Best investments by player and decade
 

Strictly from an investing perspective, in 10 years which baseball player's cards do you think will perform best? (Assume the cards are PSA graded with no qualifiers and roughly have a PSA grade one number above the decade the card is in.) I am presenting the names in alphabetical order so as not to "show my hand." If there is anyone not on the list please mention who you think should be mentioned (focusing mainly on the '50s-'70s):

Hank Aaron
Steve Carlton
Bob Gibson
Reggie Jackson
Sandy Koufax
Eddie Mathews
Willie Mays
Joe Morgan
Cal Ripken Jr.
Brooks Robinson
Frank Robinson
Jackie Robinson
Mike Schmidt
Tom Seaver
Warren Spahn
Yaz

Second question. Net-net, all things considered equal, where do you see the "best relative value" in terms of potential ROI on baseball Hall of Fame caliber players?

1950s: PSA 4, 5, 6+

1960s PSA 7+

1970s: PSA 8+

1980s: PSA 9+

Also, if you think that, say, 1960s in a PSA 5 represent the best relative value, let me know. The above doesn't reflect strict criteria but is rather a starting point.

Thanks in advance!

When I'm asked this question with the term INVESTMENT this is always the answer I give,

COBB
RUTH
JACKIE
MANTLE
MAYS

Centered PSA 5's are ok for COBB OR RUTH FOR THE REST YOU WANTED CENTERED 7's or 8's. 5's of Jackie, Mantle, and Mays are everywhere they always have been. Centered high end 7's and 8's nope not so much. Most Collectors and Investors Specifically always want these or if they have them they never want to let them go, the demand will always be there. 5's have much less upside in 50'-60's, remember you said investment. Quality is better over quantity.

The Rest of the Cards I never would consider as an investment.

this thread should be moved elsewhere.

This is spot on. The only comment I will make is that I think the threshold for Ruth/Cobb can be lowered for their t206 or 1933 Goudey cards. I would say the same for the 1952 Mantle. I think all 3 are legitimately great investments in any unqualified grade.

I would also agree but I think Joe jackson should be added to the list

Ruth and Cobb all day , pretty much any grade.
I think Aaron and Spahn are criminally undervalued.

All the rest are top shelf as well , but I think these are the ones and a Case can be made for Clemente as well.
Thomas

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

+1

Pete you fun hater. We need to know who to buy to make the most money and how to sell and avoid getting a1099.;):D

Some guys are criminally undervalued but that doesn't make them good investments. Some guys are overvalued relative to stats, like Koufax and Nolan Ryan, and that makes them good investments because they excite collectors. A few guys have back stories that outlive their on-field excellence, like Robinson and Clemente.

Baseball: Ruth, Cobb, W. Johnson, Young, J. Jackson, Mathewson, Speaker, Hornsby, Gehrig, Alexander, Spahn, J. Robinson, T. Williams, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Koufax, Ryan, Clemente.

Basketball: Mikan, Russell, Chamberlain, Alcindor, Erving, Bird, Magic, Jordan, James.

Boxing: John L. Sullivan, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Sugar Ray Robinson. Mayweather is a big ticket modern card and getting inducted into the IBHOF this year but I don't see him in this lot. He played up his rep brilliantly but doesn't have the same enduring appeal. Manny Pacquiao is a better bet than Mayweather, if for nothing more than being the best fighter ever to come out of Asia (with its burgeoning collector base and billions of inhabitants).

I shied away from active guys like Trout because we really don't know the end of their stories yet. Too many players have had mid-career issues derail careers that seemed destined for ATG status. Off the top of my head: Don Mattingly, Shawn Green, Dale Murphy and Clayton Kershaw went from world-killers to 'if only' stories. Mike Trout missed most of last season with an injury: is that the start of a brittle later career or an anomaly? Him and Kershaw will make the HOF but Trout in particular is valued like a guy who will make it into the top tier of HOFers and he might not. Fun gamble, but as investment, not quite.

The guys I selected have followings that aren't going to go away, lots of cards, lots of tougher and more obscure cards and card-like memorabilia.

