Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   1952 Topps set question? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=356065)

homerunhitter 12-12-2024 07:25 PM

1952 Topps set question?
 
Hello,
Im considering starting a graded 1952 Topps collection (low grade PSA 1-4)

My questions are:

Any advice from you guys on someone just starting out on the 1952 Topps set ?set?

Also, im looking to do this as an investment set to leave my grandkids for when they are adults so my other question is:

Do you think 1952 Topps is a good long term investment that will keep going up in value? Example when our grand kids are in their 50s, 60s, 70s of all the Topps sets will 52 Topps be the one set to have in regards to value? Or the one set that will keep its value or been collected the most? Thanks!

Gorditadogg 12-12-2024 08:03 PM

Buying baseball cards is not an investment. Talk to an investment advisor about how to invest for your heirs.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

homerunhitter 12-12-2024 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg (Post 2480816)
Buying baseball cards is not an investment. Talk to an investment advisor about how to invest for your heirs.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

So I take it that you think the 1952 Topps set is not a good investment? (My question is about baseball cards only not non card investment advice as I abreast have that part covered! Thanks

Gorditadogg 12-12-2024 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerunhitter (Post 2480823)
So I take it that you think the 1952 Topps set is not a good investment? (My question is about baseball cards only not non card investment advice as I abreast have that part covered! Thanks

Baseball cards are not investments. Since they are not investments, they cannot be good investments. You can make or lose money in cards by speculating, but you are not investing.

I am glad to hear you have an investment advisor.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

ValKehl 12-12-2024 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg (Post 2480824)
Baseball cards are not investments. Since they are not investments, they cannot be good investments. You can make or lose money in cards by speculating, but you are not investing.

I am glad to hear you have an investment advisor.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

You can make or lose money stocks, bonds, and real estate, which are considered investments. What makes you believe cards are different?

Gorditadogg 12-12-2024 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValKehl (Post 2480827)
You can make or lose money stocks, bonds, and real estate, which are considered investments. What makes you believe cards are different?

Stocks, bonds, and real estate generate income, which, as an owner, you share in. Stocks pay dividends, bonds pay interest and real estate earns rents. You calculate the intrinsic value of an investment by estimating its future earnings.

A baseball card has no earning power. The only way you can make money on a card is to sell it to someone for more than you paid for it. It has no intrinsic value.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

rats60 12-13-2024 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg (Post 2480843)
Stocks, bonds, and real estate generate income, which, as an owner, you share in. Stocks pay dividends, bonds pay interest and real estate earns rents. You calculate the intrinsic value of an investment by estimating its future earnings.

A baseball card has no earning power. The only way you can make money on a card is to sell it to someone for more than you paid for it. It has no intrinsic value.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Investment definition:the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.

There is no requirement that your investment potentially earns income. Do your stocks pay a dividend if the company loses money? If your rental property generates more expenses than rental income, you are doing worse than investing in a non-income generating asset. Baseball cards are an investment.

To the OP, start with the big HOFers, Mantle, Robinson and Mays then move on to the other high number HOFers, the low HOFers and high number commons. Do the low number commons last.

ALR-bishop 12-13-2024 08:13 AM

1 Attachment(s)
If Al is right the person who bought this is going to regret it if they were hoping it was a good investment

skelly423 12-13-2024 08:29 AM

For what my two cents are worth, I don't view baseball cards as investments either, they're first and foremost a hobby. That being said, 1952 Topps has a long track record of increasing in value historically, and I don't know of any reason why that won't continue.

From a pure investment perspective there are better ways to invest your money. If you're looking to provide a tangible piece of nostalgia for your grandkids that might increase in value, 1952 Topps is as good as any option in the vintage baseball card sphere.

The cards are beautiful, scarce (relative to most sets that followed), in high demand, and are anchored by the most important card in the hobby. That seems to me like a good recipe to at least preserve the value of your money.

