Most over-valued card

[packs]

Chick Gandil Obak
Chick Gandil C46
Roger Peckinpaugh D311


Pretty expensive key cards of guys who weren't very good from sets full of guys who weren't very good.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by rats60

OPS+ Collins 142 Mantle 172
Championships Collins 4 Mantle 7

Championships:
Frank Crosetti 8
Ty Cobb 0

[Joshwesley]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Rare back 06's. I personally care mostly about the front of the card, as in who is on it. Why a common with a rare back should bring 4-5 figures, I do not know.

BINGO.
Don't understand and will never understand the "Back-game" with T-206's.

Having said that I have a lennox and a CB with common players on the front.

I've always thought that I need to cash those in for some star players...

When you're showing your cards off.... a t206 with Oscar Stanage and a lennox back.... doesn't quite play as well as a Red Cobb portrait or a Mickey Mantle etc. etc.

[glynparson]

People have been saying 1952 mantle since I started collecting in 1980 they were wrong then and wrong now. There is far to much demand for that card from even people that don't own any baseball cards for it to be that one just like it's not the Honus. I'd honestly go with Psa 9. 1968 topps Nolan Ryan right now. Or possibly rose or even my favorite player Stargell. The leaps they have taken in the last month are unprecedented and don't look sustainable.

[the 'stache]

For the prospect autos I buy, the "how many of them are being printed" is the last thing on my mind. I could care less if there are 100 of them printed, or 1,000. I enjoy prospecting. I've always enjoyed learning about up-and-coming players, and these offer the opportunity to get one of their first cards with a certified autograph.

[glchen]

I think the Pete Rose rookie card in 8 or above is overvalued. Just too much supply. I like Pete Rose, and believe he should be in the HOF, but you can't tell me that he's even in the Top 20 of best baseball players ever. That floating head 4-1 rookie card isn't even a nice image of him on a card either.

I can understand why some vintage postwar RC's have a greater "multiplier effect" than many prewar greats like Ruth or Cobb. Then reason is that many collectors stick with only Topps cards. For others, it can be very difficult to determine what the correct rookie card is for a prewar player. For Ruth, there different back variations for the M101-5 and M101-4. And some publications (Beckett, I believe) don't even consider that his rookie card but say something like the 1933 Goudey is Ruth's rookie card due to national distribution. That can confuse many collectors. For Cobb, it's even harder to pin down what his "best" rookie card could be.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Again, respectfully, I have to disagree. Strongly. And I don't own the card.

Mantle is one of the ten greatest offensive players in the annals of Major League Baseball. He was the star for the most successful professional franchise in American sports history, in the biggest metropolitan area in America, at a time when television was exploding, and that team was still winning World Championships. Every kid in America wanted to be the Mick. Fathers named their kids after him. Women threw themselves at him. The Commerce Comet was ripped, charming, if not a little soft spoken initially, and looked like a movie star.

Take all those factors, and then consider that the biggest baseball card company of them all, Topps, made its major set debut in 1952. The 1952 Topps set is to vintage what the T206 set is to pre-war. And Mantle's card was the set's lynchpin.

Oh, and it was short-printed.

I always understood the DP listed next to Mantle, Jackie and Thomson to mean Double Print.

[ALR-bishop]

Raymond--see Justin's post #35. It was a DP card on the sheet but given it was a late summer run and the ocean dumping legend, there may have been fewer sheets for that series

[SMPEP]

Every PSA 7, 8, 9 and 10 card.

I have no idea why buyers have allowed themselves to be duped by the sellers/dealers (who have a vested interest) into believing pristine looking cards are worth more money.

Either you have a 52 Mantle or you don't. It's a binary event. Having the "best looking 52 Mantle" (whatever that means to 2,000 different people) shouldn't command a premium of many multiples - if the market behaved rationally.

No one here would pay $10,000 for a "better" sandwich than the one that cost $15. Yet folks willingly over pay this for cardboard every single day.

But I'm glad all these people buy all these overpriced cards - because if they didn't, I wouldn't be able to have a collection in the first place.

[begsu1013]

i think each and every card mentioned is a qualified candidate, especially the "manufactured rare" cards.

of course, 98% of us will probably be eating our words in the next couple years.

only time will tell.


i did go back and search this forum using key words like:

"top of the market"
"prices"
"insane prices"

and in just about every year* there were threads about what cards were realizing, folks posting it had to be a complete sham or simply utter disbelief.

and most of those prices would be no-brainers and absolute steals now.

dmitri young prices equal an exemplary proving ground.