As for condition, the lowest technical grade with the best eye appeal is the always the best investment, especially at this stage of the vintage market. Prices are pretty frothy right now.

I suggest also searching past threads, maybe use the word investment, this has been discussed countless times and I am guessing most people like myself may be burned out on the topic and don't want to get into it yet again.

Peter......it's ok, you don't have to click on the thread. The subject is clearly noted. Other's, like myself, may still be interested in the topic. Just sayin'. :)

No need to comment then. Scroll on!

Yup.

I suggested to the OP who doesn't have many posts that he search the forum for other threads on the subject because I thought he might not get a robust response to the thread, and it seems I was right. What's wrong with that? But thanks for your misplaced condescension.

During the last year or two price run-up, here is what I have that has gone up the most percentage-wise:

any T206 Cobb (not as much Matty, W. Johnson)
T206 portrait Cy Young
Gehrig, Ruth - Exhibits
any Ruth
Jesse Owens
Cassius Clay
Satchell Paige
50's & 60's Hank Aaron
high grade early Walter Payton

but no crystal ball for the future

Get off my lawn and take your newfangled investment ideas with you!

Honestly, I don't see Carlton, Spahn, Mathews, Morgan, Schmidt, or Seaver (except for 60s) ever being good investments. In my corner of the world, no one has ever put those players into other worldly God status.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I wonder if Leon could "fix" this site so that no one could type the word investment and it appear....

Moog, no matter the decade, buy Cobb and Ruth cards. You could add the names Johnny offered in the first response to your post. You could add Wagner, Johnson, Mathewson, and Young. But then you get tempted to add others. So go with Cobb and Ruth. Get rid of everyone on your list. Stay with Cobb and Ruth.

2 decades from now when that Trout guy gets inducted into The Hall, in the 2040's, it'll still be Cobb and Ruth.

5 decades from now, it'll still be Cobb and Ruth.

Amen

Frank Robinson and Warren Spahn. And for me, the 50's continue to offer the best investment potential.

Preach!

It's just one thread....and even though pre war isn't suggested it seems many in the thread have rated it nicely. Ruth and Cobb are always good. Thank you.

Thanks, Leon, great Cobb!

If I HAD to invest money in baseball cards (as opposed to just collect them for fun like I do now) I would go with Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.

They will be taught about in American History class to kids from now until the end of time, and therefore I think there will always be new generations of collectors who will value their cards.

I’m not sure that will be true for ANYONE else (including Cobb).

Since you said 50s through 60s, I'll ignore guys like Ruth and Cobb. But obvsiously, you're missing Mantle. Not sure if that was intentional or not, but he should be on your list.

Of the names you listed, I would predict Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays to be the best investments, followed by Hank Aaron. Koufax might yield you a decent return, but probably not in comparison to these guys. Everyone else on your list, as great as they all were, are not worth considering as investments IMO.

I would add in Satchel Paige though, and pretty much any other Negro League players that were good to great.

Great call on Satchel Paige. You want the guys who are going to show up in the history books in 100 years. No question Jackie will be there. As long as the Negro Leagues are discussed, Satchel will be the first name that comes to mind. There may not be a lot of footage of the man, but he was a colorful character, and the number of stories about him more than make up for it.

Mickey Mantle's career numbers don't quite measure up to the best of the best, but he'll be a fixture forever. He's the boyhood hero of a generation, the face of 50s nostalgia (not to mention the 50s/60s Yankees dynasty). He's on the 2nd most iconic card in existence (and we know how that has worked out for Honus' hobby value).

50’s:
Tier 1- Mantle, Robinson, Mays, Aaron
Tier 2 - Clemente, Paige, Musial, Williams, Koufax

60’s - Rose and Ryan, maybe Reggie Jax. Forget the rest

There are some unique 50’s cards worthwhile like 1952 Topps Pafko and Mathews, 1953 Bowman Reese, and 1958 Maris (plus I always thought the 1957 Dodgers Sluggers was special)

Maybe with the exception of Mantle, I think you can't just stop at naming a player. IMO rookie cards, early cards, or relatively low pop cards have more relative upside than later, common issues. Assuming you're buying at today's market price -- a big assumption because lots of people including myself haha tend to overpay -- I think well centered cards and mid to high grade cards have more relative upside than not so centered and lower grade cards. So if one is really buying to "invest" I don't think it's as simple as saying Mays is a good investment and Spahn isn't.

