Thoughts on this 1925 Gehrig
 

In the Heritage auction that closed last night, the Gehrig first pictured below, failed to get a bid at the reserve of $98.4k with buyers premium.

According to VCP, the same exact card, pictured second below in an older SGC flip, sold for $132k (a record for the grade) in a PWCC Premier auction in February of 2022.

Thoughts? Maybe the new flip devalued the card by $40k??!!! (Joke)

I think we're seeing a shift, we've been seeing it IMO.

While blue-chip vintage is still strong, I think people are more hesitant with so many economic uncertainties plaguing the nation at the moment. COVID money is gone, people are fully back to work at this point, we can now travel wherever we want. Combine that with the fact that the country is trying to figure out if we are in a recession already, or heading for one.

With prices of every day goods rising through the roof, something has to give.

I saw the card and was watching it and surprised that it did not hit the reserve. The prices of the Rookies for him has been insane.

Just curious if this is just a one off and if when they try and re auction it it will go for higher.

Key Card for a Monster Player.

I do not think it is the economics at play because other top cards are going for some strong prices

As an aside there were a couple of early Gehrig Cards of his that were not Rookie cards but were nice

Possibly because the card and grade don't match and bidders wised up. It is a 1 all day long, not a 3.

Looked nicer in the original case (when I owned it).

Agree, the bottom right corner looks more jagged now and is missing some paper that was there before.

+1

I guess you roll the dice when you get something that fragile re-slabbed.

Good thing the seller had a high reserve. But I'm not sure they'll be making their money back any time soon--its in rough shape, even if the flip says its a "3".

Even a side from lower right corner, this is the rare card that lost a lot of eye appeal in the new SGC slab.

Seller is fortunate SGC gave him the same grade.

Personally, it's not the slab for me. That bottom right corner is much worse in the new holder. If I were paying 100k for a card, which isn't super rare, I would look at that unfavorably. If it was super rare, that would be another story.
.

That seems on par for the typical drop in prices across the market since 2022.

Most of the other prices from the same Heritage Auction were quite strong.

Yes and the Joe Jackson prices were extremely strong for the 2 Blankets and the Pennant

You know me
 

I'll go a little contrarian here and suggest that the problem was the reserve. For some reason, when there's a reserve, it spooks bidders, sometimes in major ways. It destroys the flow of the auction. It disrupts those animal spirits with everyone trying to out-stupid each other. That big jump throws people off. All of a sudden, they sit back, reflect, and start to wonder if it's really a good idea to bid that much.

For example, I remember last year there was a nice 1952 Bowman PSA 9 Mays up for auction. The bidding was fast and furious, and got up to $100k or so (plus the juice, natch). A couple of days before the auction closed, the reserve kicked in, and jumped the next required bid up to $200k ($240k with the juice).

At that point, the entire dynamic of the auction changed. Nobody bid on it again. It had been going fast and furious, people bidding left and right. I bet if the reserve had not kicked in, it would have easily sold for more than $200k. But when that reserve kicked in, it probably confused some bidders, and spooked the rest. So it didn't sell, because no one touched it after the reserve kicked in.

A couple months later, the same card comes up at the same auction house. Not just the same grade. The exact same card. I'm thinking that maybe I can score a bargain. This time, no reserve.

Care to guess what happens? People go nuts. No reserve holding anyone back. In the last couple of days, it doubles, and then doubles again. With the juice, it goes for $444k.

Now, you could argue that the difference of a month or two might have made a difference. Since we're talking about late 2021 and early 2022, I would posit that any difference wouldn't be gigantic. Certainly not $200k worth.

For my money, having (or not having) a reserve made all the difference.

If you want to see the card, here's the auction listing where it sold:

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515

Right now it’s a buyers market. In the recent REA auction, there were numerous cards that went way below what they went for just a few months ago. So, Buy Buy Buy

Nicolo, I think you may be on to something. I did not consider the reserve when I started the thread. I thought the market, over-graded, the flip, the auction house (although I would put this card in Heritage every day over PWCC, which is very modern heavy). But I did not consider the reserve. Great Point!


Al C of LOTG is on record time and again stating that reserves inhibit bidding and lots often do worse when there is a reserve. I would love to hear from other AHs about this. Also, in my personal experience, I have purchased two large items that had a reserve -- I paid the reserve price, nothing more, and I felt I got a great deal on both.