Gorditadogg 12-13-2024 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2480866)
Investment definition:the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.



There is no requirement that your investment potentially earns income. Do your stocks pay a dividend if the company loses money? If your rental property generates more expenses than rental income, you are doing worse than investing in a non-income generating asset. Baseball cards are an investment.



To the OP, start with the big HOFers, Mantle, Robinson and Mays then move on to the other high number HOFers, the low HOFers and high number commons. Do the low number commons last.

That's a very general definition, basically buying something with the intent to make a profit. That definition covers a lot of other things that are not investments, though. You can buy a lottery ticket or bet on a ball game, with the intent to win and make a profit, but that doesn't make those things investments.

And as you point out, you can make bad investments and lose money. Some investments are relatively safe, like bank CDs, while others are riskier.

The baseline question the OP asks is whether he should buy certain graded baseball cards as an asset for his heirs. If you want to speculate in cards, that's fine. You can do what you want with your own money. But if you think it's a good way to build wealth to pass on to your kids, that's misguided.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

rsdill2 12-13-2024 12:24 PM

I tend to agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't buy baseball cards as investments.

But, it's hard to argue they haven't been good investments historically.

That's fine if you want to consider it an investment. Are your kids/grandkids collectors? Do they care who Cookie Lavagetto is? What about Smoky Burgess?

Not to take anything away from Lavagetto or Burgess, but about 90% of the 407 cards in the '52 set are commons that the average person doesn't know or care about. It's also much more difficult to store, sell, and ship 407 cards and their plastic tombs.

No idea what your budget is. But my advice would be to take whatever you think that budget is, and buy them a handful of cards. If you're fixated on '52 Topps, the Mantle, Robinson, Mays, and Mathews are inarguably the top 4. Venture out to '33 Goudey Ruth, T206 Cobbs. The classics.

If you're buying these purely for inheritance to your heirs in hopes they increase in value, my advice is quality over quantity.

Smarti5051 12-13-2024 01:28 PM

I think after thousands of years of history to draw on, "art" is rightly classified as an investment. Some goes up, some goes down. Some goes up, then comes down. If art can be deemed an investment, then certainly sportscards, visual displays of sports heroes of their time, are at least art adjacent, if not art itself.

So, if you reject the concept of art as an investment, then I guess it follows that sportscards are also not an investment. Otherwise, on some level, you must concede that sportscards are an investment, leaving the only issue open to debate whether sportscards are a good or bad investment.

Once you have a certain amount in stocks, bonds, real estate and bitcoin, it is kind of nice to spread your "investments" into things that bring you enjoyment. Art, rare cars, watches, and sportscards fall into that category. I certainly view my collection as an investment and justify allocating a portion of my income to sportscards as investments (even have my wife on board).

As for 1952, my opinion is long term it will continue to do well. However, if you are trying to support the opposite view, the original collectors of 1952 Topps cards are now in their 70s and 80s, so the ones holding/collecting these cards for true nostalgia's sake is waning. I feel reasonably old, and I never saw Hank Aaron or Willie Mays play, and they were still hitting in the 70s, much less Mantle, Jackie, Matthews, Berra and a handful of others that drive the value of the set.

Once all of the current older collectors pass on their 1952 collections to heirs that are not interested in sportscards, how will that impact the supply in the market and where will the "new" demand come from? The fact that you are not currently a 1952 Topps collector but are contemplating starting one is anecdotal evidence that there are new 1952 Topps collectors still entering the market, but where the supply and demand curves meet in the future is the unanswerable question.

swarmee 12-13-2024 04:23 PM

Different issue:
PSA 1-4s are considered "Collector's grade" for a reason. They don't drastically change in value, but neither are they sought out (except maybe the high numbers and gray backs).

I did a study on here a few years ago that showed the drastic losses that PSA 8 1952 Topps grades suffered.

raulus 12-13-2024 04:55 PM

I'd agree with the general sentiment here that if you want to collect the 52T set, then do it for your collecting enjoyment, and maybe even something that you can share with your progeny.

