Waste.
 

Hmmm...let's see. Which would I rather have: a signed piece of cardboard that's barely over ten years old from a guy who's barely over thirty years old, or a really nice house?

Wow, that is a tough choice.....

Can't buy or sell from your pocket.

$312k to the person who bought it might be like you spending $312.00

Scale of economy.

I had to get over that hurdle too being in the private aviation industry.

That's a sweet card and if anything, it helps bolster the sports card industry even further.

I think the most interesting part of that article is that the second highest price for a signed card is 50k for a signed Ruth. Crazy by comparison. That was probably also a 1 of 1, even if it wasn't marked as such. If I could have had either yesterday for the same price not knowing what this would sell for I easily would have picked the Ruth.

Im pretty sure that where ever the winner lives, there are no nice houses available for 300k. Although he could have bought a nice car for that.

In Fontana??? :D

Bubble

Lol, even in Fontana the nice ones go for 400k+ Out here in OC you can't even get a condo in a bad neighborhood for 300k.

Agree with the OP. It's stupid money. Manufactured scarcity is meaningless. And LeBron probably has signed hundreds if not thousands of cards.

The game used card market is one I never understand. This buyer could have bought LeBron's game used jersey from Game 1 of the 2016 NBA Finals for a fraction of the price ($52,591.99). A regular season jersey could be bought for below $5,000.

http://auctions.nba.com/iSynApp/auct...24#bid-history

"The card was sold to a basketball card collector only two months ago for an undisclosed sum. That collector told ESPN.com that he was motivated to buy the card after James won the NBA title. He said Goldin convinced him that he could immediately flip it for a much higher price."

Does a quote like this from the article make anyone else nervous given Goldin's association with Maestro and the number of times his name appeared on the documents?

Here's what I found shocking:

"The highest price previously paid for any James item was the $95,000 venture capitalist Bill Lee paid for a 2003-04 card of James' from Upper Deck's Exquisite Collection, which retailed for $500 a pack.

The card that sold Sunday morning was pulled from Upper Deck's Ultimate Collection set, which were sold for $125 a pack with only four cards in a pack."

Somebody has the gall to sell a new pack of cards for $500??!??!!!?

Old saying there's a sucker born everyday

Very surprised by some of these responses. You guys act like the guy who bought it is some average joe who spent his life savings on it, which is obviously not the case. Clearly some millionaire who has all kinds of cash to throw around. I also thought people had more understanding for modern card collectors. I've always been a vintage guy, but I'm sure some of the modern collectors wonder why in the world we buy cards of guys that we'll never see play or have the oppotunity to idolize. I do agree on how ridiculous it is that this card goes for 6 times what an entire game used jersey goes for... I'd take the jersey over this card any day of the week

And as someone already said, it's not like LeBron hasn't signed hundreds of thousands of items before. What is the difference between this "manufactured" card "product" and something signed by James during his rookie year?

I guess $300,000 is the answer.

That's just stupid -- and doesn't matter how much money you have....

Because it is clearly sane to buy cards with minor deviations. Different factory number. Missing bits of ink. 'Cause those are old. This whole hobby makes a clear case for beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

As a baseball card collector with a collection going from present day back to Old Judge and a baseball autograph collection with examples to the 1870s and other memorabilia, I have yet to grasp the allure of manufactured memorabilia and inserts and the understanding of why they sell for so much more at times than other available and appealing pieces of memorabilia .
But I figure like all collections it is a matter of taste and wants. I always wonder however will they ever recoup their money if they try sell it .

Octavio, you are slightly off - the old saying actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%...n_every_minute
But in this day and age, I think the saying should be, "There's a sucker born every second."
Val

I say, "buy what you like, like what you buy, and leave the rest for everyone else."

If I had $300,000+ to spend on this hobby, it wouldn't be used to purchase a modern card of LeBron James. However, my acquisitions, whatever they might be, would likely be viewed upon as wasteful spending by a great many people.

Waste.
 

I wouldn't say he's a sucker or it's a waste of money, that's just ignorant. Sure, may be a waste for us but to them I'm sure it's pocket change.

Amazing the card sold this much without the patch even being game used.

qft

I think eminence came out at like 5k a pack a few months ago. Something like 7 cards...

Lebron has an exclusive with UD, panini had an exclusive with the NBA. He hasnt signed anything in uniform in a hot minute.

