The "auction" (for lack of a better word) is over. Look at what happened.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Wait a minute, you're saying these tiny cardboard cutouts that we're paying thousands of dollars for may be artificially inflated? No way.

Right, seriously. If the card market ever crashed to pennies, no noncollector would have any sympathy. They would be thinking what were these idiots thinking spending thousands of dollars on pieces of cardboard. At least with art, it is studied in school, and shown in world class museums. Coins and stamps have a country's history. Even comic books can be made into movies that make hundreds of millions of dollars. Baseball movies are lucky to get close to $100 million during their entire run.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by glchen

Right, seriously. If the card market ever crashed to pennies, no noncollector would have any sympathy. They would be thinking what were these idiots thinking spending thousands of dollars on pieces of cardboard. At least with art, it is studied in school, and shown in world class museums. Coins and stamps have a country's history. Even comic books can be made into movies that make hundreds of millions of dollars. Baseball movies are lucky to get close to $100 million during their entire run.

I respectfully couldn't disagree with this more. So comics are somehow inherently more valuable than cards because they can be made into terrible yet high grossing films? Coins and stamps have a country's history, and cards are part of sports history-- and sports are deeply woven into America's cultural fabric. Art is studied in school, but what makes a Basquiat worth millions and some other brilliant but unhyped artists never makes it big in the art world? There are politics and shadiness at play in the art collecting world, from authentic pieces that an estate doesn't want to dub legit, to the hype that certain influential players can give, which in turn blows up an artists' prices. Look at how attention from the Shafrazis and Gagosians of the art world can affect an artists' prices. And art is the zenith of subjectivity; in contrast a card's rarity, popularity, and the stature of the player depicted are pretty quantifiable, at least relative to justifying why one artist or art work is worth X and another worth Y.

[glchen]

Matt, I can see where you're coming from for comic books, but baseball cards are just pieces of cardboard. It's like the ultimate non-gold standard currency. There's nothing behind it but pure faith. And they were mass produced. And how about non sports cards like Pokémon cards. People can say it's the same thing, entertainment, sports, etc... Art is very subjective, true, but it's always going to be studied in schools, and always going to be considered a "higher" form of culture than sports. I'm not saying that I would be any of these pieces of art that sell for millions which look like my two year old could have done or even if some Monet is really worth $100+ million. However, those collectibles seem to be more a fabric of society than cards are. If Van Gogh's starting selling for $10, it would be headline news, and people would start thinking it's like another Cultural Revolution in China, which wasn't a good thing. The same reaction wouldn't happen for cards.

[MattyC]

One could just as easily say a Warhol is merely some canvas and paint. It's all so subjective. I personally don't believe in comparing one realm of collectible to another. Some cards were mass produced, others are in incredibly low supply relative to demand. One cannot underestimate people's love of sport, sports icons, and all the nostalgia as well.

Art being considered "higher" troubles me. To be clear, not saying you are saying that. But for those who would, it's kind of a pretentious, condescending attitude. There is room in a society for for both fine art and for sport. And one could contend sport is far more popular than art in society. I'm not someone who's big into prognostications but I don't see high end art or high end baseball cards becoming worthless in my lifetime.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by MattyC

One could just as easily say a Warhol is merely some canvas and paint. It's all so subjective. I personally don't believe in comparing one realm of collectible to another. Some cards were mass produced, others are in incredibly low supply relative to demand. One cannot underestimate people's love of sport, sports icons, and all the nostalgia as well.

Art being considered "higher" troubles me. To be clear, not saying you are saying that. But for those who would, it's kind of a pretentious, condescending attitude. There is room in a society for for both fine art and for sport. And one could contend sport is far more popular than art in society. I'm not someone who's big into prognostications but I don't see high end art or high end baseball cards becoming worthless in my lifetime.

Matt, I think you would understand this because you're a screenwriter. There are some movies that are just pure entertainment. However, there are some movies that attempt to give society something different in the world, to make a point. Sports are just pure entertainment, and collecting cards of sports heroes are just an extension of that. However, some art tries to show the world in a different way, and bring the audience with them. That's why I think it's a different type of collectible.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by glchen

Matt, I think you would understand this because you're a screenwriter. There are some movies that are just pure entertainment. However, there are some movies that attempt to give society something different in the world, to make a point. Sports are just pure entertainment, and collecting cards of sports heroes are just an extension of that. However, some art tries to show the world in a different way, and bring the audience with them. That's why I think it's a different type of collectible.