If the cardboard goes up in value between now and some future date when it's sold, then that's just gravy. But if the investment element is your primary focus, then my recommendation would be to invest in more traditional investment assets.

Volod 12-13-2024 05:42 PM

Laugh or cry...
 
1 Attachment(s)
Found this cartoon in an issue of Esquire back in the 80's - always wondered if the diplomas on the wall behind the desk were business related or psychology.;)

Gorditadogg 12-13-2024 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarti5051 (Post 2480982)
I think after thousands of years of history to draw on, "art" is rightly classified as an investment. Some goes up, some goes down. Some goes up, then comes down. If art can be deemed an investment, then certainly sportscards, visual displays of sports heroes of their time, are at least art adjacent, if not art itself.



So, if you reject the concept of art as an investment, then I guess it follows that sportscards are also not an investment. Otherwise, on some level, you must concede that sportscards are an investment, leaving the only issue open to debate whether sportscards are a good or bad investment.



Once you have a certain amount in stocks, bonds, real estate and bitcoin, it is kind of nice to spread your "investments" into things that bring you enjoyment. Art, rare cars, watches, and sportscards fall into that category. I certainly view my collection as an investment and justify allocating a portion of my income to sportscards as investments (even have my wife on board).



As for 1952, my opinion is long term it will continue to do well. However, if you are trying to support the opposite view, the original collectors of 1952 Topps cards are now in their 70s and 80s, so the ones holding/collecting these cards for true nostalgia's sake is waning. I feel reasonably old, and I never saw Hank Aaron or Willie Mays play, and they were still hitting in the 70s, much less Mantle, Jackie, Matthews, Berra and a handful of others that drive the value of the set.



Once all of the current older collectors pass on their 1952 collections to heirs that are not interested in sportscards, how will that impact the supply in the market and where will the "new" demand come from? The fact that you are not currently a 1952 Topps collector but are contemplating starting one is anecdotal evidence that there are new 1952 Topps collectors still entering the market, but where the supply and demand curves meet in the future is the unanswerable question.

You make some interesting points, especially when you touch on one of the risks of speculating in cards.

With respect to whether art is an investment, I think you answered your own question. Many people, once they achieve a certain level of wealth, spend some of their money to buy things for their own enjoyment. It's fine to have a collection of nice watches or a garage full of vintage cars. And it's nice to have expensive paintings on your wall. But people don't do that, for the most part, to increase their wealth but instead to appreciate what they have.

You mentioned Bitcoin as an investment. Do you own Bitcoin? If so, tell me how you decide what is a fair price. It's trading right now for about $100,000 per coin. Do you think that's a good deal or a bad deal? Tell me why.

For any investment, you should be able to estimate how much income the asset will earn for you, over what period of time, and based on that, you can decide how much you will pay for it.

If instead you are speculating, then all you can say is I expect this asset to go up or down because.....

There are some instances I suppose where art can be an investment. For example, if an art museum wants to display a Jackson Pollock and you can rent one to them, then there is intrinsic value there to base a price. For the most part, though, art is not an investment. You could make money on art: as you say, it goes up and down, but volatility in price does not by itself make something an investment.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

sthoemke 12-13-2024 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerunhitter (Post 2480801)
Hello,
Im considering starting a graded 1952 Topps collection (low grade PSA 1-4)

My questions are:

Any advice from you guys on someone just starting out on the 1952 Topps set ?set?

Also, im looking to do this as an investment set to leave my grandkids for when they are adults so my other question is:

Do you think 1952 Topps is a good long term investment that will keep going up in value? Example when our grand kids are in their 50s, 60s, 70s of all the Topps sets will 52 Topps be the one set to have in regards to value? Or the one set that will keep its value or been collected the most? Thanks!

Maybe start on a raw set first, before tossing your money to the grading companies. Maybe grade the key cards first to preserve condition.

