Trout v. Legendary cards

[Tyruscobb]

Trout’s superfractor rookie, which has artificially created scarcity, just sold for almost $4M. It is now the highest auctioned sports card ever.

This is more than: 5.5 times Babe Ruth’s 1916 Sporting News card (PSA 7); 1.3 times Mickey Mantle’s 1952 Topps card (PSA 9); and 1.2 times Honus Wagner’s 1909 T-206 card (PSA 5). All these cards survived kids playing with them and no specialty storage cases. Time created their scarcity.

Their careers are also over and statistics set in stone. How much upside is there in a $4M card? One ACL tear a poof. If a genie granted me one card to have, but was conditioned on never selling it, I don’t know if that Trout card would even crack my top 20. Crazy.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ports-card-all

[oldeboo]

Yeah, just imagine all of the amazing cards $4M would buy. I wouldn't have much interested in that Trout card if it was offered for $50. A slew of manufactured 1/1 cards that have different types of sparkle and glitter just doesn't do much for me, but to each their own.

[Bored5000]

The Trout card is not what I would buy if I had unlimited funds, but the "artificially created scarcity" argument for why it should not be a valuable card never makes sense to me. There are lots of "artificially created scarcity" pre-war cards that are valuable simply because of their artificial scarcity.

[chriskim]

I couldn't waited to see who bought the Trout card and what company he is trying to promote this time.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

There are lots of "artificially created scarcity" pre-war cards that are valuable simply because of their artificial scarcity.

Let me clarify what I meant. Intent is the focus. Artificially created scarcity with the sole purpose of creating value. This purpose did not exist during the pre-war years. The reason is cards had little, if any, value or market. No one knew that years later the cards would be worth a small fortune. Thus, the manufactures had no incentive to create scarcity like Bowman did with Trout. Bowman knew the one of one cards would have huge value if the player panned out.

Even the 1934 Lajoie doesn’t count. The reason is it was never supposed to exist. Goudey only created it, because people wrote and complained. Goudey created that card just to satisfy customers. It never intended on creating a holy grail card that people would highly collect 40 years later. Bowman did.

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

[Jim65]

Artificial scarcity is still scarcity, the reason is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Its still a 1/1.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Artificial scarcity is still scarcity, the reason is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Its still a 1/1.

You are correct at the end of the - scarcity is scarcity. However, at least to me, not all scarce cards are equal. Some cards are created scare. They have low print runs and go straight from packs to hard protective cases. They never see the sunlight or kid’s hands.

Other cards are scarce, because they have survived the tests of time. Survived: kid’s hands, moms cleaning out rooms, rubber bands, moves, fires, being passed down from generation to generation, etc.

My point is that it surprises me that the Trout card, whose scarcity was artificially created for value purposes, sold for many times more than “survivor” cards of absolute legends.

To each his own.

[Tomi]

Lets say Trout has a career ending injury in a few years and career is over. What is the future of this card?
Or lets say Trout tests positive for PED's. What is the future of this card. Will there be a difference in the value with the two possibilities.
Not wanting any of those things to happen, but these are reasons why modern is such a huge gamble with cards like this. Almost $4 million for something that might be worth $100K years from now is a scary investment.
Thoughts?

[Delray Vintage]

Agree with you Tyruscobb and Tomi . There is a big difference in this created scarcity with the unintended scarcity by card companies. Yes by definition scarcity is real if it is 1 of 1 but that will not be the same as vintage scarcity over the long haul. Each collector is making their own determination but quality has a way of enduring. Trout refractor has little chance of meeting that enduring quality. Hey, it’s not my $4 mill so good luck to the buyer.

[insidethewrapper]

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

Agree with you. There is a big difference in this created scarcity with the unintended scarcity by card companies. Yes by definition scarcity is real if it is 1 of 1 but that will not be the same as vintage scarcity over the long haul. Each collector is making their own determination but quality has a way of enduring. Trout refractor has little chance of meeting that enduring quality. Hey, it’s not my $4 mill so good luck to the buyer.

What about older cards that have intended rarity because trading in a complete set got the winner a prize?

[benjulmag]

While the card may have been hammered down at $3.2M, we have no idea how deep the market is, or even if there was more than one bidder above $1M. Here is how the auction rules read:

Minimum Bids and Reserves: Every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published, except that two days prior to the auction close, any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with “Reserve Not Met” in the online bidding. Reserve bids are available to the House and the House may, at its discretion, confidentially place reserve bids and set "up to" bids where the next bid in succession would hit the reserve price. No reserve price bids placed by the House will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "pass" in the online catalog.[/B][/B]

For all we know the reserve was the next bid above $3M and the auction house put in the $3M bid.

The card is a 1/1 based on a contrived scarcity. The next version of this card, which has twenty-five known copies, is identical in all material respects except for the color/type of border. So that adds over $3M in value?

Let's just say I'm a bit skeptical about what is going on here.

[puckpaul]

I think the difference is that many of the vintage scarcities, even if contrived, were done to sell the set, and demand often comes from collectors competing for a scarce few cards to finish the set. Not that those scarcities haven’t developed a following from there scarcity, which is similar to the Trout.

I doubt anyone collects the set that Trout is in. Or even knows if there is a set!

I have the T206 “set” minus the big 4. It feels somewhat empty. Given enough $$, i would love to finish it.

Given the passage of time, there seems a lot more inherent risk in paying up for a Trout.

Pretty happy that i own a W600 Cobb, though... I anticipate that the umbrella of these prices keeps that one going.

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Let me clarify what I meant. Intent is the focus. Artificially created scarcity with the sole purpose of creating value. This purpose did not exist during the pre-war years. The reason is cards had little, if any, value or market. No one knew that years later the cards would be worth a small fortune. Thus, the manufactures had no incentive to create scarcity like Bowman did with Trout. Bowman knew the one of one cards would have huge value if the player panned out.

Even the 1934 Lajoie doesn’t count. The reason is it was never supposed to exist. Goudey only created it, because people wrote and complained. Goudey created that card just to satisfy customers. It never intended on creating a holy grail card that people would highly collect 40 years later. Bowman did.

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Pretty happy that i own a W600 Cobb, though... I anticipate that the umbrella of these prices keeps that one going.

If my memory serves me well, even a different color Trout reactor recently sold for more than the W600 Cobb in the same auction.

Congrats on owning one!

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

I think the difference is that many of the vintage scarcities, even if contrived, were done to sell the set, and demand often comes from collectors competing for a scarce few cards to finish the set. Not that those scarcities haven’t developed a following from there scarcity, which is similar to the Trout.

To me, that is some pretty generous logic to say that manufactured rarities from 100 years were more pure because manufacturers were just trying to scam collectors with cards that were impossible (or virtually impossible) to attain.

The lack of set collecting today isn't better or worse; it is just how the hobby has evolved.

Manufactured rarity is manufactured rarity, be it in 2020 or 1920.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

The Wagner was pulled from production, one of those things not counted.
The 1916 Sporting news Ruth is by far the most graded card in that set.
The Mantle is a double print.
All more common than hundreds of other cards even before the whole 1/1 thing began.

Many of the prewar cards had really small print runs by modern standards. So I'm not sure just what you count. Both George C Miller and US Caramel deliberately made very few of one card in a set, and Goudey trying to be sly and simply not making a card to push more sales is well known. (The first 0/0?)

Would I spend 4 million on a Trout card? No. But not because it's rarity is somehow fake.

[Delray Vintage]

This is a case of bubble mania. Yes, the card is worth $4 mill to someone out there. The card was worth $400k 2 years ago. It was worth a million earlier this year. Does anyone think it will be worth more a year from now? Maybe some hedge fund billionaire will want it for more. As a collector of vintage cards for decades I see marketing hype here and this created rarity will plummet over the years. I see the same hype with Jordan stuff.

I will take the Honus Wagner, 52 Mantle, Ruth Rookie in a second over the Trout. Each to his own, but this is a classic case of Tulipmania. Hope the Trout collector enjoys his one of a kind card. Even if Trout becomes the GOAT that card is the beanie baby of 2020. Rare because someone hyped it. Not that vintage cards don’t get hyped but anytime a modern card company decides to produce a rarity I get skeptical.

[Exhibitman]

I have concerns with the modern cards from a long term perspective and it doesn't relate to the player. Anyone who collects Kelloggs 3D, 1970 Topps FB Super, early Topps Refractors, and many other UV and plastic 1990s cards is familiar with the deterioration of the base materials. Finding uncracked Kelloggs is becoming tougher and tougher as the plastic ages and contracts. Early refractors are already discoloring, in some cases inside high end slabs. 1990s cards with plastic coatings are sticking and curling due to the materials. And sharpie can fade. I doubt that this Trout card was made to archival standards. By the time Trout is inducted into the HOF his early cards may be showing physical deterioration.

Setting that aside, I too do not get the modern collecting mindset as respects 1/1 manufactured rarities, only because there will be a new, better manufactured rarity next year. I've even heard some modern collectors who do not consider this the best Trout card because it is a pre-rookie. Those collectors prefer the 2011 card.

[Topnotchsy]

Collectors here may debate artificial/manufactured scarcity vs scarcity that developed organically, but it's hard to know whether those are legitimate distinctions (diamonds are super valuable and we know that the scarcity there is largely manufactured).

Taking a step further back, we have to acknowledge that for many people, spending any real amount on any collectible, whether current of vintage, is kind of laughable.

For most collectors though, collectibles connect us to something. Whether it is the game we love, the players we followed as kids, the stories we heard from our parents/grandparents or something else, it is about more than the item itself. Collecting vintage allows you to connect to the past that way, but collecting modern cards allows you to connect to game as it is being played, and many find great enjoyment in that.

The price of the card is hard to fathom for me, but it is arguably the single most significant baseball rookie card of the last 40 years. Unlike the 1989 UD Griffey rookie or 2001 Bowman Chrome Albert Pujols Auto rookie, this is the first transcendent player who has a 1/1, and Bowman Chrome is viewed by most as the marquee rookie card a player can have.

Of course an injury etc. would mean the price would drop, but the price could also go up. The reality is that the market or vintage can also swing. The fact that vintage players don't play doesn't make their cards impervious to market swings or conditions. Who knows whether over time interest will increase and grow for vintage, or if the next generation will not take to it.

I seem to recall the previous owner heard similar comments (about overpaying) when he paid $400K a couple of years back. Time will tell whether this ownetr does similarly well.

[Bill77]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have concerns with the modern cards from a long term perspective and it doesn't relate to the player. Anyone who collects Kelloggs 3D, 1970 Topps FB Super, early Topps Refractors, and many other UV and plastic 1990s cards is familiar with the deterioration of the base materials. Finding uncracked Kelloggs is becoming tougher and tougher as the plastic ages and contracts. Early refractors are already discoloring, in some cases inside high end slabs. 1990s cards with plastic coatings are sticking and curling due to the materials. And sharpie can fade. I doubt that this Trout card was made to archival standards. By the time Trout is inducted into the HOF his early cards may be showing physical deterioration.

Setting that aside, I too do not get the modern collecting mindset as respects 1/1 manufactured rarities, only because there will be a new, better manufactured rarity next year. I've even heard some modern collectors who do not consider this the best Trout card because it is a pre-rookie. Those collectors prefer the 2011 card.

4 million and it's not even a 10. And the signature looks more like Mr 7up than Mike Trout. Not that my signature is anything to be proud of either.

[Santo10Fan]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Trout’s superfractor rookie, which has artificially created scarcity, just sold for almost $4M. It is now the highest auctioned sports card ever.

This is more than: 5.5 times Babe Ruth’s 1916 Sporting News card (PSA 7); 1.3 times Mickey Mantle’s 1952 Topps card (PSA 9); and 1.2 times Honus Wagner’s 1909 T-206 card (PSA 5). All these cards survived kids playing with them and no specialty storage cases. Time created their scarcity.

Their careers are also over and statistics set in stone. How much upside is there in a $4M card? One ACL tear a poof. If a genie granted me one card to have, but was conditioned on never selling it, I don’t know if that Trout card would even crack my top 20. Crazy.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ports-card-all

I don't dispute your artificial scarcity hypothesis, but the superfractors are unarguably unique cards and the 1/1 craze ensures those buyers won't see it your way. Yes it was manufactured that way and, just to be sure, stamped as unique. The high end collectors will see it no differently than a gem mint from the 1950s that is the only one known. It's about being the only one to own a certain thing and some people will pay anything to prove they do.

[benjulmag]

The issue to me isn't that Trout is not a great baseball player, or not a great ambassador for the game. Nor is the issue that a person doesn't have the right to spend his/her money how he/she pleases. And if the individual who spent $4M for this card feels it is worth every penny of that based on how he/she values collectibles, who am I too judge?

Rather the issue to me is that the value derives from an intentionally created scarcity manufactured for the sole purpose of generating value.

So, one might ask, what is wrong with that if what in the end is created is a true 1/1 card of a once-in-generation player? Nothing, except what is to prevent a whole slew of newly-designed 1/1 cards for each new player to enter the league? And in addition to that do the same for all existing star players. Certainty the economic incentive will be there for the card manufacturers to do precisely that. It will be akin to a marketing strategy made in heaven.... at least short term. But isn't there a risk that if this were to happen collectors in time might begin to look at such 1/1s as representing not a 1/1, but instead view each 1/1 to be part of the same group? So, say, if in 20 years this has been done to all new players that entered the league in that period, and each player had four 1/1s created for him, and for all existing star players until they retired they too each year had four 1/1s created for them, instead of the Trout card being a 1/1, it instead might be viewed as more akin to 1/few thousand? And if so, maybe a lot of the luster of (i.e., demand for) the card will dissipate.

I can't predict the future any better than the next person, other than to opine that whatever it holds, the economic incentive that was placed on card manufacturers will play a significant role. And if what I have described in fact takes place, and what is to stop it, then for the Trout card to hold (or increase) its value it will need to be perceived as a different kind of 1/1 prototype. Again, maybe it will, but from the purely investment perspective (in contrast to the collecting perspective), IMO it is a very risky investment.

[packs]

The model you're talking about has existed for a very long time. Every modern Bowman product produces a 1/1 for every card in the set. Trout just happens to be Trout, but the same card already exists for every player in every set.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Trout’s superfractor rookie, which has artificially created scarcity, just sold for almost $4M. It is now the highest auctioned sports card ever.

This is more than: 5.5 times Babe Ruth’s 1916 Sporting News card (PSA 7); 1.3 times Mickey Mantle’s 1952 Topps card (PSA 9); and 1.2 times Honus Wagner’s 1909 T-206 card (PSA 5). All these cards survived kids playing with them and no specialty storage cases. Time created their scarcity.

Their careers are also over and statistics set in stone. How much upside is there in a $4M card? One ACL tear a poof. If a genie granted me one card to have, but was conditioned on never selling it, I don’t know if that Trout card would even crack my top 20. Crazy.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ports-card-all

I agree. I have not been able to get into ultra-modern. Way too many sets and subsets. The new wave of kids collecting cards in the 2000s don't care a lot about the vintage stuff is my guess - only related to the current players.

[GeoPoto]

The argument that Bonds walking a lot makes him the best is hard to swallow since most of that came after he started cheating. The better argument, it seems to me, is that in 1998 Bonds became the first player in history to have 400 home runs and 400 stolen bases (it might be 300, I'm not looking it up). But, instead of being celebrated for it, McGwire and Sosa got all the attention.

That was also the year that a St. Louis reporter wrote about seeing PEDs in McGwire's locker, kicking off a storm of protest not about PEDs, but about breached locker room privacy. LaRussa said the reporter should be banned from the club house, etc. It was an understandable, though not admirable, reaction by Bonds to feel that PEDs were an acceptable approach to becoming the most celebrated (and highest paid) player in the game. The rest is history and I am not condoning Bonds' behavior, but saying that his position as the best player of his era (at least) was arguably well in hand before he "got dirty".

Whether Bonds would have aged well without PEDs seems likely, but admittedly, is clouded by the drug use. At the same time, we don't yet know how well Trout will age.

[Tao_Moko]

This is a pretty fun argument. Would be very interesting to hear Mike Trout defend himself as a player and if he would recommend spending millions on his card. I wonder what he thinks when he hears comparisons to the past greats.

On another note - I never intend on shedding a negative light on my Marine Corps. I look at it through a different set of lenses. All my brothers in all branches are my heroes, not an athlete. So I give cred to those who did both. I've earned the distinction of being "ignorant" and being responsible for "the stupidest thing" ever heard/read on this site. I've spent my life ensuring the safety of civilians so my apologies for any discredit I've brought upon the Corps with my idiot thoughts and clear annoyance to a few card collectors with my opinion on probably one of the most privileged of all communities. Suggesting a lifelong ball player might fall short overall in a comparison to Ted Williams. Roberto Clemente probably falls short too since he was also a humanitarian and Marine and had better stats because those don't matter. I just can't believe I ever considered an entire impact beyond on field. I'm just a stupid, ignorant fool. I'm going off to apologise to my kids for what they have as a father. If only their dad could be a more passionate and intelligent baseball card collector.