the card or the sealed set like the Jeter Little Sun. For someone to actually want to do a reprint of a minor league card should be a sign that it's worth some money and the demand is there. Even if a minor league card got reprinted (which is rare IMO) then how close does it come to population numbers of the MLB RC of that player???

The Modesto As Big Mac card was a perfect example too! I have a dozen of uncut sheets of that issue I bought at the National, back when the Dead Sea was only sick! But I'll still take Alomar Witchita Rocks, Pawtucket Clemons, Pittsfield Maddux, and West Palm Vladimir cards all day long as I'd. Be shocked if anyone reprinted them along with the original printer.

It's not just the reprinting prospect, it's that very few people relatively speaking WANT a minor league card, or consider it on the same level as a major league rookie. That said here is my killer Gwynn LOL.

but a group of pied pipers, right?

Indeed. Playing an irresistible tune.

yep. and it goes like this:

1, ah 2 ah 1, 2, 3...

"hof's, i want, you here with me
but i'm really not as cool as i'd like to be
cause there's a rookie card under my bed
and there's a little yellow man in my head
and there's a true, blue, inside of me
that keeps stopping me, from touching ya,
watching ya, buying ya!!!!

paranoia, need destroyer. paranoia, the destroy ya!!!"


nailed it!

HAHAHAHA!!! :D

sorry, but i cracked myself up on that one, pete!

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1550703]It's not just the reprinting prospect, it's that very few people relatively speaking WANT a minor league card, or consider it on the same level as a major league rookie. That said here is my killer Gwynn LOL.

So, with that being said... What do you consider to be Ruth and Dimaggio rookie card?

[QUOTE=BeanTown;1550827]Not the Baltimore News or the Zeenut, although I think those fall into a special category and can't really be compared to 1980s and later minor league team sets.

Condescend much?

This is a put-on, right? I mean the Thomas and Griffey cards aren't even first cards and can be had readily. Unless you purchased them when new (in which case you are a speculator not an investor) or got lucky, they aren't exactly showing massive growth. The Platinum Griffey in a 10 sells for less today than it did in 2015. If you'd put the same $5K into a PSA 7 1954 Aaron you'd have doubled it.

I think most every purchase we do is in speculation that it will go up in value. We hope for the best, and prepare for the worse. Spreading the wealth makes the most sense. Heck, I have many Craig Jeffries, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmero minor league cards which are now lost in the basement. In the flip side I have lots of Jeters and Ripkens which more than cover my entire budget spent on Minor league.

If I was to just into the postwar arena then I would load up on Clemente, Mantle, Maris, Banks, Mays, Rose, Paige, Robinson, etc... And follow the same strategy of hope for the best and prepare for the worst knowing that if one or two cards hit then it pays for everything else...

Now, me personally... I try to not buy things when they are hot. Example, is if a couple deep pocket collectors were buying Old Judges, then I'll settle for Gypsy Queens.

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1550864]+1 there, but the back and forth discussion illustrates a persistent point: what is or is not a "rookie" card is often in the eyes of the [be]holder. Very, very special cards, but certainly not "major league" rookies.

Best always,

Larry

[QUOTE=ls7plus;1551171]The major manufacturers make cards of these kids now two or three years before they play in the majors -- Strasburg, Harper, Trout, Kershaw, and so on. But my understanding is that the market still considers the first cards in a major league uniform to be the RCs.

With all due respect, I think you misunderstood my post, which was likely my fault. By "reprinted," I meant "reissued," i.e., a second or even series of subsequent printings BY THE ORIGINAL ISSUER FROM THE ORIGINAL PLATE! THESE ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE SO-CALLED ORIGINALS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, RATHER THAN A FINITE SUPPLY OF THE CARDS, THERE IS A POTENTIALLY INFINITE AMOUNT THAT MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE WHENEVER THE CARD'S VALUE WARRANTS THE EXPENSE. I am most decidedly NOT talking about taking a photograph of an original card, and making a plate from that in order to produce reprints! A reissue, i.e., more run off from the original plate, will demonstrate the proper, linear dot pattern of any other "original," whereas a "reprint" made through the latter process yields a random dot pattern. The latter can be readily distinguished from the "originals" through magnification, whereas the former cannot, unless different card stock is mistakenly used.

And in practicality, it is certainly NOT true that any card can be "reprinted" in this fashion. IMHO, it is a virtual certainty that the vast majority of original plates from which "original" vintage cards (read "pre-war") can be made have long since ceased to exist. More modern card manufacturers, such as Topps, cannot run the risk of making more "original" cards from their original printing plates because doing so would bring about a total loss of credibility in the marketplace and thus their ruination, even should original plates from the '50's or '60's continue to exist (personally, I doubt that they do, but one never knows for sure).

With minor league cards, however, the printing of such cards was often a one or two-time thing, and there is no effective policing whatsoever with regard to printing more from the original plates when the original issuer determines that added revenue may well be worth it, which is precisely what occurred with both the Mattingly and Modesto McGwire. At the risk of redundancy, THE SUPPLY OF MANY SUCH CARDS DEPENDS ONLY UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL ISSUER, AND IS POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED! Which is why I concluded with "caveat emptor." It is risky in the extreme to buy into any collectible market under such circumstances.

Best of luck to you in your collecting,

Larry

Upper Deck did reprint some of its early high value cards for the execs in the company to sell out the back door. Read "Card Sharks" by Pete Williams. It is a fascinating look at the seamy underbelly of Upper Deck.

I read that also, Adam, and you are exactly right. Going by memory, the cards reissued included the Dale Murphy reversed negative and the Ken Griffey Jr. rookie. My recollection was that the individual primarily responsible subsequently departed the company. And really, where is Upper Deck now re its standing in the hobby?

Highest regards,

Larry

so went back a re-read this thread and this is the cornerstone of which the buying group conspiracy was bedrocked?

absolutely hysterical.


sorry. it just is.

I don't think that the posts regarding minor league cards being reissued is or was stated to be anything more than a tangent to the main discussion. But if you don't think the current market for the key cards of the '50's and 60's is a speculative boom, beware, as this is a far better time to be selling those issues going through it than buying them, IMHO. Collectibles simply don't double, triple or quadruple in such a short time when the demand is coming from legitimate collectors. I wouldn't mind sitting on your CJ Jackson for the long term, though Bob. Congrats on that one!

I think the CJ Jax was a great purchase,

Larry

thanks, larry.

and I think what is causing a lot of debate is the lack of discussion as to what the percentage levels are that things **might** come stumbling down.

many are painting w/ a very broad brush that it's some bubble. and i have agreed for the most part that what has transpired is a bit of an anomaly and a few cards very well could be targeted.

ive even given pictures or proof as to what might have caused some extremely minor part of it. but like most collectors, don't buy for the short term nor even care but since they haven't been buying all they can do is talk.

but the questions which have yet to be answered is IF this "bubble" pops...

who still believes that they will be able to buy, within 1 year to date:

a koufax 7 for $1750?
a clemente 8 for $12K?
a ryan 8 for $2500?


everyone is claiming the sky is gonna fall as if all hell is gonna break loose and the card market is gonna come crashing down to where the above prices will be back to prime.

i don't see it.

i simply don't.

i don't see them continuing to quadruple next month either and have never made such a claim or even hint that they could even double.

but again, i have yet to see anyone of these guys claiming fallacy answer the above questions in respect to pricing before the theorists came a clucking.

and, yes, the fact that this thread is the main soapbox for its inception is even sadder than me wasting my time going back and reading it over after peter pointed back to it as reference.

Hey Bob,
I don't believe this thread is the cornerstone nor the main support for suggesting the market will make a drastic correction. It simply supports that proposition. In time we will all see. No matter how vehement an argument each side puts up it is not going to change the outcome. You obviously love the cards so keep at it.

i don't wanna keep beating the same drum.

it was the only thing that was referenced.

not trying to stir the pot.

anyways, started a simple poll which should equate to peoples overall thoughts in a much simpler fashion...

Right on with that!

Highest regards to all expressing their opinions,

Larry

For me, I have felt that many of the price increases that we've recently seen should've already happened. For the past year or so it hasn't made sense to me why 63 rose 8 was a $4k card, 68 Ryan 8 a $3500 card, 59 Gibson a $1500 card, 68 Bench a $300 card while Clemente, aaron, mantle, Mays were so much higher. Even banks and kaline in Psa 8 were quite a bit higher than those.

One year is too short a time frame to ask the question. There is no reason to assume that the purchasers (assuming legit sales) would have any reason to bail out after only one year. As I recall, after the events of 2008 there were still strong auctions of cards for about a year. Collectors who overpay for cards tend to hold them, not liquidate them, unless forced by circumstance. Dealers trying to move inventory tend to sell into the market, though many dealers, weekend warriors especially, tend to sit on overpriced inventory rather than moving it, hence the eBay virtual museums that some dealers run.

Will prices come back down? Probably. That has been the pattern with every hot streak category in the past. Will they come all the way back down? Probably not. The questions are when, why and by how much.

All I can say is that if I had a card I was into for $4,000 that had gone to $16,000 in a short time I would probably sell it and buy a lower grade one with a tidy profit to spend on more cards.

In light of this http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=222723 thread on the postwar side regarding the recent massive price correction on 55 Koufax 8s, I almost have to laugh at the above statement. This thread was started a mere 7 weeks ago too. So much for the game changing forever.

ugh, this might not be very popular but I loathe the "investor" side of the hobby. The idea of "flipping" and all that irritates me to no end. It has taken cards that might have been ownable for the avg person into the stratosphere. I hear as much if not more about "flips" and grading and prices ..etc than I do about the player's ,their history and the game of baseball. It's like some low rent stock market, it reminds me ofthe junk wax era when it seemed kids were turning into Warren Buffet instead of baseball fans, (and that didn't end well did it?) and it makes me sad.

But hey, it's their money if they want to keep chasing the profits it's their bidness, but in the end I suspect several people are going to end up with egg on their faces and empty pockets when some of these 6 figure cards drop like a stone one day.


EDITED TO ADD: I'm not dismissing the idea of cards as an investment, not at all. If folks want to collect and then sell when they retire to have a little nest egg, that's fine. I'm talking about the flipping and extreme price increases cause by what seems to be a very few amount of people artificially creating a boom. These folks don't like baseball or the hobby, they just want to make a ton of cash and bail. I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but it's hurting the hobby not helping it.