Hank Aaron card values

[tjenkins]

I will say it again, anyone who thinks that Henry Aaron is not among the greatest players ever at any point, is being ignorant but that wasn't the question. His values are lower simply do to the market, Atlanta and Milwaukee vs. New York and Boston. How do you figure a WAR statistic out anyway? I am pretty stupid but does it really have any validity. I really don't think you can find a more consistent player ever. I would pay more for his cards but happy I don't have to. By the way I love the statistics "the 'stache" if you can't go by statistics than after that it is all subjective!

[ALR-bishop]

Don't you just hate it when batting averages start laughing at you

We do know without a doubt that Hank was a better hitter than his brother Tom.

[Exhibitman]

I don't think Aaron cards are undervalued; Mantle cards are overvalued. He benefits from being white and a Yankee during the Stengel era.

Williams' cards are little tougher to evaluate against the others, for two reasons:

1. His rookie cards were prewar and cannot really be compared with Topps and Bowman RCs in terms of availability, quality, etc.; and

2. He had an inordinate number of #1 (and last card in the set in 1954T) cards in the postwar era: 1954T, 1957T, 1958T. Mays had one that I can think of (1966), I don't think Mantle had any, and Aaron had 1 (1974).

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't think Aaron cards are undervalued; Mantle cards are overvalued. He benefits from being white and a Yankee during the Stengel era.

I don't think Mantle cards are overvalued. I think 12 pennants and 7 championships in his first 14 seasons is why they are as high as they are. Mantle was the best player on most of those teams. I think the triple crown, 18 World Series Home Runs and monster seasons in 56, 57 and 61 made him a hero to even non Yankee fans collecting cards at that time. Those kids coming back to baseball card collecting in the 80s, that is what drove his values from a little more than other superstars to where they are today.

[ALR-bishop]

I am holding on to mine, just on the chance Rats is right

But Aaron too... in case everyone else is right

[MCoxon]

Even statistics can be subjective depending on what you're optimizing for (strength during peak years, longevity, accumulated stats, WAR, championships, etc)

A different question is: what would cause Aaron's values to move now, when all his stats are known? What new information would move his card prices:

1) A new movie? e.g., 61* and Maris, the recent Jackie Robinson movie
2) An assault on a record (e.g., when McGwire passed Maris in 1998 for HR, Maris got a bump in publicity. Mike Payne's book, published in 1999, showed at least 6 Maris cards)?
2) Death? e.g., Banks died, but I don't think we saw a big difference yet in Banks card prices (though I'm hoarding)
3) Scandal? Rose cards, I think, went down after his 1990 ban but I am not sure. They are surprisingly strong still.


Some players have gone up and down over time - why? Yaz and Carlton cards have fallen relatively over the past 20 years or so. I was reading old 1987 Beckett Monthly's this weekend (not that I'm proud of it). And I noticed some trends, which relate to this post.

Back in 1987, the early 1960s Yastrzemski cards were more expensive than Clemente, Mays, etc. cards for those years, even though they had all retired. Today, those Yaz cards are worth far less than the Clementes/Mays'.

Beckett Monthly Dec, 1987 - Beckett High value
1962 Topps: Yaz = $100, Mays = $40, Clemente = $18
1963 Fleer: Yaz = $18, Mays = $18, Clemente = $16
1964 Topps: Yaz = $32, Mays = $27, Clemente = $18


PSA SMR, Oct, 2015 - all cards PSA 7
1962 Topps: Yaz = $125, Mays = $325, Clemente = $155
1963 Fleer: Yaz = $70, Mays = $145, Clemente = $140
1964 Topps: Yaz = $45, Mays = $115 , Clemente = $165

Carlton cards moved similarly relatively down. why?

[tjenkins]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Even statistics can be subjective depending on what you're optimizing for (strength during peak years, longevity, accumulated stats, WAR, championships, etc)

A different question is: what would cause Aaron's values to move now, when all his stats are known? What new information would move his card prices:

1) A new movie? e.g., 61* and Maris, the recent Jackie Robinson movie
2) An assault on a record (e.g., when McGwire passed Maris in 1998 for HR, Maris got a bump in publicity. Mike Payne's book, published in 1999, showed at least 6 Maris cards)?
2) Death? e.g., Banks died, but I don't think we saw a big difference yet in Banks card prices (though I'm hoarding)
3) Scandal? Rose cards, I think, went down after his 1990 ban but I am not sure. They are surprisingly strong still.