Agree with sb1. With that much corner wear, that card should have never been originally graded a 3. Coupled with the extensive foxing, this is not a nice looking example IMHO. To me, it looks like a 1.5 at best.

Gehrig
 

+1000! Spot on. Card is significantly over-graded. Severe corner rounding merits a 1.5 - 2 assessment at best & add in the foxing/surface soiling and it’s a borderline 1.

The market is not as strong today as it was in early 2022. I am pretty sure this is the 2nd Gehrig rookie I have seen sell in the last 3 months which resulted in a lower price than it had attained in a recent sale. Prior to posting I went to try to find that sale and cannot recall which house had it.

I think the reserve may have turned off some bidders but really when someone wants a card badly enough I think we all know that a reserve is not going to stop them from bidding. However with that said, a reserve is very much like an eBay store listing and I think as collectors most of us prefer to bid and feel like we are more in control of the price we pay.

And lastly...the first sale was a PWCC sale. I will always remain skeptical of their auction results which is why I have not and will not look at their listings.

And on the flip side, of the inaccurate grading issues. Here is one I had graded at the National for a friend. Was expecting a far higher grade than the one received.

I did get a review and was told and I quote "you can't see it through the plastic but there is a small series of wrinkles on the back" and they pointed to the lower left back area. I smiled and took the card and walked back to my table. Pretty sure the clear plastic was not hiding any issues. Have louped it and viewed under various lighting and still can't find the flaw.

That being said, if/when this card were to ever be auctioned it would bring multiples of the grade assigned with the eye appeal being far superior, rather than the eye appeal being so terrible on the one auctioned last night.

That is a STUNNING 2.5! Buy the card not the grade. I'd be a happy man with either, but alas, I'll have none. Way out of my price range.

Bill

There is a lot of corner missing on this one, all corners extremely rounded. If this were in a Grade 2 slab, am sure the price would drop a lot, and would be more in line with reality. Tough to get a "3" price for this particular example.

+1,001

I fully agree the card is over-graded, does not deserve a 3 (maybe not a 2), and the card looks worse in the new slab (the bottom right corner specifically), but if you believe the PWCC sale from February, the card did not receive a bid at the $98.4k reserve amount, which means the same exact card -- a 1925 Lou Gehrig Rookie (71 on combined PSA/SGC Pop repot), has gone down 26% in less than year. I am not sure it is just the market or just the condition/slab, Maybe a combo of both and the reserve...

Or, maybe people just arent keen on Lou anymore

just not a good exemplar for where the market is on '25 Exhibit Gehrig

I do believe in the theory that a reserve can be a real buzz kill. The psychology of auctions is a weird one.

I've listed an item on eBay with a $19.99 opening bid and its crickets for 6 months. . . . then I list it at 99 cents and it sells for $57. Happens all the time.

Posts like this one are why I wish there was a "LIKE" button!

we don't do them and never will.

First off it’s a great card no matter what. Not shocked it went for far less money in HA. HA is a very credible AH compared to PWCC which I think is still under a Federal investigation. The bottom right corner got worse on the flip as now it has more paper loss. Completely over graded back then and now. Add the reserve factor to the mix and I think it realized a fair amount for its current state. Scott’s Gehrig is gorgeous and would easily double or triple what the higher graded Gehrig sold for that Ryan showed IMO. Maybe who submits the card makes a difference to I dunno. Lastly, there are two different shades for the 1925 Exhibits which only advanced collectors know about and rarely post about. That could be a factor as well.

Lots of good points, mostly all valid IMHO. I also don't mind seeing that even the 6-figure, high-end cards are not immune to the current state of the hobby/economy. Why shouldn't those with deep pockets take it on the chin as often as those of us common folk who could never afford to play in that arena and have sure seen plenty of our cards dropping throughout 2021 and continuing even more so throughout 2022. As everone is quick to note though, still well ahead of the game pre-2020, assuming that you already owned the cards at that time.

Personally, I think the points made above are valid. However, I believe Gehrig cards were overpriced and are now coming back to earth. In my mind Gehrig was only very slightly better than Foxx. There is no reason other than his untimely death that there should be such a large price discrepancy between their cards.

Jay, I think the value is based on popularity only, perhaps due to the illness/death, not due to his on-field performance.

