Money in the hobby

[steve B]

Originally Posted by calvindog

It's always the guys with no money telling the rest of us how dumb we are to spend big money on high grade cards. They have yet to figure out that no one listens to investment advice from guys with no money.

Nice card!

I don't usually say people spending big on high grade cards are dumb. In some situations I'm not sure it's a good investment. Of course, I've had that same opinion of those cards, in some cases since they were new. (86 Fleer Jordan ) So you're probably right about some of my investment ideas.

On the original topic of money in the hobby.
It's one of those love/hate things. I've collected long enough that the prices between when I started and now are worlds apart. T206 Wagners were under 20K for sure, 52 Mantles were under 1000 even for a nice one.
Would I like to return to that?
Yes and no. Now that I've got "some money", at least the Mantle would be within reach, probably not the Wagner. (I could buy one at say 10K, but me and the card would be kicked out of the house shortly after ) And I'd love to get common T206s for $2 each with no regard for backs and not much for condition.
But then, back then I hung out at a dealers a LOT. Sort of worked for them, and got to see a lot of collections come in. And saw a lot of those go back out because what the cards were worth to a dealer wasn't enough to overcome the "these were granddads cards".

Yes, money has shut me out of some of the hobby, my own cheapness from a bit more. But if it wasn't for the money, a lot of that stuff would still be in attics and drawers, or would have been thrown out.
Would the Black Swamp find have been sold into the hobby if the cards were worth a dollar each? Maybe maybe not.

And yes, wherever there's money there are crooks.

But overall, I think the hobby has benefitted from the money.

Steve B

[mark evans]

"Bamboozling the wife" appears to be a theme that runs through many threads. My wife and I have avoided money issues over 30+ years by never combining our finances. Thus, she never complains about my purchases, nor I about hers (I once came home to find a new Cadillac SUV in the driveway.).

I realize this system would not work for all couples and, in particular, those where the wife works at home at child-rearing. Nevertheless, I mention it for the benefit of those collectors who may find it worthy of consideration.

[obcbobd]

Interesting article about what happened to the Elvis Presley collectable market as the original Elvis fans start dying of old age. Will BB Cards see a similar depression in 20-30 years when people, like me, from the 70/80s boom start dying off?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/sh...eting-in-price

[aconte]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

Interesting article about what happened to the Elvis Presley collectable market as the original Elvis fans start dying of old age. Will BB Cards see a similar depression in 20-30 years when people, like me, from the 70/80s boom start dying off?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/sh...eting-in-price

Unless it is a top line HOFER, for the most part the answer is yes. It will
probably be more evident in 40-50 years when most of us will be gone.

[Snapolit1]

Elvis fans are aging out clearly. I'd also argue that Elvis hasn't held up particularly well over the decades. What he did doesn't seem quite so spectacular anymore. Ditto people like Bing Crosby. Sure it will be a good long while before people stop collecting Beatles stuff.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Third party grading makes a card a certified collectible. Anyone can agree or disagree with the grade but when it comes time to buy or sell the marketplace treats it as such. I recall a 1974 Topps Dave Winfield rookie that was graded a PSA 10 and even the most die hard PSA supporter couldn't in any circumstances look at the card and say Gem Mint. Well guess what it went for over $7,400 at the time and the buyer got a Dave Winfield encapsulated in a PSA 10 holder. Cards in graded cases have become commodities and the ease in which many can change hands has led to more money coming into the marketplace. One of the primary reasons the publicly traded stock and bond markets are so active is because they are liquid. The card market obviously isn't as liquid with the bid ask spread being wider and trading costs being higher but without third party grading that spread would be so wide it wouldn't allow for what has happened.
There is nothing wrong with being average or owning average cards but the desire to be the best or own the best isn't going anywhere. When you add the element of past performance and true scarcity it is the perfect storm.

good write up as well. I like the point you made about the 'spread' being better because of PSA/SGC which is a great point.

The auctions houses also create the very important function by delivering mr. regular guys high end collectibles to the eyes of the right people. The right auction houses (which account for some of that spread) really are the equalizer for a regular guy selling his card to get similar results as the pro guy trying to get max money..

[Dpeck100]

I love flipping through some of the auction results. Some serious action in these right here.


A beater of this Johnny Unitas can be had for under $10.


http://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/b...e?itemid=43358


Someone was an idiot when they paid 20k a few years ago for an Ozzie Smith PSA 10.


http://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/b...e?itemid=42978


36k was a nose bleed price. Not sure what you call 54k.


http://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/b...e?itemid=42980


You could own 100 PSA 7's or just 1 PSA 9. No clue what these generally sell for but $204k sounds like a very solid price.

http://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/b...e?itemid=42871

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

I love flipping through some of the auction results. Some serious action in these right here.


A beater of this Johnny Unitas can be had for under $10.


http://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/b...e?itemid=43358

That's just one data point, but SMR has the 9 at $5250, which says something right there.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

That's just one data point, but SMR has the 9 at $5250, which says something right there.

I am not entirely certain what you are getting at. The SMR was updated on all four of these examples listed based on these recent results.

PSA is very conservative when it comes to pricing of low pop cards. All four have guide values that are no where close to these recent sales.

If your point is that you can throw out this result I would disagree as it is a Pop 4 and the only sale in the liner notes is from 2003 and it went for $4,025 back then.

[AGuinness]

I see the point is that guide values are usually pretty slow in reacting to the market (edit: in the high-end market in particular).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Elvis fans are aging out clearly. I'd also argue that Elvis hasn't held up particularly well over the decades. What he did doesn't seem quite so spectacular anymore. Ditto people like Bing Crosby. Sure it will be a good long while before people stop collecting Beatles stuff.

Elvis was #3 on Rolling Stone's most recent top 100 singers list. And #3 on its top 100 artists list. So there.

[wondo]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Elvis fans are aging out clearly. I'd also argue that Elvis hasn't held up particularly well over the decades. What he did doesn't seem quite so spectacular anymore. Ditto people like Bing Crosby. Sure it will be a good long while before people stop collecting Beatles stuff.

Bring it back to baseball cards. Not many folks left alive that saw Gehrig or Ruth play. Many less that saw Cobb and WaJo play. Ain't nobody alive that saw Matty play (well, maybe a handful who dont remember). Yet, those players' cards continue to rise and it seems their collector base expands.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by aconte

Unless it is a top line HOFER, for the most part the answer is yes. It will
probably be more evident in 40-50 years when most of us will be gone.

Basically, any card where a beater of a beater is still going for $1000+/- gives you a hint on what the top of the line HOFer can stay afloat when everything else goes down

A beater 1974 topps Dave Winfield rookie is a dollar etc.

A beater Beater 1914 Cracker Jack Cobb still has real value..

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by wondo

Bring it back to baseball cards. Not many folks left alive that saw Gehrig or Ruth play. Many less that saw Cobb and WaJo play. Ain't nobody alive that saw Matty play (well, maybe a handful who dont remember). Yet, those players' cards continue to rise and it seems their collector base expands.

That's because we are all amateur historians of the sports or subjects we collect. I started following baseball in the mid-1970s and collecting current players, but then as I learned about Aaron and Mantle and Mays, I went there. And then it was off to the earlier players. You get started as a kid today and become a Kershaw collector, and you hear the comparisons with Koufax (and see the then and now style cards). So you take a look at Koufax's career and get a card. Then another one. Then you hear about those other legendary speedsters, so you get a Feller card (though you have to shop around to find one that isn't signed ). And that leads you to Grove and WaJo.

Originally Posted by calvindog

It's always the guys with no money telling the rest of us how dumb we are to spend big money on high grade cards. They have yet to figure out that no one listens to investment advice from guys with no money.

I seriously doubt anyone in their right mind would argue the investment potential of that card, (not to mention the awesomeness), even a peasant like myself who could never legitimately afford the same card in poor condition. Congrats on your success in life and for putting us poor people in our proper place.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by wondo

Bring it back to baseball cards...

In the 1960s, almost no adults collected BB cards, T206s could be bought for pennies. Starting in the 70s, the number of people collecting cards increased, more so in the 80s and 90s.

However, the people no longer collecting cards (because they died) was almost non-existent. That is still the case as the number of people born in the 1920's or 30s who collected BB cards as adults was almost nil.

However 20 years from now, people born in the 50s and 60s, will start to die off. A much greater number of those people collected cards, so more cards, from their estates will enter the market. There will be less people buying, unless people born in the 90s and 00s take their place in equal numbers. This will result in a deflated market.

[hangman62]

I still think its dumb to spend big money on baseball cards

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

In the 1960s, almost no adults collected BB cards, T206s could be bought for pennies. Starting in the 70s, the number of people collecting cards increased, more so in the 80s and 90s.

However, the people no longer collecting cards (because they died) was almost non-existent. That is still the case as the number of people born in the 1920's or 30s who collected BB cards as adults was almost nil.

However 20 years from now, people born in the 50s and 60s, will start to die off. A much greater number of those people collected cards, so more cards, from their estates will enter the market. There will be less people buying, unless people born in the 90s and 00s take their place in equal numbers. This will result in a deflated market.

People still collect born in thei 70s and 80s..plus many of those are just starting to achieve big wealth. Lots of things lose value in 20-30 years or things we value now become obsolete People used to go and steal VCRs from peoples homes. Flat screen tvs used to be 20,000 dollars. Worrying about 30 years from now is a bit silly. 10 years from now a lot of things can change in life and worrying about cards wont be one of them. Ill worry about that stuff first.

Heck, in 10 years at least 10 people that posted today somewhere on net54 will announce to the world that they are getting out of the hobby only to not do that..

[Dpeck100]

I did a Google search on that Joe Jackson and I see it sold for 65k in 2015 via Heritage.

What is the estimate on value today?

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Worrying about 30 years from now is a bit silly

I agree 100%, with the exception of saving for retirement. I would strongly recommend against having BB cards as a significant portion of your retirement portfolio if you are 35. For a short term, 5-10 years, I think they might be a pretty good investment.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by hangman62

I still think its dumb to spend big money on baseball cards

I get the feeling this guy disagrees with you.


https://www.psacard.com/psasetregist...shedset/114624

[mark evans]

A beautiful Joe Jackson.

And, Elvis deserved all the adulation he got, easily.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by mark evans

And, Elvis deserved all the adulation he got, easily.

And I believe Lennon is even quoted, "Without Elvis, there would be no Beatles."

[Snapolit1]

Elvis' body of work hasn't stood up well over time. I will stick by it. He was revolutionary for his day but his music hasn't stayed prominent.

[Billy5858]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Elvis' body of work hasn't stood up well over time. I will stick by it. He was revolutionary for his day but his music hasn't stayed prominent.

+1 ....if he was still alive he would have
been playing Vegas to the retirees not
the Coachella Fest like some of the bands
that still matter do.
Note: He'd be 82 so probably not playing anywhere

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by hangman62

I still think its dumb to spend big money on baseball cards

Most people would agree. Actually you could replace "big" with "any" and most people would agree.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by hangman62

I still think its dumb to spend big money on baseball cards

You could also replace baseball cards with Bats, Autographs, Photos, pennants, pins, etc... most would agree.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Third party grading makes a card a certified collectible. Anyone can agree or disagree with the grade but when it comes time to buy or sell the marketplace treats it as such. I recall a 1974 Topps Dave Winfield rookie that was graded a PSA 10 and even the most die hard PSA supporter couldn't in any circumstances look at the card and say Gem Mint. Well guess what it went for over $7,400 at the time and the buyer got a Dave Winfield encapsulated in a PSA 10 holder. Cards in graded cases have become commodities and the ease in which many can change hands has led to more money coming into the marketplace. One of the primary reasons the publicly traded stock and bond markets are so active is because they are liquid. The card market obviously isn't as liquid with the bid ask spread being wider and trading costs being higher but without third party grading that spread would be so wide it wouldn't allow for what has happened.


It is glaringly obvious from reading Net 54 that there are a ton of bitter collectors or haters that are so upset that they didn't jump on the graded card bandwagon in high grade. Many constantly throw insults at the people buying these cards and yet they are the one's laughing all the way to the bank. Anyone who thinks that you can't consistently tell the difference between a EX-MT card and a NM-MT or a NM and a Mint is just fooling themselves. In recent years there has been a movement towards mid grade cards with great eye appeal. These are obviously perfect cards for collectors wanting to enjoy the cards and have a reasonably nice card to look at but make no mistake about it the investment potential is in higher grades. It is really that simple. This topic has been discussed many times and at the core of collecting is ego. Whether you simply want to appease yourself for fun or you want to have the best that others can't it is a self interest motive and that is the core of one's ego. There is no doubt that many of the top cards in the hobby are bragging rights pieces. No different than any other high end collectibles or works of art.



The trend in the hobby is higher and while many sit and watch in amazement, happiness or bitterness it is what it is. I chose to collect a genre that I could afford the top level pieces. When you deal in the major sports you are competing against some of the wealthiest people in the world. All it takes is two very well off individuals to want an item and the sky is the limit. As the prices rise they become more intriguing. You can show someone a trading card that is worth $50 and they might say that is pretty cool. You show the same person a card that is worth $100,000 and their eyes light up and they say oh my God that is incredible. Taking that a step further showing someone a 7 figure card and they are in complete astonishment. This is one of the primary things that fuel high end prices. I can recall as a kid not being able to afford the 1986 Donruss Jose Canseco or the 1984 Fleer Update Roger Clemens. Imagine the same being true for someone who grew up watching Mickey Mantle or Nolan Ryan or another top star. This same person has gone on to great success and finds out that the same cards they wanted and couldn't afford can now be bought in differentiating condition like diamonds and are encapsulated for safety and handling with the grade proudly displayed on top. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if they become interested they will get hooked.


Just this past week a 1958 Topps Bobby Hull in a PSA 8 went for $102,000. The wave is spreading to all of the top cards from various sports and genres. It is going to take a very serious economic contraction for this to come to an end. Even then there will be vultures looking to pick of weak prey and the cycle will start again. Humans love to collect things of sentiment and value and trading cards offer this. The card market is like the income distribution and the spread between the haves and have nots continues to widen. There is nothing wrong with being average or owning average cards but the desire to be the best or own the best isn't going anywhere. When you add the element of past performance and true scarcity it is the perfect storm.

I think people's perspective is shaped by what their goal is with their collection. I have commented many times on your wrestling cards, since I was a huge fan of wrestling growing up. To me, I would derive as much (or more) joy from your Rax Roast Beef set as from a high-grade Andre or Hulk Hogan card from the Wrestling All-Stars set that is worth a couple thousand dollars.

Some of my favorite cards I own are only $200-300 cards, but I like them more than cards that are worth more but could be replaced any day of the week simply by going to eBay.

With $5,000 or $25,000 or even $100,000 to put into one card, I would rather have an absolute rarity than a condition rarity. That's not a criticism of your choice in collecting, but just an observation that many collectors have a different methodology for how they collect.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

I think people's perspective is shaped by what their goal is with their collection. I have commented many times on your wrestling cards, since I was a huge fan of wrestling growing up. To me, I would derive as much (or more) joy from your Rax Roast Beef set as from a high-grade Andre or Hulk Hogan card from the Wrestling All-Stars set that is worth a couple thousand dollars.

Some of my favorite cards I own are only $200-300 cards, but I like them more than cards that are worth more but could be replaced any day of the week simply by going to eBay.

With $5,000 or $25,000 or even $100,000 to put into one card, I would rather have an absolute rarity than a condition rarity. That's not a criticism of your choice in collecting, but just an observation that many collectors have a different methodology for how they collect.

I concur!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Elvis' body of work hasn't stood up well over time. I will stick by it. He was revolutionary for his day but his music hasn't stayed prominent.

What does that mean, hasn't stood up well over time? What criteria are you applying? I will go with Rolling Stone's assessment if I need to go beyond my own opinion which is that he remains among the very few greatest rock singers.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What does that mean, hasn't stood up well over time? What criteria are you applying? I will go with Rolling Stone's assessment if I need to go beyond my own opinion which is that he remains among the very few greatest rock singers.

Graceland is packed every single day of the week with tourists. He's been dead for 30 years. What other entertainer who has been gone that long has such a following? And Elvis has his own channel on Sirius -- do the Beatles?

I don't see how anyone can state objectively that his music has not stood up over time. His music is timeless, and I'm not even the biggest Elvis fan (though I have been to Graceland).

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Graceland is packed every single day of the week with tourists. He's been dead for 30 years. What other entertainer who has been gone that long has such a following? And Elvis has his own channel on Sirius -- do the Beatles?

.

http://www.siriusxm.com/thebeatleschannel

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Elvis' body of work hasn't stood up well over time. I will stick by it. He was revolutionary for his day but his music hasn't stayed prominent.

Is anyone collecting revolutionary hip-hop artists of 70s, or can anyone even name one that more than 2 in 10 would recognize?

In my opinion Elvis, the Beatles, James Brown and Motown will always have a place in music history long after folks stop googling "What da funk"

[darwinbulldog]

Well then.

[darwinbulldog]

I think people will recognize the name Elvis for many decades to come, but relatively few of them will enjoy listening to his music, so he's transcended his talents and entered the ranks of famous for being famous.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I concur!

Me too, all day long!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

http://www.siriusxm.com/thebeatleschannel

Damn. Not sure how I missed that. Has this been on for long?

PS the fact that I was unaware of this channel supports my argument that the Beatles don't resonate today as well as Elvis does.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Damn. Not sure how I missed that. Has this been on for long?

PS the fact that I was unaware of this channel supports my argument that the Beatles don't resonate today as well as Elvis does.

Gotta disagree with you here, Jeff...the beatles reasonate 100 x's more than elvis does today!

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Damn. Not sure how I missed that. Has this been on for long?

PS the fact that I was unaware of this channel supports my argument that the Beatles don't resonate today as well as Elvis does.

I think the station is new in the past week or so.

[Bill77]

Just my two cents but I would rather listen to Elvis than the Beatles as I think most if not all of their music has not age well at all either.

And I definitely would not want to watch any of Elvis or the Beatles movies.

Again just my two cents on the topic.

[Snapolit1]

Everyone's entitled to their opinions. Elvis was a revolutionary musical performer, an actor, and a larger than life persona. As to the movies, they are not watched today really by anyone. The persona part had its day, but I wouldn't want to be looking for work as an Elvis impersonator these days. As to the music, so what that satellite radio has a station. They have a Jimmy Buffett channel too and I'd hardly argue that he's a revolutionary anything. Elvis sold a ton or records in his day and I am sure his estate sells relatively few these days. Graceland? Nowhere close to the tourist pull it was. (Don't believe the hype from Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.) Cool place I've been there twice. Planes are gone. Man has his place in rock and roll history.
Last time I was at Sun Studios all my tour guide wanted to talk about was Johnny Cash.

[btcarfagno]

I am not sure that I understand what is being argued here regarding Elvis/The Beatles etc. Of course much of their music would not hold up for today's generation. Music tastes change. Attitudes change. Most importantly, what Elvis and The Beatles did has been either mimicked or at least partially copied so much over the past 50+ years that it has watered down the original.

Like anything else they need to be viewed in the context of their time. Citizen Kane was a landmark film in 1939 for many many reasons. Those reasons soon became standard film making practice. 75 years later my kids watch it and only see the story and it being "just another film". Without the historical context this is what happens.

Just because the music of Elvis or The Beatles may not "hold up" to today's generation doesn't make them any less important. In some ways, the influence of Elvis and The Beatles permiating every corner of the music industry has led to their own music not "holding up". It has been copied and mimicked so often that it has watered down the content of the original. Until you put them in their true historical context. Like a Citizen Kane.

Tom C

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74

I seriously doubt anyone in their right mind would argue the investment potential of that card, (not to mention the awesomeness), even a peasant like myself who could never legitimately afford the same card in poor condition. Congrats on your success in life and for putting us poor people in our proper place.

..

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I am not sure that I understand what is being argued here regarding Elvis/The Beatles etc. Of course much of their music would not hold up for today's generation. Music tastes change. Attitudes change. Most importantly, what Elvis and The Beatles did has been either mimicked or at least partially copied so much over the past 50+ years that it has watered down the original.

Like anything else they need to be viewed in the context of their time. Citizen Kane was a landmark film in 1939 for many many reasons. Those reasons soon became standard film making practice. 75 years later my kids watch it and only see the story and it being "just another film". Without the historical context this is what happens.

Just because the music of Elvis or The Beatles may not "hold up" to today's generation doesn't make them any less important. In some ways, the influence of Elvis and The Beatles permiating every corner of the music industry has led to their own music not "holding up". It has been copied and mimicked so often that it has watered down the content of the original. Until you put them in their true historical context. Like a Citizen Kane.

Tom C

Tom, very well articulated, bro. Right on, man! --Brian Powell

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I am not sure that I understand what is being argued here regarding Elvis/The Beatles etc. Of course much of their music would not hold up for today's generation. Music tastes change. Attitudes change. Most importantly, what Elvis and The Beatles did has been either mimicked or at least partially copied so much over the past 50+ years that it has watered down the original.

Like anything else they need to be viewed in the context of their time. Citizen Kane was a landmark film in 1939 for many many reasons. Those reasons soon became standard film making practice. 75 years later my kids watch it and only see the story and it being "just another film". Without the historical context this is what happens.

Just because the music of Elvis or The Beatles may not "hold up" to today's generation doesn't make them any less important. In some ways, the influence of Elvis and The Beatles permiating every corner of the music industry has led to their own music not "holding up". It has been copied and mimicked so often that it has watered down the content of the original. Until you put them in their true historical context. Like a Citizen Kane.

Tom C

Only point I was making was that while Elvis was a huge act (the biggest probably), I can understand why his memorabilia has fallen off a cliff. I don't think his musical has held up for new generations of music fans. Some rare performers, the Beatles for example, will always convert new generations. Go to a McCartney show and watch 10 year singing every song. Doesn't mean they are better or worse. But they continue to resonate. James Dean continues to be know today despite a very limited career. 1000000s of better actors have lapsed into obscurity.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Only point I was making was that while Elvis was a huge act (the biggest probably), I can understand why his memorabilia has fallen off a cliff. I don't think his musical has held up for new generations of music fans. Some rare performers, the Beatles for example, will always convert new generations. Go to a McCartney show and watch 10 year singing every song. Doesn't mean they are better or worse. But they continue to resonate. James Dean continues to be know today despite a very limited career. 1000000s of better actors have lapsed into obscurity.

When you talk about resonating and icons like James Dean you are talking more about their cult of personality than anything that their work might show.

And I am not sure where you see Elvis memorabilia values falling off a cliff. Admittedly I don't follow Elvis memorabilia. Our paths cross only with regard to autographs and movie posters. And these have not dropped measurably in price.

As to the resonance of Elvis' music, there are parts of the country where it remains very popular. In those same areas the music of The Beatles likely seems to not resonate anymore. Just a matter of perspective.

From my perspective, in the collecting areas where I see Elvis items, I do not see what you seem to see.

Tom C

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Only point I was making was that while Elvis was a huge act (the biggest probably), I can understand why his memorabilia has fallen off a cliff. I don't think his musical has held up for new generations of music fans. Some rare performers, the Beatles for example, will always convert new generations. Go to a McCartney show and watch 10 year singing every song. Doesn't mean they are better or worse. But they continue to resonate. James Dean continues to be know today despite a very limited career. 1000000s of better actors have lapsed into obscurity.

James Dean's iconic stature is also helped by his death at age 24 and dying at the height of his career. His legacy would be different, perhaps even greater or perhaps he would have drifted into obscurity, if he had made dozens of films and lived into his 70s or 80s.

[drcy]

Greta Garbo and Rudolf Valentino memorabilia is still popularly collected, but their values have fallen as their stars have faded over the years.

However, if Mozart was still around he would be making a wealthy annual income from how much his music is played and recorded.

I never understood the singular popularity of Elvis, which is not to say I'm saying he wasn't charismatic and without talent. But, as far as Mozart goes, even his elder Haydn said he was a singular once-in-a-hundred years genius.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Elvis sold a ton or records in his day and I am sure his estate sells relatively few these days. Graceland? Nowhere close to the tourist pull it was. (Don't believe the hype from Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.) Cool place I've been there twice. Planes are gone. Man has his place in rock and roll history.
Last time I was at Sun Studios all my tour guide wanted to talk about was Johnny Cash.

Planes are still there at Graceland and the Sun Studio tour is barely about Johnny Cash. When did you go last? I was at both a year ago. And Elvis had an album out recently that was near the top of the Billboard charts.

[trdcrdkid]

As of four years ago, Elvis was the second-highest earning dead celebrity at $60 million a year, behind only Michael Jackson at $200 million. I can't imagine that has changed too dramatically since then.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/art...d-celebrities/