* not as many during the 07-08 years for obvious reasons.

[steve B]

well, since everyone is going with the whole "manufactured rare" argument, I suppose we can add

33 Goudey Lajoie
R300 Ivy Andrews
US Caramel Lindstrom

And pretty much any other prize winner card.

Sorry, if it applies to one era it must apply to all.


And nobody has mentioned the Wagner yet? Not really hard to get, just hard to afford, just like the 52 Mantle.

Of course, all of those will continue to appreciate reasonably well.

So it all depends on how one figures "overvalued"
To me the Lajoie etc are cards that are probably appropriately valued.
The Wagner and Mantle are worth what they are not because of the card itself, but purely because of demand. What would a T206 common be worth if there were only around 60 known? There's a lot of front back combinations that are much tougher and will never be worth anywhere near what the Wagner is. Likewise, there are twice as many 52 Mantles as any other high number (Except the other two doubleprints) In fact, probably more than double since stars got saved more often. And again, none of the commons or even stars in the high numbers will ever get close.

So I consider them "overvalued" and have for a long time.

Steve B

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

Every PSA 7, 8, 9 and 10 card.

I have no idea why buyers have allowed themselves to be duped by the sellers/dealers (who have a vested interest) into believing pristine looking cards are worth more money.

Either you have a 52 Mantle or you don't. It's a binary event. Having the "best looking 52 Mantle" (whatever that means to 2,000 different people) shouldn't command a premium of many multiples - if the market behaved rationally.

No one here would pay $10,000 for a "better" sandwich than the one that cost $15. Yet folks willingly over pay this for cardboard every single day.

But I'm glad all these people buy all these overpriced cards - because if they didn't, I wouldn't be able to have a collection in the first place.

Not to be a jerk, but a sandwich isn't a collectible. Condition has ALWAYS mattered in EVERY collectible market, coins, antiques, stamps, Tonka Trucks, whatever. While you may have a point to make about infinitesimal differences between 9's and 10's, calling 1952 Mantle ownership a binary event is a little out of touch with, well, the entire rest of the world.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Not to be a jerk, but a sandwich isn't a collectible. Condition has ALWAYS mattered in EVERY collectible market, coins, antiques, stamps, Tonka Trucks, whatever. While you may have a point to make about infinitesimal differences between 9's and 10's, calling 1952 Mantle ownership a binary event is a little out of touch with, well, the entire rest of the world.

I am about to go collect either some hot wings or Chinese food. I won't collect it for long most likely ....(that made me laugh)

[ALR-bishop]

You guys who think food is not a collectible need to pay closer attention to what you are eating

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrTc...hGRvrw9kPhOMY-
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A86.J...cHMcKWWrsKjzg-

[begsu1013]

.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am about to go collect either some hot wings or Chinese food. I won't collect it for long most likely ....(that made me laugh)

Leon- regrettably, we are 'collecting' from the same places...and I see my collection every morning in the mirror- UGH!

CONDITION really DOES matter.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am about to go collect either some hot wings or Chinese food. I won't collect it for long most likely ....(that made me laugh)

those would be intestinal differences, not infinitesimal ones...

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If I'm not mistaken you just insinuated we're not knowledgeable collectors. Is that correct?

Actually that's not correct. I am amazed at the knowledge many members possess on this site, and have learned a lot since I joined reading various threads and having discussions with several of these members.

I simply stated that I believe if one were able to poll a large group of knowledgeable collectors the 52 Mantle would come out on top as the card with the most long term investment potential. It sounds like this is a debate that has been going on for years. As another member pointed out people were saying the card was over valued 30 years ago. It has appreciated quite a bit since then, and I believe it will do so again over the next 30 years.

The T206 Wagner is not his rookie, not the rarest prewar card, and it's not even the rarest Wagner card. Here's a link to a Wagner RC for sale on ebay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/JOHN-HANS-HO...QAAMXQL99ScwiB

Total PSA population of 9. I have never seen a thread or post arguing that this card should sell for more than the t206 because it's his true RC, or because it's more rare.

[sportscardpete]

anything with a ghost image/printers scrap

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

When something is manufactured to be scarce, rare or collectible it sort of takes the shine off of the collecting to me. For those that collect the manufactured rarities, good luck!! You will need it.

I actually disagree with this to some extent, in regards to the value of manufactured rarities (appeal is a different story). I think the early years of artificial scarcity will not only hold their value but increase tremendously. I'm specifically talking about cards manufactured from ~1996-2000. There were loads of innovations during this period, and it was a time when pulling a sequentially numbered card was near impossible (there would usually be a main set and a parallel set and that was it). Ultimately the card companies went too far with the concept and started serial numbering everything. If everything is sequentially numbered, then nothing is.

