Liquidity & Investing vs collecting

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

I went through my minor league card collecting phase in the mid to late '90's--they do offer, or at least appear to offer, far greater scarcity than mainstream cards of the same era. But they come with what was then a well-known caveat: a number of them have been reprinted in subsequent years when their value rose, including one of Mattingly's minor league cards, and the Modesto McGwire. Caveat emptor!

Regards,

Larry

PS: I also have and have always liked that particular Frank Thomas card!

Any card can be reprinted but I do understand what you are saying Larry. Like anything, you must do your homework. There are many minor league issues that have the serial number on the card or the sealed set like the Jeter Little Sun. For someone to actually want to do a reprint of a minor league card should be a sign that it's worth some money and the demand is there. Even if a minor league card got reprinted (which is rare IMO) then how close does it come to population numbers of the MLB RC of that player???

The Modesto As Big Mac card was a perfect example too! I have a dozen of uncut sheets of that issue I bought at the National, back when the Dead Sea was only sick! But I'll still take Alomar Witchita Rocks, Pawtucket Clemons, Pittsfield Maddux, and West Palm Vladimir cards all day long as I'd. Be shocked if anyone reprinted them along with the original printer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's not just the reprinting prospect, it's that very few people relatively speaking WANT a minor league card, or consider it on the same level as a major league rookie. That said here is my killer Gwynn LOL.

[BeanTown]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1550703]It's not just the reprinting prospect, it's that very few people relatively speaking WANT a minor league card, or consider it on the same level as a major league rookie. That said here is my killer Gwynn LOL.

So, with that being said... What do you consider to be Ruth and Dimaggio rookie card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=BeanTown;1550827]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's not just the reprinting prospect, it's that very few people relatively speaking WANT a minor league card, or consider it on the same level as a major league rookie. That said here is my killer Gwynn LOL.

So, with that being said... What do you consider to be Ruth and Dimaggio rookie card?

Not the Baltimore News or the Zeenut, although I think those fall into a special category and can't really be compared to 1980s and later minor league team sets.

[ls7plus]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1550864]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Not the Baltimore News or the Zeenut, although I think those fall into a special category and can't really be compared to 1980s and later minor league team sets.

+1 there, but the back and forth discussion illustrates a persistent point: what is or is not a "rookie" card is often in the eyes of the [be]holder. Very, very special cards, but certainly not "major league" rookies.

Best always,

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=ls7plus;1551171]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

+1 there, but the back and forth discussion illustrates a persistent point: what is or is not a "rookie" card is often in the eyes of the [be]holder. Very, very special cards, but certainly not "major league" rookies.

Best always,

Larry

The major manufacturers make cards of these kids now two or three years before they play in the majors -- Strasburg, Harper, Trout, Kershaw, and so on. But my understanding is that the market still considers the first cards in a major league uniform to be the RCs.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Any card can be reprinted but I do understand what you are saying Larry. Like anything, you must do your homework. There are many minor league issues that have the serial number on the card or the sealed set like the Jeter Little Sun. For someone to actually want to do a reprint of a minor league card should be a sign that it's worth some money and the demand is there. Even if a minor league card got reprinted (which is rare IMO) then how close does it come to population numbers of the MLB RC of that player???

The Modesto As Big Mac card was a perfect example too! I have a dozen of uncut sheets of that issue I bought at the National, back when the Dead Sea was only sick! But I'll still take Alomar Witchita Rocks, Pawtucket Clemons, Pittsfield Maddux, and West Palm Vladimir cards all day long as I'd. Be shocked if anyone reprinted them along with the original printer.

With all due respect, I think you misunderstood my post, which was likely my fault. By "reprinted," I meant "reissued," i.e., a second or even series of subsequent printings BY THE ORIGINAL ISSUER FROM THE ORIGINAL PLATE! THESE ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE SO-CALLED ORIGINALS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, RATHER THAN A FINITE SUPPLY OF THE CARDS, THERE IS A POTENTIALLY INFINITE AMOUNT THAT MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE WHENEVER THE CARD'S VALUE WARRANTS THE EXPENSE. I am most decidedly NOT talking about taking a photograph of an original card, and making a plate from that in order to produce reprints! A reissue, i.e., more run off from the original plate, will demonstrate the proper, linear dot pattern of any other "original," whereas a "reprint" made through the latter process yields a random dot pattern. The latter can be readily distinguished from the "originals" through magnification, whereas the former cannot, unless different card stock is mistakenly used.