I agree completely that it's a different type. I would just fall short of calling one "higher" or not. Both thought-provoking films/art and sport have merit in society, IMO, is all I'm saying.

[the 'stache]

Not meaning to be argumentative here, Gary, but when was the last time a work of art had the impact that Jackie Robinson's breaking of the color barrier did upon not only baseball, but America itself? After 9/11 happened, did you see thousands of New Yorkers huddled around a Van Gogh at the Met? Nope, the only Met that was lifting people's spirits was Mike Piazza when he hit the game winning home run on 9/21 at Shea. Baseball, not some Degas painting of a bunch of ballerinas, helped heal this country. The history of baseball, and the history of this nation, are intertwined. Baseball cards are valued, and will always be valued, because they help us celebrate the history of our country. To dismiss baseball cards as "only pieces of cardboard", and say they are not the fabric of society is puzzling. I would say that baseball cards are in fact more a part of the fabric of society than a piece of art is.

You mentioned old coins. What intrinsic value do they have? Show me a 1920 nickel, and I'll tell you it's worth 5 cents because there's an active government backing the value of that coin. It's only worth more in certain circles because people have determined old coins have more value. What about coins from ancient civilizations? Again, they have value, and are collectible, because somebody is willing to pay more money to acquire it. If I melted those coins down, what would they be worth? Nothing, unless the coins were gold or silver. Then, they would have value as a commodity anywhere in the world. But nobody would care that that gold or silver came from an old coin.

Art? I can get a canvas, and throw a bunch of paint at it, and try to sell it on Ebay, I won't get a single bid. But, if I were to take that exact same piece of "art", throw it on Ebay with the title "Jackson Pollock masterpiece", you'd get the snobs of the art world tripping over themselves to acquire it. Why? Because people have placed value on paintings from the masters. Van Gogh died penniless. Nobody cared about his paintings while he was alive. It was only later when people identified the tortured genius in his work that they also deemed it had value. Nobody cares about where Van Gogh studied art. If you ask the average person bidding on a painting by Jan Van Eyck, or Rembrandt, or Monet, they're not going to have a clue under which master they might have studied.

Anything can have value. The Star Wars figures I played with as a child are highly collectible. Original, mint on card copies of the "twelve back" figures sell for thousands of dollars.

Originally Posted by glchen

Matt, I can see where you're coming from for comic books, but baseball cards are just pieces of cardboard. It's like the ultimate non-gold standard currency. There's nothing behind it but pure faith. And they were mass produced. And how about non sports cards like Pokémon cards. People can say it's the same thing, entertainment, sports, etc... Art is very subjective, true, but it's always going to be studied in schools, and always going to be considered a "higher" form of culture than sports. I'm not saying that I would be any of these pieces of art that sell for millions which look like my two year old could have done or even if some Monet is really worth $100+ million. However, those collectibles seem to be more a fabric of society than cards are. If Van Gogh's starting selling for $10, it would be headline news, and people would start thinking it's like another Cultural Revolution in China, which wasn't a good thing. The same reaction wouldn't happen for cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't understand the whole modern art thing. The decisions of the cognoscenti as to who is a master and who isn't seem, for the most part, highly arbitrary and capricious.

[DerekMichael]

I love that last post Mr. Gregory.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Not meaning to be argumentative here, Gary, but when was the last time a work of art had the impact that Jackie Robinson's breaking of the color barrier did upon not only baseball, but America itself? After 9/11 happened, did you see thousands of New Yorkers huddled around a Van Gogh at the Met? Nope, the only Met that was lifting people's spirits was Mike Piazza when he hit the game winning home run on 9/21 at Shea. Baseball, not some Degas painting of a bunch of ballerinas, helped heal this country. The history of baseball, and the history of this nation, are intertwined. Baseball cards are valued, and will always be valued, because they help us celebrate the history of our country. To dismiss baseball cards as "only pieces of cardboard", and say they are not the fabric of society is puzzling. I would say that baseball cards are in fact more a part of the fabric of society than a piece of art is.

You mentioned old coins. What intrinsic value do they have? Show me a 1920 nickel, and I'll tell you it's worth 5 cents because there's an active government backing the value of that coin. It's only worth more in certain circles because people have determined old coins have more value. What about coins from ancient civilizations? Again, they have value, and are collectible, because somebody is willing to pay more money to acquire it. If I melted those coins down, what would they be worth? Nothing, unless the coins were gold or silver. Then, they would have value as a commodity anywhere in the world. But nobody would care that that gold or silver came from an old coin.