Think of the All-time Yankees by popularity and he easily makes the top 5, where in that order is subject to debate. Obviously, most would pick Ruth at #1 and then you are left with Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantle to sort out the order. I am not even sure who I would put in the 5th spot, probably Jeter, but Berra would also be in the mix.

Hopefully it means a few of us can get a chance to a get one of those 71 Rookie cards if market and budget permit :):):)

Price and broad appeal of cards has only part to do with numbers. And in some cases very little. Jackie Robinson prime example. Right now Joe Burrow cards are outselling Terry Bradshaw by 159x. And Zion is probably still outselling Willie Reed. And some Yankee prospect in AA is outselling Mike Schmidt and Gary Carter out together. Times 100.

Gehrig was an amazing player. Best yankeee 1B of all time. But clearly his appeal goes far beyond that.

Gehrig, the guy who would've been a lock for 600 Home Runs and 3000 hits, if he didn't contract ALS was not just "slightly better" than Foxx.

To quote Joe Posnaski

"But Gehrig’s OPS of 1.080 is third all-time, behind only Ruth and Williams. He hit .340/.447/.632, walked about twice as much as he struck out and led the league at different times in doubles, triples and home runs. His 185 RBIs in 1931 is an American League record, and his 167 runs scored in 1936 is second only to Ruth’s 1921 season, a number even more incredible when you realize Ruth wasn’t on that 1936 team.

At one point or another, Gehrig led the league in just about everything: runs, hits, doubles, triples, home runs, RBIs, walks, batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage and total bases."

He walked more than Foxx, he struck out less than Foxx, He eclipses Foxx in every statistical category other than Home Runs, despite playing 150 games less than him. His Weighted Runs Created +, the statistic that is era and park adjusted, Ranks him as the third greatest offensive force in all of Baseball history behind Ruth and Williams.

Not to mention the consecutive games streak, or the fact that he was a 7 Time World Champion.

The entire market was inflated. Not just Lou.

+1000

It’s nice to see people are placing a premium on sobriety…. :)

I see what you did there!


I feel Gerhig is still very underrated, However the exhibit frenzy does nothing for me. Traditionally the pariahs of the hobby are now the hottest things on the planet?

Often overlooked for many decades, they certainly had more upside, but nothing has changed in the last 50 years to make them more desirable. Maybe more people know about them now, but they vastly undersold and historically were not as desirable as the old gum/candy cards. This is boots on the ground fact from the early 90s! Dating myself here I know ;)

The 33 world wide gum cards have much more appeal IMO..that's opinion for those keep tally marks

In 1932, Foxx was credited with 58 HRs. Foxx actually did hit 2 more additional HRs in rain shortened games that were then erased from the record books altogether. That would have tied him with Ruth at 60.

Now factor in a special screen that was set up above the regular outfield wall. It has been estimated that Foxx had actually lost as many as 12 HRs in total. Foxx could have ended the season with as many as 70 HRs.

Foxx, not Ruth, would have been the owner of one of the most famous and sacred record in all of sports. What would have been the perception of Foxx if he wasn't so unlucky.

At this point, gotta show cards ...

Hmmm
 

That Gehrig is not much better than mine...

But he’s not…

Gehrig beats Foxx in all intangibles - he played with Ruth, on America’s baseball team, won 6 championships (someone said), held the record for most consecutive games and was called the Iron Horse (nickname), was a handsome all American boy, and has a disease named after him.

Foxx was an amazing player. But he was a drunk with zero post-baseball accolades; best thing he did was sort of get portrait by Tom Hanks in League of their own.

The biggest stars are known for more than baseball.

I believe what you say is true. My dad, who was born in 1918 and an intense fan, idolized Ruth, Gehrig and Foxx. I believe the three of them were his three favorite players, all time. My dad lived into the modern era, and I know he thought Gehrig and Foxx the two greatest first basemen, especially Gehrig, being handicapped by being left handed. That is very unnatural for a first baseman. He thought Ruth the greatest single player. When someone would say Ruth was obese, he would say they were only looking at photos or newsreel films at the end of his career or after he quit playing. Dad always said Ruth played spectacularly and lived spectacularly, and it caught up with him. He was quite right.