I'm not going to go into whether the Lebron card is actually worth 300+K too much. Like most everyone else, I think the card went much too high. I think the somewhat analogous comparison would be how much a complete Lebron James rookie game used uniform that he signed would go for. It seems reasonable to assume that the signed rookie uniform should go substantially more than the card.

Back to the card. It's not just any signed Lebron James card. It is a signed ROOKIE card. I don't want to get into a debate on why rookie cards should be much more valuable than other cards for a player. Let's just say that's the reality. (And I'm not going to go into those cases either where the card manufacturer issues the rookie card YEARS after the player's rookie reason. Not going there. Also not going into those cases where the jersey on the card wasn't even that player's jersey or wasn't truly game worn.)

I don't collect modern cards or modern rookie cards. However, from what I can tell, in a player's rookie year, there are tons of different cards that are released. Therefore rookie card collectors look for that player's "best" rookie card. (You can often try googling this: What is <player name> best rookie card?) Typically, these are the characteristics that go into the player's best rookie card:

(1) Manufactured scarcity: the lower the print # the better (I know ppl hate this, but that's the way it is.)
(2) Is there an auto on the card? (Extra points if the player signed on the card rather than on a sticker that is put on the card.)
(3) Is there a game used patch on the card? Extra points if the patch is multi-color/jumbo-size, has laundry tag or logoman, etc.

Cards issued by a major manufacturer (e.g., Topps/Bowman, etc) are more valued than from a minor vendor. TPG grade and eye appeal also play a smaller part.

Therefore, this card has some of the top characteristics that say that this is probably one of the top LBG rookie cards if not the top one. Again, whether this means the card is worth 300+K is another story ...

It sounds crazy, but there is a lot of product out there now that costs even more. And there are high end collectors that break multiple cases of various issues as soon as they come out. Out of my league, but someone I used to work with did it frequently. He sells most of the cards right away, and keeps a few here and there for his collection. Occasionally he would take a big hit but it was amazing how often he'd break even or turn a profit despite keeping a couple cards.

And those $500 exquisite packs from 03 now go for about 10k. If you can find one.

I'd rather just put 10K on red. Seems like that would be more fiscally responsible.

It has the miniscule game-worn NBA patch (Hi Jerry West!)

I'll second Charlie there.

One of the reasons that modern cards don't interest me is that they really are just a kind of gambling. Cardboard slot machines. There has always been some tomfoolery involved in baseball cards: think of the Goudey Lajoie; just skipping a number to get the kids to buy more cards is pretty sneaky. But, as far as I can tell, this is all that modern cards have become.

As for whether they'll hold their value, I don't know. But most collectibles that are made to be collectible are junk (think about things like the decorative plates that they sell on QVC). Vintage cards (this is actually a nice crossover point for another thread) weren't made to be collectibles, at least not in any modern sense, they were made to be children's toys. Bike spokes and all that. Now, it's permissible to think that adults shouldn't spend money collecting children's toys, but if there is a problem with it, it's not the same one as buying lottery tickets from Upper Deck.

I think the discussion over if the card is worth the price is similar to those asking if a PSA 10 63 Rose is really worth the 700k or whatever it sold for. For one it's irrelevant what we think, it was worth it to the guy who won it, and worth almost as much to the under bidder. It's a 1 of 1, and LeBron's most sought after rookie card. Or one of them. There are thousands of 63 Rose's out there, and perhaps 100s of thousands of LeBron rookies. But only one PSA 10 and only one 1 of 1 logoman auto.

I'd still rather have the signed 33 goudey ruth for 50k. But I wasn't bidding on either.

By your definition nobody in history has ever overpaid for anything, because it was "worth it to the guy who won it."

You guys were all over Golden auctions on the Wagner going 'below' estimate.

im assuming the lebron card blew away their estimate...

People over pay for things all of the time. My point is that it doesn't matter if we think he did. And that it's very difficult to say when your talking about the only one in existence.

I don't get your point. Nobody said it mattered what we think. If that was a requirement for having a discussion there wouldn't be many, would there?