Probably not much downside risk buying raw cards other than reselling costs. Probably best to buy lots, at first to save postage costs.

Gorditadogg 12-14-2024 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2481016)
Different issue:

PSA 1-4s are considered "Collector's grade" for a reason. They don't drastically change in value, but neither are they sought out (except maybe the high numbers and gray backs).



I did a study on here a few years ago that showed the drastic losses that PSA 8 1952 Topps grades suffered.

John, that sounds interesting. How can we find that piece?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

swarmee 12-14-2024 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg (Post 2481131)
John, that sounds interesting. How can we find that piece?

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=realized
Although there is sparse data actually listed, all the info is still on the APR site at PSA.

Gorditadogg 12-14-2024 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2481132)
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=realized
Although there is sparse data actually listed, all the info is still on the APR site at PSA.

Thanks. I didn't realize the PSA sale-tracking started so recently. I see they just made more changes to their site in the last few days. You used to be able to just scroll through to see pictures of the sales, now you have to load each one separately from the thumbnail.

Still good stuff there. If you pick a card and a grade, you can see a chart showing prices going back as far as 2005.

Smarti5051 12-14-2024 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg (Post 2481037)
You make some interesting points, especially when you touch on one of the risks of speculating in cards.

With respect to whether art is an investment, I think you answered your own question. Many people, once they achieve a certain level of wealth, spend some of their money to buy things for their own enjoyment. It's fine to have a collection of nice watches or a garage full of vintage cars. And it's nice to have expensive paintings on your wall. But people don't do that, for the most part, to increase their wealth but instead to appreciate what they have.

You mentioned Bitcoin as an investment. Do you own Bitcoin? If so, tell me how you decide what is a fair price. It's trading right now for about $100,000 per coin. Do you think that's a good deal or a bad deal? Tell me why.

For any investment, you should be able to estimate how much income the asset will earn for you, over what period of time, and based on that, you can decide how much you will pay for it.

If instead you are speculating, then all you can say is I expect this asset to go up or down because.....

There are some instances I suppose where art can be an investment. For example, if an art museum wants to display a Jackson Pollock and you can rent one to them, then there is intrinsic value there to base a price. For the most part, though, art is not an investment. You could make money on art: as you say, it goes up and down, but volatility in price does not by itself make something an investment.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I hate to hijack another's thread by taking it too far off track, but since you posed direct questions, I will venture to address them. You asked if I own Bitcoin. Yes, I own one coin, which I bought a few years ago, along with 5 Ether. I admit that every ounce of my being rejected the concept of cryptocurrency for a decade before I purchased, and I still think it is a "pet rock." But, I ultimately decided that to be truly diversified, I needed to have a little piece of every asset class just to ensure that I am not the one left behind. If Bitcoin rises to $10M some day and crypto-kids are ruling the world, at least I will be able to continue my current quality of life.

You seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes an investment, and for you the definition includes some ability to forecast future returns. Ironically, the three investment types you reference (stocks, bonds and real estate) fail your own definition. We can no more predict what Nvidia, P&G and Microsoft will be worth in 10 years than we can a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. And anybody that believes the real estate market is predictable was not paying attention during the bust cycles in the 80s and late-00s. I have spent enough time in both the stock market and real estate market to know that neither one of them is the least bit predicable, but I invest heavily in both because (like cards and numerous other asset classes), they have performed well over my lifetime and, as previously stated, I want to be invested in what everyone else is investing in so I am not the one left behind when society prospers.

At base, I believe every dollar you spend on an asset that is not intended to be "used up" is on some level an investment. From there, it is up for society to determine whether such purchase was a "good" or "bad" investment, which is usually only knowable with hindsight.