Great looking Gehrig

thanks for sharing

Gehrig over Fox as many mentioned above and Fox might have been perceived as even greater if it was not for his drinking problems while Gehrig was seen as the all American Boy who suffered a tragic end.

Gehrig
 

Jay - Lou Gehrig is the third greatest hitter in baseball history behind Williams & Ruth, and that counts for an awful lot. Regarding the Foxx comparison, Gehrig’s lifetime batting average is 15 points higher than Foxx (.340 vs. .325) as well as his OPS being 0.41 higher (1.076 vs. 1.035). Over 16/17 years, that’s a significant advantage. Their lifetime homers & RBIs are extremely close). Add in his unfathomable 2,130 consecutive game streak, 6 world championships (not counting 1939), and the fact his career was suddenly cut short while he was still performing at a world class level (he would have hit over 600 homers and knocked in 2,400+ runs), and Gehrig easily gets the nod. Interestingly enough, most people fail to realize that in 1938 (having just turned 35 on 6/13/38), Gehrig was on his way to another one of his incredible campaigns. In early to mid-August, he inexplicably hit a wall, slumping badly including the Fall Classic where he managed only 4 meager singles. While still managing to hit 29 dingers and bat in 114 runs, he would have belted approx. 40 homers and posted 140+ RBIs. No one knew the ill effects of ALS was the reason for his awful final 2-month slump, and the rest is history. Gehrig bests Foxx and is right on the heels of Williams & Ruth. I do believe Foxx is one of the 3 greatest right-handed hitters along with Hornsby & Aaron (Mays & Pujols get honorable mention). Like Hornsby, Double X’s cards are significantly undervalued.

Buy the card, not the player?

Let's get back to that card. Are you able to hit that card with a black light?

I understand that it's in a holder, professionally graded. All of those corners look uniformly rounded. That uniformity is a bit of a flag for me. I'd want to illuminate it with uv light and see if it fluoresces.

So that is foremost among my "thoughts about that 1925 Gehrig"

Joe—I think the comparison is a lot closer than you think. Foxx had 133 more ABs for his career than Gehrig but hit 41 more HRs. He won three MVPs vs Gehrig’s two, he was a better fielder. Gehrig had a slightly higher batting average and more RBI’s, but he played for a lot better team. I agree Gehrig was better but it was pretty close. If Foxx was a Yankee and Gehrig was an Athletic the comparison would probably flip in Fox’s favor.
I was reading a list that was put together in 1994 of the greatest hitters of all time. Here it is:

10. Willie Mays
9. Hank Aaron
8. Joe Jackson
7. Stan Musial
6. Ty Cobb
5. Joe DiMaggio
4. Rogers Hornsby
3. Jimmie Foxx
2. Lou Gehrig
1. Babe Ruth

Oh, there is a reason Williams is not on the list—he put it together.

Setting aside the PEDs the list of the ten most productive hitters in history is incomplete without Barry Bonds.

162.8 WAR (4th all time; 1st all time for position players)
6th all time on base %
8th all time slugging %
5th all time OPS
3rd runs scored
5th total bases
1st walks
1st home runs

But I digress...

The Gehrig is the perfect storm of adverse issues.

--The initial price is a PWCC price so who knows if it is legit
--The card is grossly overgraded. The card corners look to me like they were rounded intentionally. The card should have gotten an A. Buyers with $100K to spend aren't going to be fooled by an overgrade of this magnitude.
--There was a reserve. I agree that reserves depress bidding.

The card Scott posted is typical of my experience with SGC grading Exhibit cards: they knock the snot out of them. Between the full bleed image and the size, a 5 on a prewar Exhibit is a very strong grade. At the 2006 National I purchased a small grouo of really nice fresh-to-the-hobby 1928s and i think the best grade I got out of the lot was a 5.5.

Also Foxx benefited greatly by playing in his home ballparks while Gehrig was actually better on the road.

Gehrig had a lifetime road batting average of .351 and an OPS of 1.103 while Foxx batted .306 with an OPS of .966. That is a huge difference.

IMHO, Gehrig was a much better player.

In order to have a fair, apples to apples comparison of all the great hitters, I adjusted HOFers career stats to reflect what they would have been if they'd slurped up PEDs like Bonds.