As for 1/1s, I disagree. The LeBron is a 1/1 due to artificial, manufactured scarcity. Topps could print a million Jeter rookies and put a red dot on one of them and it would be a 1/1 too. So what? And Rose is one of 30 or so graded Mint. I would bet anything if you cracked out the 10 and the 25+ 9s you could not reliably pick out the 10. So again, so what? The 10 is an artificial grade and if it's a 1/1 that is, to me, artificial as well.

plus if bidding is legit....whatever the winning bid was...the underbidder may of just been a few hundred below them and another bidder a few hundred more.

so when talking thousands and thousands of dollars...maybe the winning buyer was willing to 'overpay' by 1-3 percent to win the card....to me thats just market price ...we expect to lose 5-10% on any card we buy at a huge auction and sell the next week in an auction.

Now on private sales i can see someone 'overpaying' when no one else would pay within 50% of what a guy paid to pry a card out of someone's hands...but still time will tell.

but again in a fair auction...noone is going to be paying 50% more than the market due to all the under bidders.....in a private deal , all you have is the seller saying 'i already have someone offering X for the card' thats not as legit as seeing a real bid in an auction..

I would never suggest to someone how he should spend his money, but if the buyer of the James card expects to redeem his investment at some point, I think he runs the risk of disappointment. I don't think that cards that are highly valued because of a contrived limited supply (like one of one) will retain their value over time. It's my guess that at some point collectors will recognize that there is little difference among autographed rookie cards of LeBron, or anyone else for that matter.

Two people or even three can get caught up in hype and hysteria just as easily as one. So to me a "legit" auction price is not at all inconsistent with the winner overpaying.

I don't see the point in criticizing someone for their purchase. Calling it a waste, him stupid, etc. He spent what he spent. I doubt anyone commenting in the thread even considered bidding. A modern card selling for 300k is worth mentioning on the board. Insulting the guy who bought it is in bad form, in my opinion.

right but theres a chance they werent caught up as well. There still were others willing to go very close to the sale price

when you do a private deal you have no way to know if someone else is even willing to bid close in a hysteria situation if thats all it was..

George Carlin hit the nail on the head:

“Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”

I'm sure the guy who bought the James card said to his family and/or friends, "Sometimes you gotta say WTF" :D

I could not agree more

+1

Since manufactured scarcity is meaningless, does that apply to leaf Graziano, caramel McKinley and Lindstrom, and Goudey Lajoie? In my opinion these are all the same as the LeBron 1/1. Short produced to keep people purchasing their products. The only difference I see is the level of transparency.

You can take lajoie off the list as this was printed in response to collectors complaining... And anyone could have received this card free of charge all they had to do was ask. Theoretically there could be way more lajoies than any other card in the set...although this is obviiusly not the case.

You can take it off your list. I will keep it on mine. It IS a manufactured scarcity.

To be honest, I am not that familiar with this specific James card - is it part of a regular Upper Deck set or just a stand alone piece of memorabilia? Do you need the card in order to complete the set, as you would with the McKinley, Lindstrom, Lajoie, etc.?

haha...it is now off MY list!!!!!

Same with the George C. Miller Ivy Andrews.

Bidder probably already has a really nice house.

lol Pete.

Different IMO. At the time none of those cards, though scarce by design, were worth anything. They weren't short printed to create artificially valuable collectibles.

I don't believe the reason the LeBron was created was to create artificial value. I believe it was created to sell packs, boxes and cases. The exact reason the others were made. I believe they are one and the same. Would I buy the LeBron card - if I could afford it? Probably not. Would I consider the others I mentioned, maybe, but not a 100% lock. The value of scrap cardboard is about 160 bucks (+/-) and anything more than that, there is no guarantee on investment recapture. So the question, in my mind, could I get 6 figure enjoyment from pride of ownership from any of these? My answer would be no on all except Lajoie. Then bring in the possibility of appreciation as a novelty collectible same question... would I buy for investment? Possible on the older stuff, IMO too risky on the newer LeBron. So, in my mind I would probably only purchase 1 of these and that would be Lajoie. But I feel the production was created with the same exact marketing mindset on each and everyone. The reason I would likely buy the Lajoie would have to do with the colored insert pages in the first sport Americana annual. I used to look at that Lajoie and drool. So my desire is also a form of marketing that was done by the producers of the price guide. Like everything that we may covet, there is something, somewhere manipulating our desires. There will always be informationprovid4d to create perceived value on items. Otherwise, Don Mossi and Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth would all be valued the same.

And to get back to the point of this post, I firmly believe that each of these examples were created for exactly the same reason in each case. To increase sales and build customer base.