Circling back to your original premise that art purchasers are primarily people who have achieved a level of wealth and simply want to spend their money to "enjoy" a piece of art, I do not believe that to be true. I have talked and read of several art purchasers who purchase notable art pieces, and while enjoyment certainly enters the equation, the expectation that the art will appreciate is usually at the core of their purchasing decision (unless it is a publicity stunt where a guy just wants to burn millions of dollars to eat a banana). I believe that in over 90% of cases where a 1952 Topps Mantle is sold, the purchaser's motivation includes value retention and appreciation. Very few are spending 6 digits completely ambivalent to the asset's future value.

Gorditadogg 12-14-2024 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarti5051 (Post 2481160)
I hate to hijack another's thread by taking it too far off track, but since you posed direct questions, I will venture to address them. You asked if I own Bitcoin. Yes, I own one coin, which I bought a few years ago, along with 5 Ether. I admit that every ounce of my being rejected the concept of cryptocurrency for a decade before I purchased, and I still think it is a "pet rock." But, I ultimately decided that to be truly diversified, I needed to have a little piece of every asset class just to ensure that I am not the one left behind. If Bitcoin rises to $10M some day and crypto-kids are ruling the world, at least I will be able to continue my current quality of life.

You seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes an investment, and for you the definition includes some ability to forecast future returns. Ironically, the three investment types you reference (stocks, bonds and real estate) fail your own definition. We can no more predict what Nvidia, P&G and Microsoft will be worth in 10 years than we can a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. And anybody that believes the real estate market is predictable was not paying attention during the bust cycles in the 80s and late-00s. I have spent enough time in both the stock market and real estate market to know that neither one of them is the least bit predicable, but I invest heavily in both because (like cards and numerous other asset classes), they have performed well over my lifetime and, as previously stated, I want to be invested in what everyone else is investing in so I am not the one left behind when society prospers.

At base, I believe every dollar you spend on an asset that is not intended to be "used up" is on some level an investment. From there, it is up for society to determine whether such purchase was a "good" or "bad" investment, which is usually only knowable with hindsight.

Circling back to your original premise that art purchasers are primarily people who have achieved a level of wealth and simply want to spend their money to "enjoy" a piece of art, I do not believe that to be true. I have talked and read of several art purchasers who purchase notable art pieces, and while enjoyment certainly enters the equation, the expectation that the art will appreciate is usually at the core of their purchasing decision (unless it is a publicity stunt where a guy just wants to burn millions of dollars to eat a banana). I believe that in over 90% of cases where a 1952 Topps Mantle is sold, the purchaser's motivation includes value retention and appreciation. Very few are spending 6 digits completely ambivalent to the asset's future value.

You can speculate or gamble on any number of things with the intention of making a profit. That does not mean you are investing.

Company's stocks are priced based on their expected future profits. If you understand the company's business and estimate their prospects well, you can continue to hold the stock and take future dividends. Once the profits prove out, the stock price will adjust to reflect its underlying profits. For real estate, you can collect rents and earn cash flow. The point is, there is underlying financial value to these assets that you can measure, and that you continue to accrue while you have the asset.

Contrast that with your 52T Mantle. There is nothing that card is doing to earn anything for you. It is just sitting in your closet, or safe deposit box. The only way you can get any financial return on that card is to sell it to somebody else. There is no Plan B.

You can make money on cards, for sure. A lot of people on this board have made a lot of money buying and selling cards. Good for them. I hope to eventually sell my cards for a profit. But just understand that if you are buying cards hoping to sell them for more later, you are not investing, you are speculating.

Bigdaddy 12-14-2024 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg (Post 2481167)
You can speculate or gamble on any number of things with the intention of making a profit. That does not mean you are investing.

Company's stocks are priced based on their expected future profits. If you understand the company's business and estimate their prospects well, you can continue to hold the stock and take future dividends. Once the profits prove out, the stock price will adjust to reflect its underlying profits. For real estate, you can collect rents and earn cash flow. The point is, there is underlying financial value to these assets that you can measure, and that you continue to accrue while you have the asset.