Ruth's revised numbers are 1600 homeruns and a .485 batting average. Hank Aaron's are 1425 and .440. Interestingly, Bonds didn't even make the top 100.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Gehrig
 

Unfortunately, you cannot set aside PEDs. Like Clemens when he went to Toronto, Bonds career took off in staggering proportions when he started taking PEDs. Cheating, and there’s no way around it. While both Clemens & Bonds were already future HOFers before PEDs, their extraordinary lifetime numbers are seriously tainted by steroids. For that reason alone, both of them cannot be placed in the top 10 as a pitcher & hitter.

+1 agree

+1 for Adam, seeing that the corners of the card are suspect. And while I have sometimes bid on PWCC stuff, I share and concur with his concern.

That is responsive to what I thought the initial post was about.



But so many want to contrast Gehrig with Foxx, or discuss PEDs, or both. So on PEDs... I see a distinction between using something that isn't prohibited with something that is prohibited. Seems for some folks the line blurs where the substance initially isn't banned, but later on it is. My possibly faulty recollection was that what McGuire and Sosa (for example) used were not banned at the time of use, and that use stopped slightly before or contemporaneously with prohibition. That wouldn't be true for Clemmons and A-Rod (again, for example), because what they were using was banned prior to and during use.

It's a weird netherworld, Frank. Steroids weren't banned but they were illegal w/o a prescription, so McGwire and Sosa and the rest of them never should have had them at all. I guess in a sense they were banned before they were banned. :eek:

Yes, I am a lawyer.

But I digress.

The first thing I thought when I saw that Gehrig (esp the LL corner) was that it was intentionally rounded, maybe to aid in flipping it or doing something else with it, like this O'Doul:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...21%20ODoul.jpg

If I submit that card I get an "A" 99% of the time a "1" the other 1%.

So these two cards are the same grade?


https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20Snookums.jpghttps://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1674818502

Yeah, that makes sense.

Massively overgraded! That is a 1.5 at best, one of the worst looking 3’s you will ever see!

To me it does, as it appears Ruth has been downgraded for getting second billing to Snookums.

Brian

According to Game of Shadows, Bonds began using steroids in 1998, starting with Winstrol, and by 2000 was also taking testosterone, HGH, trenbelone (a steroid used for cattle), insulin, and Clomid (a female fertility drug). That's quite a cocktail.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I believe the "compromise" on Bonds and Clemens is that both were going to be Hall of Famers, no doubt, and need to be elected sooner rather than later. However, to me, the staggering numbers for both should be taken with a grain of salt and I don't put Bonds in the top 10 all-time nor do I place Clemens nearly as high as his numbers would warrant. I think that's where we should be drawing the line, not keeping them out of the Hall, that's just plain silly. However, I would keep them out of the conversation of top 10 all-time hitters/pitchers.

Thoughts on this?

I like this approach...but also think they should get the dreaded asterisk next to the induction, denoting steroid era.

I think it is a bit ridiculous to ask voters to imagine an alternate universe where players made different choices to see how their careers may have panned out. I don't believe in any case that Bonds numbers through 1997 would have put him in the Hall of Fame.

I also don't believe we should ignore the damage that PEDs did to the game of baseball, or give a pass to the players and owners that furthered it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I did not read all the post, but most of them. Another point to be made is- this card has traded many times in the last several years. People are sick of seeing the card for auction. And as many others pointed out- its a 1.5 at best.

It would be nice for a representative from SGC comment on the grade. I’m sure they steer clear of message boards unless they can control it like Collectors Universe.

Agreed. The bad part is that it was “reviewed” and somehow crossed over to their new style holder! They can’t claim changing standards or anything like that when they have recently “verified” that a 3 was the accurate grade. They just did not want to be held liable for the obviously needed downgrade on a 80-100k card.

I don't think they're going into the HOF in our lifetime. Maybe some future generation will see things differently. Likewise, I think there are going to be many more going into the HOF that I myself do not think of as HOFers that apparently most other people do.

I went the poor man’s rout and picked up a 27’ exhibit and 25’ w590. Would love to know if the w590 was actually printed in 25’

I recently read two good threads on here about the W590 issue. I think even the guys who seemed to have some pretty good theories about the issue were not 100% convinced that the Gehrig could be pinned down as only a 1925 printing.