I don't believe in moral relativism. Just because someone thinks something is true doesn't necessarily mean it's true in objective reality. Same goes for money: just because you have the means doesn't mean that the money wasn't wasted.

What this autographed James card is lacking that the other things mentioned in the post have is HISTORY. The fact that for $300,00 I can buy single signed autographed baseballs of the first five members of baseball's hall of fame and still possibly have money left over for something signed by George Washington or Alexander Hamilton defies logic. That is why I called it stupid.

There should be no memorabilia of any current player in any sport that should sell for over Quarter of a Million dollars. We can quibble if it should have sold for $5,000 or $25,000 because that still is in the realm of the plausible.

But remember, this was not a buy it now. There was at least one more buyer who kept pushing the price up and up and wound up being the under bidder at somewhere around $240,000....

There is one difference here LeBron could produce more of the same type of product if he chooses. This is beyond insane. Having stupid money is one thing but u tell me how much you'd have to have to spend 300k on this. 1 billion wouldn't be enough. This is nuts but that's just my opinion.

For $300k I was thinking Brawley‼️

I think an earlier poster hit the nail on the head when he referred to people buying expensive modern cards as almost a form of gambling. There are virtually no card shops to go and buy cards at anymore, the game for selling modern cards is now in the hands of the Breakers. All you have to do is see how prominently the Breakers and the Breakers Pavilion have grown over the past few years at The National and you may begin to see how the modern card market has morphed over say the last decade or so. Because of all the different products and subsets churned out by the card companies, not very many people still try to put together modern sets anymore. Back in the day when Topps had the monopoly on baseball cards, they put out one main set that everyone would try to collect. Nowadays a new product comes out, and then a week or two later another one, then another one, and so on. So which set does a collector focus on, and then what about the subsets and auto and game used cards and so on that may also be attributed to s specific set? It is impossible to collect everything anymore and finish sets due to the short prints and manufactured rarities they often include.

Still, it is also foolish to think badly of someone for paying so much for this LeBron card. As others have already stated, the buyer paid what he wanted and had the money so, he's to put him down for doing what he wanted. Now whether or not someday he'd be able to sell that same card and make a profit.....that is an entirely different story altogether, and who knows. Whether someone values something because it is a manufactured rarity or a rarity because so few still exist, that is just a personal perception and belief. Collectors collect because they want to and, if they perceive something is rare or generally unavailable, they tend to want it all the more.

The manufactured rarities are here to stay though, at least for now, and are actually being embraced by the card manufacturers because they've learned that is what drives the people who buy cards from the Breakers. When you start selling packs of cards for $20, $50, $100, $500 or even more, a pack, the average collector, let alone kid on the street, is probably not going to have that kind of money.

The Breakers were the solution to the situation caused by rising card prices. Instead of a collector spending $500 on a single pack of cards, and more likely getting nothing of equal perceived value in return, a Breaker would buy the entire case and then sell individual chances at say teams or divisions for a fraction of the $500 single pack price, something much more affordable to the average collector. Say a collector spent $75 for their spot and ended up with cards only worth a perceived value of about $50. That is a lot easier pill to swallow than paying $500 for a single pack and only getting a $50 card in return. Plus, in watching the Breakers open the case live on the internet, they'll likely see that someone else got a big card, or two, that could be sold for well over the $500 pack price. Here's where the gambling aspect comes into it. Add to that the excitement of watching the packs being opened live on the internet and you have people getting hooked, just like going to the casino.

I know for a fact that those Breakers who try to sell their spots through Ebay have to be careful that everyone gets something for the spots they purchase in a Break. If not, even Ebay considers that a form of gambling and will pull the auction if they are notified of it.

In a lot of cases, the people who "hit" these big cards from the Breaks turn around and then immediately sell them online for a lot of money. The shocker to me then is, who exactly is buying these cards that makes people see they can get money off these what are mostly modern, manufactured rarities? I've heard rumors that the card manufacturers themselves may even be behind some of these secondary market purchases, so as to keep the conceived market for these modern cards as high as possible, and to therefore keep the public thinking these cards are worth more than they may actually be. This then allows the card manufacturers to continue to justify the high prices they charge and ultimately makes them more profits. It isn't shilling but, if it were to be the case, it would certainly smack of market manipulation

Heck, we've even had some breaks run through this site looking to sell older sets. Tell me that of you who have purchased spots in such vintage Breaks, were you not doing so on the off chance that you would be lucky enough to hit one of the big cards in a set for a fraction of its regular value? Of course you were, and if so, how is this really any different than gambling or buying lottery tickets?