Contrast that with your 52T Mantle. There is nothing that card is doing to earn anything for you. It is just sitting in your closet, or safe deposit box. The only way you can get any financial return on that card is to sell it to somebody else. There is no Plan B.

You can make money on cards, for sure. A lot of people on this board have made a lot of money buying and selling cards. Good for them. I hope to eventually sell my cards for a profit. But just understand that if you are buying cards hoping to sell them for more later, you are not investing, you are speculating.

Less than half of publicly traded stocks pay dividends. Would you say then that over half are not investments and the buyers are just speculating?

ALR-bishop 12-14-2024 01:02 PM

If some years back you had decided to buy stock in Eron and Worldcom and a 52 Mantle you made at least one good choice

Gorditadogg 12-14-2024 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy (Post 2481172)
Less than half of publicly traded stocks pay dividends. Would you say then that over half are not investments and the buyers are just speculating?

They are still investments. Their pricing is based on intrinsic valuation. There is underlying income there although the company reinvests it, rather than paying it out. The fact they don't pay dividends makes them riskier. Many people who buy and sell stock are speculating for sure.

campyfan39 12-15-2024 08:25 PM

Selfishly, I wish people would not buy vintage cards for investment because it takes cards out of circulation and drives up prices for pure collectors like me.

I would be hesitant to invest in cards for my kids or grandchildren, unless they were really into baseball. I would invest in land to help them build on one day. If I had already done that, I would use my wealth to do things with them and give them things they loved now, while I am alive.
Just my take.

samosa4u 01-23-2025 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerunhitter (Post 2480801)

Do you think 1952 Topps is a good long term investment that will keep going up in value?

No ... no ... NO !!! :eek::eek:

The false notion is that the 52T Mantle is "gonna' keep going up." The high-grade examples came down pretty hard over the past few years. The lower-grades have held up pretty well, but that doesn't mean that they are gonna' keep going up. I would not call them "investment cards" because their prices have become ridiculous now and I expect them to correct too someday.

There are way better cards that you can invest in: Leaf Jackie, Bowman Mantle, Topps Aaron rookies, etc.

ALR-bishop 01-23-2025 01:31 PM

You could be right but am glad I have both version of it anyway :)

Republicaninmass 01-23-2025 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2490571)
No ... no ... NO !!! :eek::eek:

The false notion is that the 52T Mantle is "gonna' keep going up." The high-grade examples came down pretty hard over the past few years. The lower-grades have held up pretty well, but that doesn't mean that they are gonna' keep going up. I would not call them "investment cards" because their prices have become ridiculous now and I expect them to correct too someday.

There are way better cards that you can invest in: Leaf Jackie, Bowman Mantle, Topps Aaron rookies, etc.


Ship has sailed on most of those. Heading up 20x in 3 or 4 years isn't sustainable.


I'd do most of the lows raw, highs and stars graded. I'd wait out the superstars until bitcoin goes back below 20k and housing drops 50%. I kid, however people will begin to see their paper winnings shrink, start to take profits, and there should be a rush to the exits.

samosa4u 01-23-2025 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2490581)
You could be right but am glad I have both version of it anyway :)

Hopefully you got em' at the right time. Can you show me ??

ALR-bishop 01-24-2025 10:09 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Fortunately quites some time ago

samosa4u 01-24-2025 10:38 AM

Very nice, congrats. :)

Zach Wheat 01-24-2025 11:25 AM

Agree, neat to see. Glad you had the foresight to purchase them when you did

homerunhitter 02-02-2025 01:09 PM

Circling back to this, my original thought was, focusing on a“Sportscards” investment for my heirs, my thought was that when my grandkids are 50-60 years old, they would say thanks grandpa for leaving my a complete 1952 topps graded set! (Meaning it would be a nice chunk of change for them when they are old farts!) vs leaving them a 5,000 count box of 1988 topps!

swarmee 02-02-2025 01:28 PM

I think that would be less interesting to heirs than 10 top Hall of Fame Rookie Cards. And it would take up a bunch more space.

homerunhitter 02-02-2025 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2493060)
I think that would be less interesting to heirs than 10 top Hall of Fame Rookie Cards. And it would take up a bunch more space.