In addition to being scarce, these cards also feature players you can't find on vintage cards. I love Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb, but I grew up watching Griffey. If I want his best card, I look to the ones that are the scarcest, whether or not that scarcity is artificial doesn't really bother me too much, as long as the item is truly unique. The 1997 SPx Force autograph is one of my favorite cards in my collection, and I appreciate knowing exactly how many were made and which one I own. And as much as I love the aesthetics of my vintage collection, there's something I love about the ridiculous "in-your-face" 90's design. Maybe just because it reminds me of the aesthetics I grew up in...

I think this will apply a lot more to the basketball cards from that era though than baseball. Like Mantle did for baseball cards, Jordan heralded the modern era of card collecting and cards from his era will always carry value. I also think basketball benefits from a strong international market (particularly from China/SE Asia). I think there will be a time when low serial numbered Jordan cards from the 90s appear on the covers of auction magazines right next to the t206 Wagner. And if you look at auction results, it's not that far off I don't think.

But who knows, I could be totally wrong. I actually hope I'm wrong and the late-90s bubble will burst. I'd love to be able to afford all the cards from my childhood again...

[irv]

Originally Posted by zachclose21

I would have to say the 1952 topps #1 Andy pafko. I know it's the #1 card in the set and hard to find in nice shape but $5000 for an ok player.

You stated exactly why it is priced the way it is. It isn't because of who he is, but because of where this card belongs, the #1 card in the set of the most iconic set in the world.
Personally, I am surprised higher graded copies don't sell for more, and no, I do not own one.
http://www.ebay.com/gds/1952-Topps-B...2638733/g.html

Originally Posted by stargell1

Some good answers.

I agree with the 52 topps Mantle because its not a rookie card. The 51 Bowman should be worth more.

Someone mentioned the Jordan rookie but that is a basketball card lol.. I disagree if you mean the 84 star because that's his rookie and Jordan has worldwide popularity. The 86 Fleer is way overvalued in my opinion because its not a rookie card.

My vote goes to the 71 topps Munson. I understand the guy was popular among Yankee fans and Yankee fans are everywhere, but non-rookie/non hall of fame card makes this the most over valued post war card in my opinion.

I was also going to mention that one. Referring to the one I posted that sold for over $30,000 but thought mentioning the current, Rose RC was enough.

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

You should make that picture your new avatar.

Great idea!

Thanks

[darwinbulldog]

My other nominee:
http://smalltraditions.com/1986-topp...r-lot2473.aspx

[darwinbulldog]

Sooooooooooooooooo much nicer than this card:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/3835-1986-Topps-690-RYNE-SANDBERG-Cubs-/371490523749?hash=item567e8f8a65:gAgAAOSwlV9WTrz v

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

My other nominee:
http://smalltraditions.com/1986-topp...r-lot2473.aspx

Holy crap that is the funniest thing I've ever seen. You'd think by 2013 people would understand lo pops because nobody has bothered to grade the damn things lol.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Pop on Sandberg is now up to 6, but there's only 4 Andre Dawson in PSA 10, must be worth a grand right?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by glynparson

People have been saying 1952 mantle since I started collecting in 1980 they were wrong then and wrong now. There is far to much demand for that card from even people that don't own any baseball cards for it to be that one just like it's not the Honus. ....

I'm not saying that this card value is going to drop anytime soon. It is, without a doubt, one of THE iconic cards in the hobby. However, saying that, I still have trouble with the thinking that this card (or cards like this), will always continue to go up in value.

First, people also once upon a time thought that real estate could never drop in value because people had to live somewhere. However, that has now been thoroughly disproven even with the rebound in housing prices. I know this isn't the best analogy, but more aimed at the thinking that card prices for these iconic cards will never drop.

Also, demand for these cards has to come from somewhere. I could have missed them, but I still haven't seen many articles saying there is a rebound in kids collecting baseball cards. I have two boys, ages 5 & 7 (almost). Even though I am an avid collector, they have ZERO interest in cards. I've never seen anyone in their school collect cards. At Target, I see ZERO kids in the baseball card aisle (and in some ways, shocked they still sell them there). Joe Orlando's column in the latest SMR magazine notwithstanding, I've never seen or heard anyone in "real" life randomly talking about cards since I was in middle school nearly 30 years ago. (not including these boards, ebay, or card conventions)

I know there are a lot of folks from my generation who collected cards as a kid, who now have disposable income, who are now spending it on cards to buy a lot of cards they couldn't even think of affording as kids and expanding into other areas. However, it also makes me think that a lot of the folks buying cards these days are purely investors and not even collector/investor. And for investors, if they think the value of a stock has peaked out, they'll drop it like yesterday's Yahoo stock.