And in practicality, it is certainly NOT true that any card can be "reprinted" in this fashion. IMHO, it is a virtual certainty that the vast majority of original plates from which "original" vintage cards (read "pre-war") can be made have long since ceased to exist. More modern card manufacturers, such as Topps, cannot run the risk of making more "original" cards from their original printing plates because doing so would bring about a total loss of credibility in the marketplace and thus their ruination, even should original plates from the '50's or '60's continue to exist (personally, I doubt that they do, but one never knows for sure).

With minor league cards, however, the printing of such cards was often a one or two-time thing, and there is no effective policing whatsoever with regard to printing more from the original plates when the original issuer determines that added revenue may well be worth it, which is precisely what occurred with both the Mattingly and Modesto McGwire. At the risk of redundancy, THE SUPPLY OF MANY SUCH CARDS DEPENDS ONLY UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL ISSUER, AND IS POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED! Which is why I concluded with "caveat emptor." It is risky in the extreme to buy into any collectible market under such circumstances.

Best of luck to you in your collecting,

Larry

[Exhibitman]

Upper Deck did reprint some of its early high value cards for the execs in the company to sell out the back door. Read "Card Sharks" by Pete Williams. It is a fascinating look at the seamy underbelly of Upper Deck.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Upper Deck did reprint some of its early high value cards for the execs in the company to sell out the back door. Read "Card Sharks" by Pete Williams. It is a fascinating look at the seamy underbelly of Upper Deck.

I read that also, Adam, and you are exactly right. Going by memory, the cards reissued included the Dale Murphy reversed negative and the Ken Griffey Jr. rookie. My recollection was that the individual primarily responsible subsequently departed the company. And really, where is Upper Deck now re its standing in the hobby?

Highest regards,

Larry

[begsu1013]

so went back a re-read this thread and this is the cornerstone of which the buying group conspiracy was bedrocked?

absolutely hysterical.


sorry. it just is.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

so went back a re-read this thread and this is the cornerstone of which the buying group conspiracy was bedrocked?

absolutely hysterical.


sorry. it just is.

I don't think that the posts regarding minor league cards being reissued is or was stated to be anything more than a tangent to the main discussion. But if you don't think the current market for the key cards of the '50's and 60's is a speculative boom, beware, as this is a far better time to be selling those issues going through it than buying them, IMHO. Collectibles simply don't double, triple or quadruple in such a short time when the demand is coming from legitimate collectors. I wouldn't mind sitting on your CJ Jackson for the long term, though Bob. Congrats on that one!

I think the CJ Jax was a great purchase,

Larry

[begsu1013]

thanks, larry.

and I think what is causing a lot of debate is the lack of discussion as to what the percentage levels are that things **might** come stumbling down.

many are painting w/ a very broad brush that it's some bubble. and i have agreed for the most part that what has transpired is a bit of an anomaly and a few cards very well could be targeted.

ive even given pictures or proof as to what might have caused some extremely minor part of it. but like most collectors, don't buy for the short term nor even care but since they haven't been buying all they can do is talk.

but the questions which have yet to be answered is IF this "bubble" pops...

who still believes that they will be able to buy, within 1 year to date:

a koufax 7 for $1750?
a clemente 8 for $12K?
a ryan 8 for $2500?


everyone is claiming the sky is gonna fall as if all hell is gonna break loose and the card market is gonna come crashing down to where the above prices will be back to prime.

i don't see it.

i simply don't.

i don't see them continuing to quadruple next month either and have never made such a claim or even hint that they could even double.

but again, i have yet to see anyone of these guys claiming fallacy answer the above questions in respect to pricing before the theorists came a clucking.

and, yes, the fact that this thread is the main soapbox for its inception is even sadder than me wasting my time going back and reading it over after peter pointed back to it as reference.