Hey John!
It’s funny because just after I hit the submit reply button on my message, my brain got to thinking this exact thing! I started thinking, “well, I could continue my other project (I have several different collecting projects im working on currently) of collecting a 1951–1959 topps complete run of cards OR maybe it will be better to focus on some really great cards like a 54 topps Hank Aaron and 1955 topps Roberto Clemente and 1968 Nolan Ryan or 53 topps Robinson, Mays and Paige. More of a quality vs quantity type of vintage collection.

My problem is that in our hobby there are so many awesome cards I want to collect them ALL! But I agree with you my friend and you are 110% right, quality vs quantity might be the better hand to play (and better value wise for my heirs) if I’m reading this right, for example instead of trying to collect a 1952 topps graded set (minus the mantle) or trying to complete a 1951-1959 topps run (minus the mantle) it would be financially better to instead focus on collecting key HOF cards from the 1950’s?

swarmee 02-02-2025 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerunhitter (Post 2493094)
if I’m reading this right, for example instead of trying to collect a 1952 topps graded set (minus the mantle) or trying to complete a 1951-1959 topps run (minus the mantle) it would be financially better to instead focus on collecting key HOF cards from the 1950’s?

Correct, the vast majority of cards have sold for the same amount for the last decade. The ones that have gone up in value are the HOF rookies, for the most part. A $5 common now is a $10 common in 20 years. A $2,000 HOF RC now might be an $8,000 card in two decades, keeping or exceeding pace with the rate of inflation.

homerunhitter 02-02-2025 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2493119)
Correct, the vast majority of cards have sold for the same amount for the last decade. The ones that have gone up in value are the HOF rookies, for the most part. A $5 common now is a $10 common in 20 years. A $2,000 HOF RC now might be an $8,000 card in two decades, keeping or exceeding pace with the rate of inflation.

Thank you John for your thoughts on this. I truly appreciate you very much for always helping me. I need to really focus my collecting goals as im all over the place because I REALLY love all the 1950’s cards and want to have/collect them all! But I also want to be smart with my money. My thoughts are shifting toward a box of super cool HOFers (Ex. 1954 Topps Hank Aaron and 1952 Topps Willie Mays) might just be better for my goals vs a box of near complete set of raw (or graded) commons from the 1950’s. Thank you again.

homerunhitter 02-03-2025 02:09 PM

Also,
While looking at HOF Topps cards on eBay to purchase. For long term value, do you recommend/prefer signed or unsigned HOF Topps rookie cards? Would love to hear your thoughts on that. Thank you

Gorditadogg 02-04-2025 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2493119)
Correct, the vast majority of cards have sold for the same amount for the last decade. The ones that have gone up in value are the HOF rookies, for the most part. A $5 common now is a $10 common in 20 years. A $2,000 HOF RC now might be an $8,000 card in two decades, keeping or exceeding pace with the rate of inflation.

So, in your example, your HOF rookie card is worth 400 times what a common card goes for. You are predicting that in 20 years, the multiple will be 800 times.

Others on Net54 have made similar comments. My question is, why do you think that? What you are saying in essence is that HOF RC cards will double in value relative to commons. What are you expecting will cause that?



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

swarmee 02-04-2025 05:00 PM

Historical trends continuing, at least in collector grade cards.

I already pointed out on this board multiple instances of PSA 8 commons from 1952 Topps dropping thousands of dollars in value a decade ago over a spam of a couple of years.