As an aside, ran a keyword search for "Invest" in the ebay sports card section.

27,000+ results for invest

I agree on 50's and 60's cards. The condition matters more than the player, if you are "investing". If you want to put together a 1960 Topps set in raw vg/e, looking for the best deals on groups of cards, and slowly building a set, it can be a fun hobby, without concern for making a big profit.
Safe places to park money would be Goudey Babe Ruth T206 Cobb and Cy Young, stuff people outside the hobby have heard about.

If I were treating cards like a stock play, I would look to modern players' cards that are "distressed", like Ben Simmons, or Carlos Correa.

On 70's cards, even as I opened the packs in the 70's, I knew that they made too many of them to be worth money.

I hate to disagree with you because I love early cards too. But in five decades it will be the players of today that dominate. New cards are on fire. I know it will pass to a point, but all the newcomers are into todays players.

Disjointed ramblings below:

-No one likes manufactured scarcity in the long run. 20 years from now, these new cards won't seem special. (I would counter this argument with: "yeah, like Honus Wagner's t206?"). Anything whose release was intended as a "collectible" usually fails as such.

-As for 1980+ cards, the few big ones (Henderson rookie etc) are worth about the same as they were in the 90s (I guess Gem mint slabs have changed that but I'm talking raw and "nice").

-I agree with whoever said that with 50s/60s, it will depend on the year and grade. Anyone can go get a Musial card, but his 1960 topps doesn't hold a candle to Leaf or early Bowman. Same with Mantle. Can't afford the 52? Get a 53 Bowman in decent shape...but I'll pass on late 60s.

-Pre war will always be top dog. t206 commons hold a lot more intrigue than commons from the 60s. Any cards that were called "pictures" at time of release will always hold value and go up.

-Bottom line: you don't need to remember the player playing for the value to remain. Look at civil war memorabilia.

-FWIW, these threads are interesting not bc of the money angle, but bc they flesh out what, at essence, makes this hobby what it is. Money is merely the manifestation of the desire for x card. Discussing what makes cards interesting to people is interesting to me at least.

-I've always wanted a Delong Traynor bc there was a picture of it in my first baseball card book. Little things like that drive desire, and hence, price.

They don't? This has been brought up before, but vintage collecting has numerous examples in which chase cards were extreme short prints to limit a prize redemption. Manufactured scarcity been happening for a very long time, and people like Fred Lindstrom, William McKinley, Rocky Graziano and many others all have cards that sell for far more than their accomplishments would otherwise dictate.

Yeah, I hedged with the Wagner example which some theorize was held back on purpose.

But as a general rule, collectibles which are released and marketed as such, often don't have the staying power. This could be a whole other thread and is off-topic from investing but it's related.

One of kind because it's the "only one left" is a different thing than one of a kind "because they only made one." There was no widespread exposure to the latter, while there was to the former, and the former has been lost because it wasn't a collectible.

I will probably eat these words and the Trout Refractor Auto will be 10mm in 20 years time.

I would put my money on eating the words...

We can grumble and shake a fist at modern production, but this is what those new collectors are chasing and growing up with. It will be the status quo when they get older and grow incomes to chase a new level of affordability.

Much like how the huge growth in 90s value as those collectors aged has become the rare inserts, scarce issues like "blue chips", or limited cards the same will happen.

I am way too old for even opening for autos in early 90s Upper Deck or even inserts other than Fleer stickers, but I recognize that the manufactured scarcity argument holds no water in card collecting if looked at critically with sales numbers.

Good investments or investments in general need not achieve a certain grade threshold to qualify. I have bought and sold numerous high profile cards in the PSA or SGC 1.5 to 3 range in the past few years including successful purchases and sales during and after the peak of Feb 2021. I can assure you my average profit on these has been much higher than recent “traditional” investments such as stocks. I’m quite certain I’m not the only one. But I guess because these cards were lower than these arbitrary “investment grade” rules applied by the self-styled pundits they don’t count. Lol.