From the independent research that I have done based on the printing font, and it’s been a while now, there was no reason why the Gehrig W590 would not have been printed in 1925 considering the player/team identifications of the other 9 cards from the Gehrig strip of 10 that I have seen. Could these have continued to have been printed beyond 1925, sure, but the same can be said for numerous other vintage issues. You kind of have to draw the line somewhere with this kind of stuff or you will drive yourself crazy. Could the Gehrig also have been printed on a different panel of 10? Maybe, I have never seen another different one though.

To me the W590 has an upside and a downside when compared to the 1925 Exhibit. It obviously fits the definition of a card (although strip cards may not be as popular as caramel, tobacco, etc.) much more precisely than the Exhibit, which is essentially a blank backed postcard. The downside is that it is categorized as a 1925-31 issue, for what that’s worth, and I think it can be pretty safely assumed that cards from this series were issued at least over multiple years so the date can never be as definitive as the ‘25 Exhibit. (But who’s to say that the Exhibit Supply Co. didn’t have leftover cards from 1925 and refilled their vending machines with them in 1926?) Anyone willing to bet their life on that not happening? You get the picture.

I would love to see your research, Phil. Please publish it and explain your conclusion. If you already did, I guess I missed it, so please post a link to it.

Here is one of the links from here on the general dating of the W590...
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185679

I could have sworn there was another.

Here is a link to a 10 card strip with Gehrig...

https://huntauctions.com/phone/image...140&lot_num=18

My edit is to add that I am not sure what, if anything, can be inferred from the boxers on that strip but with the inclusion of Hank Gowdy as a NY Giant, it closely supports Phil's theory. Gowdy was on the Giants for a minute in 1911 but would return as a back up catcher in the 1923-25 seasons.

Adam:

Any research that I did regarding the W590’s, including the Gehrig and Lindstrom cards as potential rookies was probably a decade or more ago when I was doing the HOF rookie card collection. Without recalling all of the details, I believe that the set was issued in two separate printings, one during the first year of the date range, 1925, and the other during the last year, 1931. Player/team changes factored into it as well as font type, position designations, etc. At the time I was collecting the rookies, I owned both the Exhibit and W590 Gehrig, with the first being worth around $3K and the strip card being closer to $1K so there was no self-serving purpose for me to unjustly favor one over the other for my own benefit.

If I recall correctly, in more recent years, someone maybe a Dan posted a thread documenting multiple card issues where the date(s) had been in question over the years. I don’t recall if W590 was part of that one but it would be very helpful if somebody could find and post it. I had no luck searching for it.

Taking a closer look at the 5 boxing cards, and I defer to Adam’s expertise in this area, it appears that all were at “peak” times in their careers around 1925 as opposed to 1931 so this would correspond with my theory that this strip was produced in 1925 and not the later printing. The Gowdy baseball card certainly favors this theory as well and doesn’t make sense that it would be issued as late as 1931 when he was playing in Boston for the previous two seasons.

The boxers aren't any help; all were active before and after 1925 and are in numerous sets from the era.

Seems like the rookie prices are alive and well for nice looking ones! His PSA 3.5 sold for $206k this week at Goldin. Night and day nicer looking than the original 3 that started this thread.

Great looking card and under valued where someone got a great deal. Some folks just don’t give Gehrig or Exibits much love. I am not one of those people.

Hi Jay - Pardon my widespread ignorance of Gehrig cards in general and this Exhibit specifically, but I'm not used to hearing the figure of $200k+ and the words "under valued" used in the same sentence. If I had been consuming a beverage while reading your post, I probably would have achieved some impressive spray.

Is the value here primarily based on this exhibit being Gehrig's rookie?

Unloved for years, close to 100 of them, now it's 200k.


New money is something else

Yes.

The card has gone from about $2K 25-30 years ago to the stratosphere.

I bought a (now) PSA 6 raw, in about 1998 for 2600 dollars.....wish I still had it :eek:

.

Totally get that.

I guess I’m not following the concept that it’s undervalued now that it’s into the stratosphere. But maybe I misunderstood that part. Maybe it used to be undervalued back when it could be had for cheap, and now it’s no longer undervalued?

To me it feels like they have been discovered like the Sporting News 1916 Ruth that wasn’t as appreciated as it is today. There are so many variations of that 1916 the Gehrig is actually a lot scarcer too so I can see why prices have skyrocketed.