But demand remains on stars, hall of famers, and errors like the Yellow Tiger House because of their names staying in the national consciousness. The Grady Hattons of the world don't move the needle.

homerunhitter 02-04-2025 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2493119)
Correct, the vast majority of cards have sold for the same amount for the last decade. The ones that have gone up in value are the HOF rookies, for the most part. A $5 common now is a $10 common in 20 years. A $2,000 HOF RC now might be an $8,000 card in two decades, keeping or exceeding pace with the rate of inflation.

Sorry,
This question was for John (I forgot to use the quote in my response)

Also,
While looking at HOF Topps cards on eBay to purchase. For long term value, do you recommend/prefer signed or unsigned HOF Topps rookie cards? Would love to hear your thoughts on that. Thank you

swarmee 02-04-2025 07:19 PM

Ah, I like both for investment/collecting purposes. For the 50s/60s cards, you're pretty much locked into the ones signed already, since many of the HOFs from those decades have now passed or stopped signing.

I actually just sold a 1933 Goudey Bill Dickey signed card this morning. It was in rough shape, but because it was autographed was valuable. I'd prefer to focus more on the fan favorite types than the standard HOFs that don't make you imagine how good they were. Guys like Bob Gibson, Nolan Ryan, Carlton Fisk, ones that you still see in the highlight clips.

homerunhitter 02-04-2025 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2493647)
Ah, I like both for investment/collecting purposes. For the 50s/60s cards, you're pretty much locked into the ones signed already, since many of the HOFs from those decades have now passed or stopped signing.

I actually just sold a 1933 Goudey Bill Dickey signed card this morning. It was in rough shape, but because it was autographed was valuable. I'd prefer to focus more on the fan favorite types than the standard HOFs that don't make you imagine how good they were. Guys like Bob Gibson, Nolan Ryan, Carlton Fisk, ones that you still see in the highlight clips.

Thanks John for your insight on this. I also love signed HOF rookie cards however they get really, really expensive when you get down to the 50’s and 60’s players. Not sure I will ever afford/own a Hank Aaron signed rookie card or a Willie Mays signed 52 rookie, then I think why even bother if I’ll never truly collect them all (due to cost).

Im glad that I started this thread and that you gave your thoughts on this because prior to this thread I thought 100% that “any” 1952 topps would be a great investment due to it being such an old and iconic set! Now I am seeing that the 1952 topps set might not be so “automatic” when it comes to long term value.

homerunhitter 02-06-2025 07:54 PM

I think another thing that might mess with my OCD is if I started to collect these, is if PSA changes it’s slabs again! For me, I’ll have to have all the slabs matching plus I really don’t like the look of the the older PSA slabs. It would suck, if I collected these and PSA changed their Slabs halfway through!

Republicaninmass 02-07-2025 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerunhitter (Post 2494271)
I think another thing that might mess with my OCD is if I started to collect these, is if PSA changes it’s slabs again! For me, I’ll have to have all the slabs matching plus I really don’t like the look of the the older PSA slabs. It would suck, if I collected these and PSA changed their Slabs halfway through!

They do it for THIS reason!

One constant...is change!

Dont forget, slabs over the years dont all stack together perfectly!

swarmee 02-07-2025 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerunhitter (Post 2494271)
I think another thing that might mess with my OCD is if I started to collect these, is if PSA changes it’s slabs again! For me, I’ll have to have all the slabs matching plus I really don’t like the look of the the older PSA slabs. It would suck, if I collected these and PSA changed their Slabs halfway through!

This reminds me of the guy on the PSA boards who has been amassing cases of vintage 1980s unopened to crack them to submit to PSA for 10s.
https://forums.collectors.com/discus...ss-psa-10-sets

He started the thread and ripping back in 2018 when bulk grading was $6 each. He wanted to wait to submit the vast majority when he had complete sets, and then COVID boom happened, and submission prices went up to $20 minimum at one point. So the odds of him ever submitting all these perfect 10s he's been stockpiling is almost zero.

So don't let little things like slab/flip differences matter when it comes to your collecting. Take advantage of the opportunities you're given, when they're offered to you.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08 PM.