Some players have gone up and down over time - why? Yaz and Carlton cards have fallen relatively over the past 20 years or so. I was reading old 1987 Beckett Monthly's this weekend (not that I'm proud of it). And I noticed some trends, which relate to this post.

Back in 1987, the early 1960s Yastrzemski cards were more expensive than Clemente, Mays, etc. cards for those years, even though they had all retired. Today, those Yaz cards are worth far less than the Clementes/Mays'.

Beckett Monthly Dec, 1987 - Beckett High value
1962 Topps: Yaz = $100, Mays = $40, Clemente = $18
1963 Fleer: Yaz = $18, Mays = $18, Clemente = $16
1964 Topps: Yaz = $32, Mays = $27, Clemente = $18


PSA SMR, Oct, 2015 - all cards PSA 7
1962 Topps: Yaz = $125, Mays = $325, Clemente = $155
1963 Fleer: Yaz = $70, Mays = $145, Clemente = $140
1964 Topps: Yaz = $45, Mays = $115 , Clemente = $165

Carlton cards moved similarly relatively down. why?

Good stuff here!

[Volod]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Even statistics can be subjective depending on what you're optimizing for (strength during peak years, longevity, accumulated stats, WAR, championships, etc)

A different question is: what would cause Aaron's values to move now, when all his stats are known? What new information would move his card prices:

1) A new movie? e.g., 61* and Maris, the recent Jackie Robinson movie
2) An assault on a record (e.g., when McGwire passed Maris in 1998 for HR, Maris got a bump in publicity. Mike Payne's book, published in 1999, showed at least 6 Maris cards)?
2) Death? e.g., Banks died, but I don't think we saw a big difference yet in Banks card prices (though I'm hoarding)
3) Scandal? Rose cards, I think, went down after his 1990 ban but I am not sure. They are surprisingly strong still.


Some players have gone up and down over time - why? Yaz and Carlton cards have fallen relatively over the past 20 years or so. I was reading old 1987 Beckett Monthly's this weekend (not that I'm proud of it). And I noticed some trends, which relate to this post.

Back in 1987, the early 1960s Yastrzemski cards were more expensive than Clemente, Mays, etc. cards for those years, even though they had all retired. Today, those Yaz cards are worth far less than the Clementes/Mays'.

Beckett Monthly Dec, 1987 - Beckett High value
1962 Topps: Yaz = $100, Mays = $40, Clemente = $18
1963 Fleer: Yaz = $18, Mays = $18, Clemente = $16
1964 Topps: Yaz = $32, Mays = $27, Clemente = $18


PSA SMR, Oct, 2015 - all cards PSA 7
1962 Topps: Yaz = $125, Mays = $325, Clemente = $155
1963 Fleer: Yaz = $70, Mays = $145, Clemente = $140
1964 Topps: Yaz = $45, Mays = $115 , Clemente = $165

Carlton cards moved similarly relatively down. why?

Some tasty food for thought there, Mike, but, as a lit major, i have to admit that stats have always hit my palette as something like moldy pasteboard. Still, it's great fun to indulge in wild speculation about what drives wild speculation in pricing. My guess is that, in 1987, the Sox had just reached the finals for the first time in 12 years, so maybe Yaz was a bigger icon at that moment than Willie or Roberto, simply by his association with the Boston team. The Giants and Pirates at the time were perennial losers. As to Carlton, perhaps his values took a hit from the somewhat lackluster ending to his career, as he bounced from team to team in an attempt to hang on way past his prime. His overall reputation may have taken a hit with fans, contrasted with other greats, such as Gibson, or Koufax, who retired with more dignity. I imagine these theories can be shot down easily by statistical analyses, but i'm too lazy to do the dirty work.

[tjenkins]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Don't you just hate it when batting averages start laughing at you

We do know without a doubt that Hank was a better hitter than his brother Tom.

AH!! Tommy Aaron. I think he might have to be my next focus for a PC just because Henry was that good!