Value of cards per Square Inch/Foot vs Real Estate
 

A recent post evaluated the choice between million dollar real estate and a similarly priced pre-war card.

When thinking about real estate as a value per square foot, I wonder the comparison of Authentic (common baseline) graded cards. Which cards have the greatest value per square inch, and what does that translate into value per square foot based on recent Authentic graded sales? Aside from the obvious T206 titan outliers (Wagner, Plank and Doyle error), what are some other examples (Ruth, Cobb, Mick, etc.) from pre and post war?

Not a post on merits of a card or preferences, but a different data-driven way to assess value, or what may be undervalued/a good buy. Pre-war example below. Add your favs!

1910 Tip Top Bread Wagner (1 13/16 x 2 3/8), PSA Authentic for $30,000
=4.304 in^2 => 0.0298 ft^2 => $30,000/0.0298 = $1.006MM per sq ft

Holy smokes that is an interesting way of approaching our hobby. I wonder if Baquer cards would be valued near the top due to their incredibly tiny size.

Wut?

somebody has a little to much spare time.

interesting read and good attempt at applying the concept

but again

To much spare time :D

Ummm...Are these the same cards that you posted in your poll a month ago?

Feeling deja vu all over again with your Ruth and Robinson cards.

This reminds me of a rabbit hole I went down when I was bored one day, calculating modern players’ salaries in relation to their weight in gold.

It’s been a while, but I think I can confidently say that this is the dumbest thread I have ever seen. Congrats to the OP; given what often appears on this site that is no small feat.

Card’s not mine, just from recent auction I found interesting. I’m curious about data driven ways to assess undervalued cards and rationalizing anomalies. So wanted to create some original content/analysis for fellow collector’s consideration and to respond with something positive :rolleyes:

Next up…….
 

Next up…… values of cards vs precious metals and diamonds based on weight. LOL

GTL. Even Mick had a lifetime batting average under .300 :)

For what it's worth, this is around my 8th favorite thread on the front page.

No, he did not. He struck out 2.14 times out of 10 at bats. Not even Adam Dunn (3.46 out of 10) was that bad.

I’m not clear how value per square foot, a measurement for something not related to cards whatsoever, of a card is relevant to rationalizing anomalies or assessing a card.

I think if this was presented as a fun comparison of collectibles (say, comparing expensive stamps and coins and paintings to expensive baseball cards by cost per square inch) it would have been better received.

The problem is, it was presented as a way to identify whether something is undervalued or a good buy, and, unlike real estate, the size of a collectible does not usually figure into its value (unless we are talking about whether something is trimmed or not).