Art? I can get a canvas, and throw a bunch of paint at it, and try to sell it on Ebay, I won't get a single bid. But, if I were to take that exact same piece of "art", throw it on Ebay with the title "Jackson Pollock masterpiece", you'd get the snobs of the art world tripping over themselves to acquire it. Why? Because people have placed value on paintings from the masters. Van Gogh died penniless. Nobody cared about his paintings while he was alive. It was only later when people identified the tortured genius in his work that they also deemed it had value. Nobody cares about where Van Gogh studied art. If you ask the average person bidding on a painting by Jan Van Eyck, or Rembrandt, or Monet, they're not going to have a clue under which master they might have studied.

Anything can have value. The Star Wars figures I played with as a child are highly collectible. Original, mint on card copies of the "twelve back" figures sell for thousands of dollars.

Bill, it is good to read about your love of cardboard and baseball. Please don't get me wrong. I love collecting baseball cards also. I collected when I was a kid, and I had a lot of fun buying packs at the local drugstore in town or before a Little League game. I exchanged cards with my friends in school, and I really enjoyed it. I still have many of my cards from back then, and although they are worthless in value, there is still a lot sentimental value there. I enjoy collecting today to somewhat relive those times during my childhood, and also to obtain some of the cards I could never dream of obtaining when I was a kid. In addition, it's very enjoyable learning the history of the different baseball cards, and it's a different type of experience in collecting the cards in of itself than when I was a kid.

Moreover, I could never collect art. Most of it's bulky, and I can't understand 99% of it. I much prefer to hang pictures of my family on the walls of our house than any painting or print of a noteworthy painting. However, I still believe that art is a different level of collectible than baseball cards.

So, I will reply to your argument this way. If you could only save one of these, your ten favorite or what you consider most important baseball cards ever, or this one painting of George Washington painted in 1796 by Gilbert Stuart (the Lansdowne portrait), which I’ve attached, and currently hanging in the Smithsonian Museum, which would you choose? A description of this painting is here (Link), and in brief the painting shows Washington refusing a third term as President. Note that there are copies of it painted by the same artist, but this would be the original. You could save only one, and the other would be incinerated and lost forever. Which would you choose?

[MattyC]

I think it's just far too reductive an analysis, to create an Art vs.
Sports collectible debate, and then boil it down to George Washington versus Babe Ruth, so to speak. Again, I'd urge an embracing of both art and sport in any balanced culture.

For every portrait of a Founding Father in a critical historical moment, there is a Jeff Koons sculpture that sells for a head-scratching sum. This type of Internet debate can quickly devolve because there are myriad examples anyone can select to stress either point. Let's resist the impulse to pit these two important realms against one another. There is room for both and collectors of both, and one need not occupy a "higher" level than another. Neither is on the societal chopping block.

After all, one can easily argue that an athlete at the pinnacle of human physical perfection and achievement, be it Jesse Owens or Michael Jordan or a young Mantle, winds up inspiring more people, and occupying a dearer place in more hearts, than many a fine art piece.

Thankfully, the hypothetical choice to sacrifice art or sport is one that our culture will not have to face.

[barrysloate]

It's never good to say what you collect is better and has more intrinsic value than what the other guy collects. Just because you think Jackie Robinson breaking the color line is more important than van Gogh's "A Starry Night" doesn't make you right. It's just an opinion. People who collect are passionate about what they like, and it's important to respect that.

The great coin collections, stamp collections, art collections, classic jazz album collections, or your Aunt Rose's hummel collection mean a great deal to the people who spent the time to put them together and to study the history behind them.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by glchen

Bill, it is good to read about your love of cardboard and baseball. Please don't get me wrong. I love collecting baseball cards also. I collected when I was a kid, and I had a lot of fun buying packs at the local drugstore in town or before a Little League game. I exchanged cards with my friends in school, and I really enjoyed it. I still have many of my cards from back then, and although they are worthless in value, there is still a lot sentimental value there. I enjoy collecting today to somewhat relive those times during my childhood, and also to obtain some of the cards I could never dream of obtaining when I was a kid. In addition, it's very enjoyable learning the history of the different baseball cards, and it's a different type of experience in collecting the cards in of itself than when I was a kid.