Won't be the first time I was wrong...

And I am probably looking at it through the narrow lens of "what I, myself, like"

The Graziano was pulled, not short-printed. A few got out.

First thing you ought to do if you're trying to predict who will have been a great investment is rule out anyone whose cards are already expensive.

If I could go back in time 30 years and buy a poor condition 1952 Topps Mantle for $1,000, it would be worth $25,000 today.

But if I go back in time 30 years and invest that same $1,000 in minty-looking 1985 Topps Tiffany Mark McGwires, sell them all in 1999, reinvest in Barry Bonds rookies, sell them in 2005, reinvest in Lionel Messi rookies, and sell them all in 2021, I would have enough $ to buy a PSA 9 1952 Topps Mantle today.

Uh...30 years ago, I am pretty sure you could buy a poor 52 Topps Mantle for less than $1,000. I regret not being flush with money in those days, being a 1st Class/CPO in the Navy and being on CV-62/then Charleston while financing a home/family in Fort Lauderdale. But I went to many card shows, and I saw the 52 Mantles for sale. As I state in another thread, I bought 33 Goudey Ruth and Gehrig both for $500 ($250 each) in 1988, and in real nice shape both, using reenlistment bonus money.

Maybe so. They started at $2,000 for a beater when I was looking for one in 2004. But now that I think about it for each of my other 3 hypothetical steps you could make 100x ROI, so the $1,000 in 1992 would be a cool billion today, far more than enough to buy a PSA 10 '52 Topps Mantle. And anyway, the point is that Ruth and Cobb and Mantle and Robinson and Gehrig are almost certainly not among the best guys to invest in at this point. Most likely there are some cards worth less than $100 today that will be worth over $10,000 a generation from now.

In hindsight everyone makes millions. Good luck predicting NOW who those great investments are.

Well now you've just rephrased the title of the thread.

Why is a $100 bill worth $100 and a $50 worth $50? It's who's on the bill that matters. There can only be one king.

Yeah, a guy like trout should be able to catch his 7 WS Championships, his 20 times an all star, triple crown etc etc. Especially since Dave Kingman has more Homers in his Prime than Trout. Not to mention Trout is now officially a china doll. Mantle tore his ankle in 51 and drank everyday, lol. Maybe he was good? They measure up pretty well? No? why are trout's cards worth more than Mantle you think? Is it because they have funny names and pop?

I think you should spend 10K on Zeon parallels, prizm, protractor, orange chrome, aqua, kaboom, base PSA 10 1 of1.

The idea is to turn $100 into $10,000; not the other way around.

Did you read past the first sentence?

Someone else said it, but I am buying two types of cards now that I have disposable income. First are cards I saw in sets from my youth I couldn't afford. Topps Tiffany is the biggest. I just bought the final Griffey Tiffany. I personally think Tiffany are undervalued. In 30 years when junk wax is 60+ years old, will collectors be buying base cards, or Tiffany? It'll be Tiffany. I also am buying 90s inserts. I find this funny, because 90s Topps inserts for most of the 2000s were not worth very much. And now they are desirable. It's what millennials want, and will most likely continue to want. Its our nostalgia. 90s RCs and special 90s cards are good investments now. Some will taper off, but some will continue to grow.

My other thought is to seek cards of players tied to moments. Robinson is tied to the civil rights era. Mays has "the catch." Koufax and Ryan have their no hitters. Mantle is 1950s NYC. This is why I never see Spahn or Mathews being the next big thing. They are simply in the long shadow of Aaron's 715.

Someone else said they are buying cards they saw in books as kids. I am doing that too: 33 Goudey Gehrig, T206 Cobb, Wheaties Gehrig, 48 Leaf (sad these were trimmed in massive quantity), 40s/early 50s Bowman.

I personally don't like modern refractors. It is the same image as the base card in another color. At least 90s inserts are different pictures. 5k or 10k inserts might be a little high in scarcity. But there are some inserts in the 1000 to 2000 range that focusing on would be a good investment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk