Do they really get these prices????

[Archive]

Posted By: BcDaniels

it's about 150% of realized e-bay numbers! Is this stuff shilled?


http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/auction.asp

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I don't know the answer to your question, but I firmly believe you'd have to be an idiot to pay 25K for a 57 Topps Mantle when you can probably get an 1869 Peck & Snyder Reds card for that price. Of course, some bozo recently paid $28.5K for an Albert Pujols card. I guess I should be glad that that fool and his money aren't competing with me for cards that have real value.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

Agree with Paul. That Mantle is close to $30K with the vig. As a 57 Topps fan and a Mantle guy, sure I'd like that card. But I'd take a hi grade Ruth or Gehrig over it any day of the week.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

BCD - which cards are you speaking about specifically? The two E93s or other cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

What a joke. Not sure why someone would pay that amount of cash for that mantle card. That same person could bid on the ruth goudey and t205 matty for the same price.

[Archive]

Posted By: BcDaniels

How's Cameron Jack doing?

I see those E-93's but there are a lot of cards in here that are at 150% of E-bay already. That Mantle is double printed.Is it really hard to find? Are 50's cards drying up as well?

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Brian - Cameron Jack is doing great. Did you receive and read my book yet?

The 1957 Topps Mantle PSA 10 is the only one graded PSA 10. The people bidding on that card are bidding on condition scarcity. Many here will think those people are crazy, but it shouldn't be a surprise as we've all seen it many times in the past. The price has little to do with the number of 57 Mantles or the overall trend in 50s prices. It has to do with a pop of one....just my opinion of course.

I also think that catalog auctions from well-known houses get higher prices than ebay prices in general, as they can get in touch with bidders who may not follow ebay closely.

I've been following the 34 Goudeys closely on Memory Lane - I wouldn't say those prices are surprising at all...seems right in line for a catalog auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

I thought it was suspected that the Pujos card didn't sell and that it was shilled. That's the scuttlebutt on the CU board anyways.

A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.

[Archive]

Posted By: martin dalziel

Just a general statement and not directed at oneone in particular, but i don't understand the "they must be an idiot" sentiments directed at people who are willing to bid what they obviously think is a reasonable bid for something. Thats why auctions work so well; it pits people against each other to determine which persons' version of 'value' comes out on top.

Value on all cards, regardless of era, has nothing to do with intrinsic value, so in someones mind, we're all idiots.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I guess I'll defend my "they must be idiots" comment. I realize people are free to spend their money how they want, and one could certainly question the sanity of all of us for spending the money we do on pieces of cardboard. But, I just can't understand why someone would pay 10 or 100 times the NrMt book value of a card because of a third party's subjective opinion that the card looks slightly nicer under 10x magnification. I just don't know how anyone would get more personal joy out of the card because of a difference you can only see in perfect lighting on a good day -- particularly when the difference can't be seen at all after the card has been slabbed. I feel the same way about coins and diamonds. So it's not a phenomenon that's unique to cards. It's just something I will never understand. I just can't come to grips with why someone would pay $28.5K for an Albert Pujols when he could have maybe 100 or 1000 of the same card (or a wide variety of cards) that look just as nice to the naked eye for the same price.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I agree completely with Paul but understanding the psychology of collecting is really what this is all about. Some people collect because they love the cards, know their baseball history, and look to complete sets or have one of every hall of famer. That fits the profile of most of the members on this board. But for others, their goal is to have nothing less than the best. It's a mindset that probably permeates all aspects of their lives- to never lose at anything and to always be the best and to have the best. I don't condone it, but I try to understand it. To that person, he might not be able to distinguish an 8 from a 9, or a 9 from a 10, but he knows that he simply has to have the best and nothing less will do. Not my cup of tea, and perhaps he is trying to fill a need that is missing somewhere else in his life, but the person who will spend ungodly sums on a 10 knows no other way. As Fitzgerald said: "the rich are different than you and me." I think that applies here.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I think Barry's explanation is one of only two that make sense to me. The other is the "greater fool" theory. The guy who pays $20K for the only "Pristine 11" card made last week hopes someone else will pay $25K for it next month.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

No one spent 28K on that PUJOLS. It was relisted a week later.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

if you thought prices where high last week, what do you think now?

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

I don't think it is stupid for someone to buy a card for thousands of dollars for a player that he thinks is maybe the best of this era; i.e. Albert Pujols. If he has the money why not spend it? Some are commenting on how foolish it is to spend this kind of money to get these types of cards when they could buy a vintage card that is "worth" more.

But are we (vintage collectors) any smarter? Have you ever seen someone buy a T206 card, pay thousands of dollars to get a player that the person does not necessarily like, who is not in the Hall of Fame, in a condition that looks like the card went through the wash and dry cycles, just to get a BACK that says, Uzit or Drum or Carolina Brights? Now try to explain to a modern collector why this is anything but insanity, except for the fact that one year from now, some other insane vintage collector will pay you more for it!

Sincerely,

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Cy,
Good points.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

Cy,
That's exactly what I think.

But I also think that to say that a Pujols rookie doesn't have any "real value" is not entirely accurate. I paid a few hundred bucks for a Pujols rookie about 4 1/2 yrs ago, based on my belief that he would be the best player of our time.
Besides collecting vintage cards, I like to speculate every now and then. Sort of adds a different perspective to collecting for myself.

Go Go White Sox
2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

The thing about modern crap that too many glossy card collectors don't understand is that, say, for Albert Pujols -- his cards are already priced as if he was going to be the second coming. There is no room for investment, because if he isn't the second coming, he will be a big disappointment. Why not spend your money on Frank Thomas or Ken Griffey Jr. cards? They're not "hot" anymore, but chances are Pujols awaits a similar fate to Thomas and Griffey in 10 or so years. Boring and over the hill.

If you really want to speculate on modern glossy crap, you have to come up with a Player that no one thinks will be the second coming who then actually turns out to be the second coming. Otherwise, your cards of Albert Pujols will just look very nice next to those George Brett, Robin Yount, Rickey Henderson and Eddie Murray cards that no one cares about.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

T206..shhhhh!! I already do that.

And just because it is modern, does not necessarily mean it is crap. Just a personal preference on what people like to collect.

Go Go White Sox
2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The 1982 Topps set is a great example of "can't miss investment". This set was loaded with monster rookies; Ripken, Hrbek, Sax, Bell, Barfield, Brunanski, Wallach and lord knows how many more "hot" rookies I am forgetting from that set. When all was said and done, only Ripken panned out to be a HOFer and no one wants his card from the regular set. They want his second card, not his true rookie card.

the funnies thing I ever saw at a show was in 1987 at a big show in Chicago that I set up at. One of the main signers they had at the show was "Future HOFer Williw Banks", the Twins #1 pick and first overall in the draft. I think he barely got a cup of coffee in the bigs.

Jay

WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

You hit the nail on the head w/that, Jay. A particularly unattractive set as well. I think Chili Davis was another hot rookie that year.

I live in Jersey City where Willie Banks is still a legend. He had a bit more than a cup of coffee in the bigs having pitched parts of ten seasons or more and he wasn't the top pick in the draft (#2,3, or 4, I think) but yes, he did wash out big time. Then again, he was still pitching in the minors as recently as 2004 so maybe he can still make good on the Hall of Fame prediction

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

back to the cards in the Memory Lane auction (I don't recall a Pujols in that auction or other 80s or 90s rookies).

E93 Chance PSA 7 (off center to boot) $15,900
E93 Eddie Plank PSA 7 $11,300

I guess I can understand those because they are the highest ever graded (maybe one of them has an 8, don't recall).

But the 1934 Goudeys were all too high. Many of the common PSA 8s went double what previous 8s went for.

[Archive]

Posted By: RP60

Scary, really scary..