Moreover, I could never collect art. Most of it's bulky, and I can't understand 99% of it. I much prefer to hang pictures of my family on the walls of our house than any painting or print of a noteworthy painting. However, I still believe that art is a different level of collectible than baseball cards.

So, I will reply to your argument this way. If you could only save one of these, your ten favorite or what you consider most important baseball cards ever, or this one painting of George Washington painted in 1796 by Gilbert Stuart (the Lansdowne portrait), which I’ve attached, and currently hanging in the Smithsonian Museum, which would you choose? A description of this painting is here (Link), and in brief the painting shows Washington refusing a third term as President. Note that there are copies of it painted by the same artist, but this would be the original. You could save only one, and the other would be incinerated and lost forever. Which would you choose?

Well..................

To follow the stated hobby logic, I'd save the cards. Because just like Broders, the painting can't have any value because the painter could always paint more. (And actually did)

The comparison is a good one in some ways. if I were to pick a handful of cards, the similarities would be that they and the painting would represent events and actions that altered out country in some way and that the alteration was one that remained.
Washington refusing a second term became a tradition that wasn't made law until 17 years after it was broken in 1940.

Obviously something that affected the countries politics and still does over 200 years later.

But an early card of Jackie Robinson? - a 49 leaf to make it easy. Also represents an act that represented a huge change in the US. And while it was less of a solitary act then one involving several people I would make the stretch that as a milestone in a movement that eventually had worldwide influence decades later it could be seen as equivalent historically.

Steve B

[steve B]

A bunch of responses, in no particular order.

As far as the discussion about shilling and where the line must be drawn, I can see some merits to both arguments. My wife and I disagree similarly about a few issues- we agree at the core things are not what they should be, I tend to be more vocal about complaining, while she'll let stuff slide.

So.
Shilling is wrong.
Shilling is a crime.
Shilling happens - probably a lot more than we'd all like to think.

Sometimes it's allowed to happen, either by design or by circumstances.

But.
"We" are often very quick to see shilling everywhere (Perhaps correctly)
I've had instances where I believed shilling was going on, but was later proven wrong. (Happily so, I got a second chance offer on a cycling jersey I thought was unique, passed, then later won the second one which happened to be nicer from the same seller. )


I used to think policing thousands of auctions for odd patterns and bidders with a lot of retractions was an expensive and difficult task. Then someone here wrote a tiny bit of software and found a number of odd patterns in minutes. So it's not an impossible task for shills or simply odd patterns that happen early.
I'm not so sure about the same events if they're within the last few minutes. Ebay probably doesn't allow automated refusal of bids in any way. If they do, someone write that app, and get it out there!

For those who don't see the problem or don't believe it has possibly altered the prices of all cards.

I believe it has. And here's why.

Lets say that only fairly expensive cards get shilled (Don't get on this, it's a false over simplification)
So maybe a card that's in high grade becomes worth shilling. And they sell fairly often in auctions. Maybe its a $500 card. But in an auction it gets shilled to 750, That becomes the new value for a similar copy. After a few have sold at 750, maybe a bit higher since it's "on its way up" 750 really becomes the value. And maybe the shillers reach a bit farther. ..........eventually it becomes a $1500 card. And because it's valuable, the price of the lesser condition copies go up as well. Many people assign value to lower condition examples based on what the better examples are worth. say the 1500 card is EX. but I figure a VG might be worth 50%.
The shilling of the EX card has essentially cost anyone buying a VG version an extra $250.

Even without shilling - say I have a friend of mine actually buy the card. Or, we get together and buy as many VG cards as we can for 350 when they're going for 250. Then we shill or simply buy and sell the same EX card a few times to establish a higher market price. And make claims that all of that card are going up -way up since it's had huge increases. Then we sell off the VG cards at 500, making a tidy profit.

That's exactly why the stock market has rules against people actively dealing in stocks they promote, and against certain buying and selling patterns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_running

Some similar things don't always work out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt_brothers

If you take the market for cards and other collectibles as a commodity market, which is part of the point of grading. All of that applies.

Whether someone takes the high road of abandoning any market or seller that encourages or condones that stuff
Or The middle road of only participating in some auctions.
Or Ignores it all and only bids what they think is fair

Is up to them.
And I guess that will have to be ok, fraud has been an always will be with us.

I'd like to think that those ignoring it at least do so knowing that even without active participation the cost of their collectibles might be artificially inflated beyond what would be normal.

Steve B