BobC

For $300k you could probably get Lebron himself to come to your house and give you a reach around.

Disagree somewhat. The historical examples are inducing people to try to complete sets. Companies like Upper Deck know 1/1s and other chase cards sell product because of their perceived value, not because anyone is simply looking to complete a set or just wants the cards for their own sake. So to me, the purpose of the LeBron card and its ilk is in fact to create value. In other words, creating artificial value is the means to selling more product, whereas in the former cases it was just set completion.

Modern cards are all about money. Outside of building a basic set it's what drives people to buy product, bust packs, etc. Of course vintage cards have become the same way, but when they were produced they weren't, and that to me differentiates real value and artificial value. At least until someone makes a good argument that I'm wrong. :)

I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to say it!

Just an FYI. If you placed 1 billion in the bank and could only get 4% compounded ANNUALLY you would earn $109,589.04 in interest daily. Let that sink in. Daily. Plus whatever the person did to create the billion to begin with. To assume a billionaire wouldn't/couldn't make this kind of purchase is short sighted. Looks to me like he/she could buy 2 a week and never touch their principal, including shipping.

You're missing the point. No one said the person couldn't buy it (or ten of them). It's that the person SHOULDN'T.

The billionaire could afford a gold toilet too -- that's just called hedonism and gaudy decadence...

No. you are missing the point. You are making your conclusions from your base of knowledge. Put your self in a starving persons shoes. Offer them a psa 10 Mickey mantle or a coupon book for Golden Corral. Bet they choose the coupons. And in their opinion 5 dollars on a card is waste. It is all relative.

We all need to check with Scott from now on to be sure our purchases are within his realm of norm. What a narcissistic opinion you have. Wow.

Mark Medlin

Sorry, Mark, but your analogy doesn't apply here because this is a baseball card forum. We are all buyers and sellers of baseball cards. I would not try to justify anything hobby-related to the layman.

However, I didn't call the buyer of the card stupid -- I called the decision stupid.

I have a bat signed by HOFer Frank Thomas during his rookie season. I will gladly accept $300,000 from you. I take PayPal.

Scott,

Just to be clear - I already posted I wouldn't buy the card for that. No desire. But I don't pretend to know what is the right or wrong thing for another to do with their money. I also couldn't come close to affording the card. But to say that this card is a bargain for 50,000 and that card was cheap for 100,000 and that one is overpriced for 200 and that one is crazy for 300k is all subjective. The true value, as I posted earlier is what the value of the raw material is - about 160 bucks a ton. Anything beyond that is merely subjective and for each individual buyer to determine if they are satisfied with their purchase. I only took exception to your comment because you stated that even a billionaire should struggle with paying 300k for this. Who knows, maybe is a birthday gift for a 10 year old kid from a wealthy relative. I know many times I have spent way too much money just to see my kids smile (think American Girl Store). But I can't begin to know or understand what any other person may deem as a bargain and I just feel it's a little presumptuous for us as a collective group of hobbyist to uphold one person spend 1000 bucks while berating another for spending 300k. They are both the same - just perspective is different. We can surely easily put ourselves in the shoes of the smaller purchaser, but lose scope when comparing the high end purchase.

It reflects a situation I personally wouldn't mind trying on for size--more money than brains. That is, if this mental side of this equation could be overcome! $illy $tupid! IMHO, virtually zero upside, and $300,000+ downside! P.T Barnum in living color!

Best regards,

Larry

Paying for stuff that others think is overpriced or not reasonable happens all the time...to each their own

no one would of bought any time shares if they were worried about getting good value etc.

Didn't say he wouldn't or couldn't. I said in my opinion it was insane. I am also aware of how compounding works and the amount that would be generated daily from a 1 billion dollar corpus at prevailing rates/yields.

I hear Lebron bought the card personally because he wanted to start a PC of his best cards. Maybe he is manipulating his card values to be more than MJ's?

A thought-provoking thread...good reading.

I continue to believe that folks should not be criticized for how they spend their money and that the buyer of the James card has assumed a significant downside risk. It may well be that cards of manufactured scarcity from the 1930s also pose a downside risk but it seems to me to be a lesser risk and for a different reason -- aging (and so on) of we baby-boomers.