[glynparson]

People have been grading 1986 topps stars for about 10 years now because 10scarevrelatively difficult. I agree the price is absurd but you are wrong if you think nobody was submitting them.

[nsaddict]

I'm going with the 52 Topps Mantle also. As a choice, in PSA8's for about the same dough you could have:
51 Bowman Mantle
51 Bowman Mays
52 Bowman Mantle
52 Bowman Mays
53 Topps Mantle
53 Topps Mays

And still have money left to buy a house!

Some would still pick the 52 Mick? Thought it was funny reading Brent's post from PWCC, he still thinks that card is undervalued. For sure, he gets a huge commission on that sale! (nothing against him, I buy from him).

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by glynparson

People have been grading 1986 topps stars for about 10 years now because 10scarevrelatively difficult. I agree the price is absurd but you are wrong if you think nobody was submitting them.

I looked at the pops, a couple hundred of most HOF'ers. Considering that conservative estimates are 6 -10 MILLION of each card, I stand by my assertion. Nobody, relatively speaking, is grading these.

[glynparson]

several hundred for cards that book at a less than a dollar is a lot. Never said people were submitting all of them and if you've ever looked at the issue for 9-20 quality it's less than 1 in 10 cards. People aren't subbing these at 8 level on purpose heck they aren't even shooting for 9 they only want the 10

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

One last thought and then we can just agree to disagree I don't need for you to say I'm right, and I can't be bothered accusing you of being wrong.

Let's go back to the very card in question. There have been 224 Sandbergs submitted. even if we go lowball and say there were 5,000,000 made that is less than one half of one hundreth of a percent or .00005. 6 have gotten PSA 10's. Let's say the world goes on a 1986 Topps grading spree driven by the overwhelming market forces that drive the price of a Sandberg to $2,000, and an additional 1,000 are graded. At current rates that would yield about 31 more PSA 10's. Now a whopping .0002448 of the possibles have been graded and we have 37 PSA 10's. Still worth $2,000? If it is maybe another 5,000 get graded. now we have about 160 MORE PSA 10's for almost 200 TOTAL and we've still only graded .0012448 of all the possible examples.

Let's take a look at the assertion that the "10" is necessarily rare. 6/224 = 2.67%. Not super easy, but far from impossible, especially considering the available cards to draw from! Also you maintain people are only trying to get 10's on this card. Well people must be pretty awful judges of cards because of those 224, 76 have graded 8 with a qualifier or lower. Kind of a side issue to be sure, but again the fact of the matter is paying a premium for a 1986 Topps card because it's "rare" in PSA 10 after 224 have been graded is the kind of thing that will drive people from this hobby, or attract leeches to it.

EDIT: OOPS missed one point, you say that "several hundred for cards that book at a less than a dollar is a lot." Well actually it's only a couple hundred. Also MORE 1985 Sandbergs have been submitted than 1986, and 1987 Sandbergs are virtually identical at 213. They must be tough in PSA 10 also? I'm going to start cracking junk wax for 50¢ cards and turn them into $2,000 apiece...

[Sean]

The most overvalued card is the MAGIE error. It's just a typo. If it wasn't a T206, it would be forgotten.


scan0001.jpg

[xplainer]

PSA 10 1986 Topps = PSA Registery + Ego.

[mechanicalman]

[QUOTE I'm going to start cracking junk wax for 50¢ cards and turn them into $2,000 apiece...[/QUOTE]

Ha. The thought has crossed my mind at times, but then I figured, with grading fees, exorbitant shipping, and the low likelihood of getting a 10, it might cost $3000 to land a $2000 card.

[Wayne]

any superfractor 1/1

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am about to go collect either some hot wings or Chinese food. I won't collect it for long most likely ....(that made me laugh)

I doubt that people who buy souvenir beers or souvenir sodas at the ballpark actually keep 'em as souvenirs.


(Photo taken April 24, 2013. © Gary Dunaier. Link to upload on Flickr.com: here.)

[Gary Dunaier]

That Stephen Strasburg 1/1 that sold for $16,000 a few years ago has to fall into this category on some level. The guy who paid $16K quickly flipped it for $24K. What makes this more amazing is that both transactions took place before Strasburg ever threw a pitch in the majors!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

wasn't there some ultra rare Alex Gordon error or recalled card or something that went absolutely berserk? I pay no attention to new stuff so I may be confusing it with something else.

