Best investments by player and decade

[moogpowell]

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!

[Johnny630]

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.

[ullmandds]

this thread should be moved elsewhere.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

this thread should be moved elsewhere.

+1

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

this thread should be moved elsewhere.

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

[Exhibitman]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

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

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

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 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.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

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.

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

[icurnmedic]

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

[darwinbulldog]

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

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

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.

Yup.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by moogpowell

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!

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

[FrankWakefield]

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.

[Jstottlemire1]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

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

[Yoda]

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

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

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

Originally Posted by Jstottlemire1

Amen

Preach!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

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.

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

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.

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.

[joshleon]

Originally Posted by Frank A

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.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by joshleon

Disjointed ramblings below:

-No one likes manufactured scarcity in the long run. 20 years from now, these new cards won't seem special.

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.

[brunswickreeves]

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.

[todeen]

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

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by todeen

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.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I also agree with the principle...in my own collecting that I'm collecting "different" kinds of stuff. The stuff from the 50's-60's I coveted as a kid collecting in the 70's-80's I couldn't affdord...I buy raw...and put in binders in most cases...just like I did as a kid. In this way I'm recreating my childhood collection(before grading existed) but better!

Additionally the bulk of the value of my collection is in prewar...mostly ruth...cobb...other big name hof'ers I never could afford or dreamed of owning as a kid.

[mordecaibrown1]

Always liked Cobb especially low pop ones!