First, there was the $700,000 Rose rookie card; now the $300,000 LeBron card.

Ok, Forum: what's next?

whats next? a 250K 1977 burger king lou pinella.

Don't forget the PSA 10....its gotta be a PSA 10.

Now that would objectively make about as much sense. There are at least seven better NBA players in its history who have inarguably been better than LeBron (super-centers are ALWAYS able to contribute more in defense and rebounding): (1) Wilt Chamberlain, who won whenever he had a team behind him, and was truly unstoppable in his youth; (2) Bill Russell, winner of 11, count 'em, 11 NBA championships, and the true "king;" (3) Kareem Abdul Jabbar; (4) Shaquille O'Neil (the closest thing to Chamberlain there has ever been; (5) Michael Jordan; (6) Magic Johnson; and (7) one of Boston's three Gods, Larry Bird.

Sure, people have every right to waste their money any way they please, but I'm sorry, $tupid is $tupid! The so-called, self-proclaimed "legends" of today will fade, and pale in comparison to those icons who have lasted the test of time. Ten years from now LeBron will blend right into lesser players, while Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Williams, Wagner, Jackson, Hornsby, etc. will never do so in our lifetimes!

Sorry, but I find this purchase offends me when I think of the many much better cards I could have bought with that sum. This transaction is best summed up as tragic!

But to each his own,

Larry

I've been watching basketball for decades and in the context of his time I would rate LeBron right up there with the guys on your list. ESPN ranks him 3 incidentally.

LeBron is definitely one of the greatest basketball players of all time. The issue I have is the final hammer price of the item versus the relative newness of the item and the faux scarcity of the item (as opposed to, say, LeBron's only diamond-encrusted championship ring with the Cavs).

This made the news, even up here in Canada, so I think it is ultimately good for the hobby.

I am no one to judge so I have no problem if someone can afford to pay what they did for this card.

There are too many unknowns to consider before saying this was stupid wasted money.

I agree with those who suggest that LeBron will go down as one of the all-time greats. Nevertheless, I can't see this card retaining such high value.

Waste.
 

I respectfully disagree, a ton. LeBron's legacy will never fade. He's an All-Time great right now.

And really, the purchase offends you!? Are you kidding me?! Oh, I'm sorry they didn't ask you first for your thoughts and what cards you wanted. Lol smh

ESPN ranked Kobe #2 and after he is retired, he is #12. It is all about hyping current players to get hits. They ranked 2 time all NBA player Steph Curry as the 4th best PG. When Lebron retires, he will be looked at as lower than most of those guys listed.

Yes, it most certainly does and it should trouble each and every knowledgeable collector out there! Perhaps you are unaware of how appraisals are made to ascertain a reasonable value for both real and tangible property (as an attorney, I've certainly had abundant exposure to the process): they compare sales of similar property, and make the necessary adjustments that are called for. Certainly you wouldn't suggest, Brent, that the $312,000 LeBron card is or will be even remotely comparable in long term value to such cards as the 1910 T210 Joe Jackson currently being auctioned in Steve Verkman's Clean Sweep Auctions (it was at $108,000 as of yesterday, including buyer's premium), the Buttercream Ruth, the 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth at the level it was at just 8-9 years ago (when an example graded "poor" went for $152,000, only to resell just six years later at $450,000+, Ty Cobb with Ty Cobb Tobacco back, etc., etc. Having studiously collected for more than a quarter century, I certainly wouldn't, and I highly doubt other experienced collectors would either. While many would believe the self-proclaimed "king" to be among the all-time greats (and I would completely concur, but having devotedly watched NBA action for decades like Peter, having seen Russell, Chamberlain and Jabbar, as well as Magic Johnson and Larry Bird in their primes, and having had Pistons' seasons tickets for many years, what I have seen inevitably leads me to the conclusion that those I have listed were purely and simply better. LeBron compares more favorably to all-time greats such as Oscar Robertson and Jerry West than he does to the others), I seriously doubt that any knowledgeable collector in his right mind would "appraise" the sale value of the LeBron Card as being reasonable by way of comparison to those cards mentioned above.

As I stated, while I certainly don't pretend to dictate to others the manner in which they may waste their money, I don't think the particular verb chosen is anything other than completely appropriate. Some things are matters of opinion, others are of fact--evidence, knowledge and analytical ability are often determinative as to which is which. So, who's kidding who?

Best regards,

Larry