Waste.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Different IMO. At the time none of those cards, though scarce by design, were worth anything. They weren't short printed to create artificially valuable collectibles.

I don't believe the reason the LeBron was created was to create artificial value. I believe it was created to sell packs, boxes and cases. The exact reason the others were made. I believe they are one and the same. Would I buy the LeBron card - if I could afford it? Probably not. Would I consider the others I mentioned, maybe, but not a 100% lock. The value of scrap cardboard is about 160 bucks (+/-) and anything more than that, there is no guarantee on investment recapture. So the question, in my mind, could I get 6 figure enjoyment from pride of ownership from any of these? My answer would be no on all except Lajoie. Then bring in the possibility of appreciation as a novelty collectible same question... would I buy for investment? Possible on the older stuff, IMO too risky on the newer LeBron. So, in my mind I would probably only purchase 1 of these and that would be Lajoie. But I feel the production was created with the same exact marketing mindset on each and everyone. The reason I would likely buy the Lajoie would have to do with the colored insert pages in the first sport Americana annual. I used to look at that Lajoie and drool. So my desire is also a form of marketing that was done by the producers of the price guide. Like everything that we may covet, there is something, somewhere manipulating our desires. There will always be informationprovid4d to create perceived value on items. Otherwise, Don Mossi and Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth would all be valued the same.

And to get back to the point of this post, I firmly believe that each of these examples were created for exactly the same reason in each case. To increase sales and build customer base.

[Scocs]

I don't believe in moral relativism. Just because someone thinks something is true doesn't necessarily mean it's true in objective reality. Same goes for money: just because you have the means doesn't mean that the money wasn't wasted.

What this autographed James card is lacking that the other things mentioned in the post have is HISTORY. The fact that for $300,00 I can buy single signed autographed baseballs of the first five members of baseball's hall of fame and still possibly have money left over for something signed by George Washington or Alexander Hamilton defies logic. That is why I called it stupid.

There should be no memorabilia of any current player in any sport that should sell for over Quarter of a Million dollars. We can quibble if it should have sold for $5,000 or $25,000 because that still is in the realm of the plausible.

But remember, this was not a buy it now. There was at least one more buyer who kept pushing the price up and up and wound up being the under bidder at somewhere around $240,000....

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Because it is clearly sane to buy cards with minor deviations. Different factory number. Missing bits of ink. 'Cause those are old. This whole hobby makes a clear case for beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

There is one difference here LeBron could produce more of the same type of product if he chooses. This is beyond insane. Having stupid money is one thing but u tell me how much you'd have to have to spend 300k on this. 1 billion wouldn't be enough. This is nuts but that's just my opinion.

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

In Fontana???

For $300k I was thinking Brawley‼️

[BobC]

I think an earlier poster hit the nail on the head when he referred to people buying expensive modern cards as almost a form of gambling. There are virtually no card shops to go and buy cards at anymore, the game for selling modern cards is now in the hands of the Breakers. All you have to do is see how prominently the Breakers and the Breakers Pavilion have grown over the past few years at The National and you may begin to see how the modern card market has morphed over say the last decade or so. Because of all the different products and subsets churned out by the card companies, not very many people still try to put together modern sets anymore. Back in the day when Topps had the monopoly on baseball cards, they put out one main set that everyone would try to collect. Nowadays a new product comes out, and then a week or two later another one, then another one, and so on. So which set does a collector focus on, and then what about the subsets and auto and game used cards and so on that may also be attributed to s specific set? It is impossible to collect everything anymore and finish sets due to the short prints and manufactured rarities they often include.

Still, it is also foolish to think badly of someone for paying so much for this LeBron card. As others have already stated, the buyer paid what he wanted and had the money so, he's to put him down for doing what he wanted. Now whether or not someday he'd be able to sell that same card and make a profit.....that is an entirely different story altogether, and who knows. Whether someone values something because it is a manufactured rarity or a rarity because so few still exist, that is just a personal perception and belief. Collectors collect because they want to and, if they perceive something is rare or generally unavailable, they tend to want it all the more.

The manufactured rarities are here to stay though, at least for now, and are actually being embraced by the card manufacturers because they've learned that is what drives the people who buy cards from the Breakers. When you start selling packs of cards for $20, $50, $100, $500 or even more, a pack, the average collector, let alone kid on the street, is probably not going to have that kind of money.

The Breakers were the solution to the situation caused by rising card prices. Instead of a collector spending $500 on a single pack of cards, and more likely getting nothing of equal perceived value in return, a Breaker would buy the entire case and then sell individual chances at say teams or divisions for a fraction of the $500 single pack price, something much more affordable to the average collector. Say a collector spent $75 for their spot and ended up with cards only worth a perceived value of about $50. That is a lot easier pill to swallow than paying $500 for a single pack and only getting a $50 card in return. Plus, in watching the Breakers open the case live on the internet, they'll likely see that someone else got a big card, or two, that could be sold for well over the $500 pack price. Here's where the gambling aspect comes into it. Add to that the excitement of watching the packs being opened live on the internet and you have people getting hooked, just like going to the casino.

I know for a fact that those Breakers who try to sell their spots through Ebay have to be careful that everyone gets something for the spots they purchase in a Break. If not, even Ebay considers that a form of gambling and will pull the auction if they are notified of it.

In a lot of cases, the people who "hit" these big cards from the Breaks turn around and then immediately sell them online for a lot of money. The shocker to me then is, who exactly is buying these cards that makes people see they can get money off these what are mostly modern, manufactured rarities? I've heard rumors that the card manufacturers themselves may even be behind some of these secondary market purchases, so as to keep the conceived market for these modern cards as high as possible, and to therefore keep the public thinking these cards are worth more than they may actually be. This then allows the card manufacturers to continue to justify the high prices they charge and ultimately makes them more profits. It isn't shilling but, if it were to be the case, it would certainly smack of market manipulation

Heck, we've even had some breaks run through this site looking to sell older sets. Tell me that of you who have purchased spots in such vintage Breaks, were you not doing so on the off chance that you would be lucky enough to hit one of the big cards in a set for a fraction of its regular value? Of course you were, and if so, how is this really any different than gambling or buying lottery tickets?

BobC

[conor912]

For $300k you could probably get Lebron himself to come to your house and give you a reach around.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I don't believe the reason the LeBron was created was to create artificial value. I believe it was created to sell packs, boxes and cases. The exact reason the others were made. I believe they are one and the same. Would I buy the LeBron card - if I could afford it? Probably not. Would I consider the others I mentioned, maybe, but not a 100% lock. The value of scrap cardboard is about 160 bucks (+/-) and anything more than that, there is no guarantee on investment recapture. So the question, in my mind, could I get 6 figure enjoyment from pride of ownership from any of these? My answer would be no on all except Lajoie. Then bring in the possibility of appreciation as a novelty collectible same question... would I buy for investment? Possible on the older stuff, IMO too risky on the newer LeBron. So, in my mind I would probably only purchase 1 of these and that would be Lajoie. But I feel the production was created with the same exact marketing mindset on each and everyone. The reason I would likely buy the Lajoie would have to do with the colored insert pages in the first sport Americana annual. I used to look at that Lajoie and drool. So my desire is also a form of marketing that was done by the producers of the price guide. Like everything that we may covet, there is something, somewhere manipulating our desires. There will always be informationprovid4d to create perceived value on items. Otherwise, Don Mossi and Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth would all be valued the same.

And to get back to the point of this post, I firmly believe that each of these examples were created for exactly the same reason in each case. To increase sales and build customer base.

Disagree somewhat. The historical examples are inducing people to try to complete sets. Companies like Upper Deck know 1/1s and other chase cards sell product because of their perceived value, not because anyone is simply looking to complete a set or just wants the cards for their own sake. So to me, the purpose of the LeBron card and its ilk is in fact to create value. In other words, creating artificial value is the means to selling more product, whereas in the former cases it was just set completion.

Modern cards are all about money. Outside of building a basic set it's what drives people to buy product, bust packs, etc. Of course vintage cards have become the same way, but when they were produced they weren't, and that to me differentiates real value and artificial value. At least until someone makes a good argument that I'm wrong.

[Scocs]

Originally Posted by conor912

For $300k you could probably get Lebron himself to come to your house and give you a reach around.

I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to say it!

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

There is one difference here LeBron could produce more of the same type of product if he chooses. This is beyond insane. Having stupid money is one thing but u tell me how much you'd have to have to spend 300k on this. 1 billion wouldn't be enough. This is nuts but that's just my opinion.

Just an FYI. If you placed 1 billion in the bank and could only get 4% compounded ANNUALLY you would earn $109,589.04 in interest daily. Let that sink in. Daily. Plus whatever the person did to create the billion to begin with. To assume a billionaire wouldn't/couldn't make this kind of purchase is short sighted. Looks to me like he/she could buy 2 a week and never touch their principal, including shipping.

[Scocs]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Just an FYI. If you placed 1 billion in the bank and could only get 4% compounded ANNUALLY you would earn $109,589.04 in interest daily. Let that sink in. Daily. Plus whatever the person did to create the billion to begin with. To assume a billionaire wouldn't/couldn't make this kind of purchase is short sighted. Looks to me like he/she could buy 2 a week and never touch their principal, including shipping.

You're missing the point. No one said the person couldn't buy it (or ten of them). It's that the person SHOULDN'T.

The billionaire could afford a gold toilet too -- that's just called hedonism and gaudy decadence...

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by Scocs

You're missing the point. No one said the person couldn't buy it (or ten of them). It's that the person SHOULDN'T.

The billionaire could afford a gold toilet too -- that's just called hedonism and gaudy decadence...

No. you are missing the point. You are making your conclusions from your base of knowledge. Put your self in a starving persons shoes. Offer them a psa 10 Mickey mantle or a coupon book for Golden Corral. Bet they choose the coupons. And in their opinion 5 dollars on a card is waste. It is all relative.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by Scocs

You're missing the point. No one said the person couldn't buy it (or ten of them). It's that the person SHOULDN'T.

The billionaire could afford a gold toilet too -- that's just called hedonism and gaudy decadence...

We all need to check with Scott from now on to be sure our purchases are within his realm of norm. What a narcissistic opinion you have. Wow.

Mark Medlin

[Scocs]

Sorry, Mark, but your analogy doesn't apply here because this is a baseball card forum. We are all buyers and sellers of baseball cards. I would not try to justify anything hobby-related to the layman.

However, I didn't call the buyer of the card stupid -- I called the decision stupid.

I have a bat signed by HOFer Frank Thomas during his rookie season. I will gladly accept $300,000 from you. I take PayPal.

[Mdmtx]

Scott,

Just to be clear - I already posted I wouldn't buy the card for that. No desire. But I don't pretend to know what is the right or wrong thing for another to do with their money. I also couldn't come close to affording the card. But to say that this card is a bargain for 50,000 and that card was cheap for 100,000 and that one is overpriced for 200 and that one is crazy for 300k is all subjective. The true value, as I posted earlier is what the value of the raw material is - about 160 bucks a ton. Anything beyond that is merely subjective and for each individual buyer to determine if they are satisfied with their purchase. I only took exception to your comment because you stated that even a billionaire should struggle with paying 300k for this. Who knows, maybe is a birthday gift for a 10 year old kid from a wealthy relative. I know many times I have spent way too much money just to see my kids smile (think American Girl Store). But I can't begin to know or understand what any other person may deem as a bargain and I just feel it's a little presumptuous for us as a collective group of hobbyist to uphold one person spend 1000 bucks while berating another for spending 300k. They are both the same - just perspective is different. We can surely easily put ourselves in the shoes of the smaller purchaser, but lose scope when comparing the high end purchase.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agree with the OP. It's stupid money. Manufactured scarcity is meaningless. And LeBron probably has signed hundreds if not thousands of cards.

It reflects a situation I personally wouldn't mind trying on for size--more money than brains. That is, if this mental side of this equation could be overcome! $illy $tupid! IMHO, virtually zero upside, and $300,000+ downside! P.T Barnum in living color!

Best regards,

Larry

[1952boyntoncollector]

Paying for stuff that others think is overpriced or not reasonable happens all the time...to each their own

no one would of bought any time shares if they were worried about getting good value etc.

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Just an FYI. If you placed 1 billion in the bank and could only get 4% compounded ANNUALLY you would earn $109,589.04 in interest daily. Let that sink in. Daily. Plus whatever the person did to create the billion to begin with. To assume a billionaire wouldn't/couldn't make this kind of purchase is short sighted. Looks to me like he/she could buy 2 a week and never touch their principal, including shipping.

Didn't say he wouldn't or couldn't. I said in my opinion it was insane. I am also aware of how compounding works and the amount that would be generated daily from a 1 billion dollar corpus at prevailing rates/yields.

[GregC]

I hear Lebron bought the card personally because he wanted to start a PC of his best cards. Maybe he is manipulating his card values to be more than MJ's?

[mark evans]

A thought-provoking thread...good reading.

I continue to believe that folks should not be criticized for how they spend their money and that the buyer of the James card has assumed a significant downside risk. It may well be that cards of manufactured scarcity from the 1930s also pose a downside risk but it seems to me to be a lesser risk and for a different reason -- aging (and so on) of we baby-boomers.

[Scocs]

First, there was the $700,000 Rose rookie card; now the $300,000 LeBron card.

Ok, Forum: what's next?

[ullmandds]

whats next? a 250K 1977 burger king lou pinella.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

whats next? a 250K 1977 burger king lou pinella.

Don't forget the PSA 10....its gotta be a PSA 10.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

whats next? a 250K 1977 burger king lou pinella.

Now that would objectively make about as much sense. There are at least seven better NBA players in its history who have inarguably been better than LeBron (super-centers are ALWAYS able to contribute more in defense and rebounding): (1) Wilt Chamberlain, who won whenever he had a team behind him, and was truly unstoppable in his youth; (2) Bill Russell, winner of 11, count 'em, 11 NBA championships, and the true "king;" (3) Kareem Abdul Jabbar; (4) Shaquille O'Neil (the closest thing to Chamberlain there has ever been; (5) Michael Jordan; (6) Magic Johnson; and (7) one of Boston's three Gods, Larry Bird.

Sure, people have every right to waste their money any way they please, but I'm sorry, $tupid is $tupid! The so-called, self-proclaimed "legends" of today will fade, and pale in comparison to those icons who have lasted the test of time. Ten years from now LeBron will blend right into lesser players, while Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Williams, Wagner, Jackson, Hornsby, etc. will never do so in our lifetimes!

Sorry, but I find this purchase offends me when I think of the many much better cards I could have bought with that sum. This transaction is best summed up as tragic!

But to each his own,

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've been watching basketball for decades and in the context of his time I would rate LeBron right up there with the guys on your list. ESPN ranks him 3 incidentally.

[Scocs]

LeBron is definitely one of the greatest basketball players of all time. The issue I have is the final hammer price of the item versus the relative newness of the item and the faux scarcity of the item (as opposed to, say, LeBron's only diamond-encrusted championship ring with the Cavs).

[irv]

This made the news, even up here in Canada, so I think it is ultimately good for the hobby.

I am no one to judge so I have no problem if someone can afford to pay what they did for this card.

There are too many unknowns to consider before saying this was stupid wasted money.

[mark evans]

I agree with those who suggest that LeBron will go down as one of the all-time greats. Nevertheless, I can't see this card retaining such high value.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Ten years from now LeBron will blend right into lesser players, while Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Williams, Wagner, Jackson, Hornsby, etc. will never do so in our lifetimes!

Sorry, but I find this purchase offends me when I think of the many much better cards I could have bought with that sum. This transaction is best summed up as tragic!

But to each his own,

Larry

I respectfully disagree, a ton. LeBron's legacy will never fade. He's an All-Time great right now.

And really, the purchase offends you!? Are you kidding me?! Oh, I'm sorry they didn't ask you first for your thoughts and what cards you wanted. Lol smh

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've been watching basketball for decades and in the context of his time I would rate LeBron right up there with the guys on your list. ESPN ranks him 3 incidentally.

ESPN ranked Kobe #2 and after he is retired, he is #12. It is all about hyping current players to get hits. They ranked 2 time all NBA player Steph Curry as the 4th best PG. When Lebron retires, he will be looked at as lower than most of those guys listed.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

I respectfully disagree, a ton. LeBron's legacy will never fade. He's an All-Time great right now.

And really, the purchase offends you!? Are you kidding me?! Oh, I'm sorry they didn't ask you first for your thoughts and what cards you wanted. Lol smh

Yes, it most certainly does and it should trouble each and every knowledgeable collector out there! Perhaps you are unaware of how appraisals are made to ascertain a reasonable value for both real and tangible property (as an attorney, I've certainly had abundant exposure to the process): they compare sales of similar property, and make the necessary adjustments that are called for. Certainly you wouldn't suggest, Brent, that the $312,000 LeBron card is or will be even remotely comparable in long term value to such cards as the 1910 T210 Joe Jackson currently being auctioned in Steve Verkman's Clean Sweep Auctions (it was at $108,000 as of yesterday, including buyer's premium), the Buttercream Ruth, the 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth at the level it was at just 8-9 years ago (when an example graded "poor" went for $152,000, only to resell just six years later at $450,000+, Ty Cobb with Ty Cobb Tobacco back, etc., etc. Having studiously collected for more than a quarter century, I certainly wouldn't, and I highly doubt other experienced collectors would either. While many would believe the self-proclaimed "king" to be among the all-time greats (and I would completely concur, but having devotedly watched NBA action for decades like Peter, having seen Russell, Chamberlain and Jabbar, as well as Magic Johnson and Larry Bird in their primes, and having had Pistons' seasons tickets for many years, what I have seen inevitably leads me to the conclusion that those I have listed were purely and simply better. LeBron compares more favorably to all-time greats such as Oscar Robertson and Jerry West than he does to the others), I seriously doubt that any knowledgeable collector in his right mind would "appraise" the sale value of the LeBron Card as being reasonable by way of comparison to those cards mentioned above.

As I stated, while I certainly don't pretend to dictate to others the manner in which they may waste their money, I don't think the particular verb chosen is anything other than completely appropriate. Some things are matters of opinion, others are of fact--evidence, knowledge and analytical ability are often determinative as to which is which. So, who's kidding who?

Best regards,

Larry

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Yes, it most certainly does and it should trouble each and every knowledgeable collector out there! Perhaps you are unaware of how appraisals are made to ascertain a reasonable value for both real and tangible property (as an attorney, I've certainly had abundant exposure to the process): they compare sales of similar property, and make the necessary adjustments that are called for. Certainly you wouldn't suggest, Brent, that the $312,000 LeBron card is or will be even remotely comparable in long term value such cards as the 1910 T210 Joe Jackson currently being auctioned in Steve Verkman's Clean Sweep Auctions (it was at $108,000 as of yesterday, including buyer's premium), the Buttercream Ruth, the 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth at the level it was at just 8-9 years ago (when an example graded "poor" went for $152,000, only to resell just six years later at $450,000+, etc., etc. While many would believe the self-proclaimed "king" to be among the all-time greats (and I would completely concur, but having devotedly watched NBA action for decades like Peter, having seen Russell, Chamberlain and Jabbar, as well as Magic Johnson and Larry Bird in their primes, and having had Pistons' seasons tickets for many years, what I have seen inevitably leads me to the conclusion that those I have listed were purely and simply better. LeBron compares more favorably to all-time greats such as Oscar Robertson and Jerry West than he does to the others), I seriously doubt that any knowledgeable collector in his right mind would "appraise" the sale value of the LeBron Card as being reasonable by way of comparison to those cards mentioned above.

As I stated, while I certainly don't pretend to dictate to others the manner in which they may waste their money, I don't think the particular verb chosen is anything other than completely appropriate. Some things are matters of opinion, others are of fact--evidence, knowledge and analytic ability are often determinative as to which is which.

Best regards,

Larry

No, it most certainly doesn't. This card doesn't affect you nor concern you!! Who gives a shit if it went for $100,000, $300,000 to $500,000! It does not affect your everyday life! Did you lose sleep over it? Are you having trouble eating?

I never once compared this card to Jackson or this, that and another thing. Not once did I mention that or that it was a justified price. So you're rambling is a moot point to my original post.

If that offends you (someone buying a fricken sports card) I feel sorry for you. I really do.

What if this card was the collectors Holy Grail? Now they finally got it, you should be happy for the purchaser. Hell, there is at least one more person who thought that price was justified.

You may not view that as a smart buy, but they did. And they don't care what Larry thinks or if Larry is offended.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

No, it most certainly doesn't. This card doesn't affect you nor concern you!! Who gives a shit if it went for $100,000, $300,000 to $500,000! It does not affect your everyday life! Did you lose sleep over it? Are you having trouble eating?

I never once compared this card to Jackson or this, that and another thing. Not once did I mention that or that it was a justified price. So you're rambling is a moot point to my original post.

If that offends you (someone buying a fricken sports card) I feel sorry for you. I really do.

What if this card was the collectors Holy Grail? Now they finally got it, you should be happy for the purchaser. Hell, there is at least one more person who thought that price was justified.

You may not view that as a smart buy, but they did. And they don't care what Larry thinks or if Larry is offended.

I think you missed the point. Please read the above again and really ponder it this time. Another point that seems to have bypassed you completely is that this is a forum where the free expression of thoughts and ideas is favored. I don't particularly care if you disagree with me, and I'm not disturbed by ranting and raving (I see enough of it in insurance/defense attorneys' briefs on appeal that it simply bounces off). My points were based upon logic and reason, as well as personal opinion where indicated, and if you choose to differ with them, that is your privilege.

Good luck in your collecting,

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

ESPN ranked Kobe #2 and after he is retired, he is #12. It is all about hyping current players to get hits. They ranked 2 time all NBA player Steph Curry as the 4th best PG. When Lebron retires, he will be looked at as lower than most of those guys listed.

This to me was a good column. And being only 31, I expect LeBron to move up this list. I don't agree with Russell as No. 1 despite being from Boston btw.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/leb...tml/?a=viewall