[Koufax32fan]

This Alex Gordon?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2006-Topps-A...-/370618653697

[KCRfan1]

I'm too much into the cards from the '50's , '60's , and early '70's to even begin to understand or justify prices for " current " rookies.

As a side note, I wonder how many who have said the '52 Mantle is overvalued are actual owners of the card?

And if you presently own the card, do you believe the card is in fact, overvalued?

I don't own a "52 Mantle, nor will I ever be able to afford one. But like it or not, this IS the definitive card in card collecting.

Rarity and scarcity does not always translate to big dollars. While other cards are more difficult to find, the '52 Mantle is iconic and THE card to own.

I'll never forget a post I read form a longtime member that read ( in part ), " The only people who feel Mantles are overvalued are people who don't own one ".

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

I'm too much into the cards from the '50's , '60's , and early '70's to even begin to understand or justify prices for " current " rookies.

As a side note, I wonder how many who have said the '52 Mantle is overvalued are actual owners of the card?

And if you presently own the card, do you believe the card is in fact, overvalued?

I don't own a "52 Mantle, nor will I ever be able to afford one. But like it or not, this IS the definitive card in card collecting.

Rarity and scarcity does not always translate to big dollars. While other cards are more difficult to find, the '52 Mantle is iconic and THE card to own.

I'll never forget a post I read form a longtime member that read ( in part ), " The only people who feel Mantles are overvalued are people who don't own one ".

I have (For now) a '52 Mantle and I think they are priced about right.

.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Leon

I have (For now) a '52 Mantle and I think they are priced about right.

.

Dare I say there may be a part of you that believes the card may be a tad undervalued!!!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Dare I say there may be a part of you that believes the card may be a tad undervalued!!!

Only when I bought it .


.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

I'll never forget a post I read form a longtime member that read ( in part ), " The only people who feel Mantles are overvalued are people who don't own one ".

It's true, but the causal arrow runs in the direction opposite of what is being insinuated; only the people who don't think Mantles are overvalued are buying (and not selling) Mantles. They are outliers in any model that tries to predict the prices of cards strictly as a function of card age, rarity, condition, and player quality -- for all the reasons people have already stated -- and those are not reasons that make me want to own the cards anyway (other than the '51 as a rookie card collector) nor are they reasons that lead me to believe that the run-up is likely to continue over the next several years, let alone decades. I have owned a '52 Topps Mantle once. I got a pretty good deal on it and quickly flipped it for a small profit just over a decade ago. I'm not looking to buy one now, but if the same opportunity arose I'd do the same thing and spend the profit on a card or cards that I want to keep. I wish I had my E126 Ruth back, so maybe I'd go with that. Better player, tougher card, and better-looking card if you ask me.

The only people who own Mantles are the people who feel they aren't overvalued.

[ALR-bishop]

I have 2, both variations. Bought them years ago. I have no idea if they are overvalued or not. I am glad I bought them long ago and not needing to get them now.

I have them because I am an obsessive Topps set collector who tries to get all recognized variations with all my sets. It's hobby for me. I know it is an investment for some, or a combination hobby and investment. It's a broad hobby. Room for all

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

Every PSA 7, 8, 9 and 10 card.

I have no idea why buyers have allowed themselves to be duped by the sellers/dealers (who have a vested interest) into believing pristine looking cards are worth more money.

Either you have a 52 Mantle or you don't. It's a binary event. Having the "best looking 52 Mantle" (whatever that means to 2,000 different people) shouldn't command a premium of many multiples - if the market behaved rationally.

No one here would pay $10,000 for a "better" sandwich than the one that cost $15. Yet folks willingly over pay this for cardboard every single day.

But I'm glad all these people buy all these overpriced cards - because if they didn't, I wouldn't be able to have a collection in the first place.

This post boggles my mind.


Why are there different prices for similar models of cars? Is every Porsche created equal?

Condition has mattered in card collecting since I got started in 1985. It will never change.

Would you be more comfortable owning a painting that was ripped and stained then one that is in pristine condition and you can clearly see the image without any distractions to the eye?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

This post boggles my mind.


Why are there different prices for similar models of cars? Is every Porsche created equal?

Condition has mattered in card collecting since I got started in 1985. It will never change.

Would you be more comfortable owning a painting that was ripped and stained then one that is in pristine condition and you can clearly see the image without any distractions to the eye?

Agreed. ...It's almost exactly opposite of what is stated . And as for condition, it has always been something collectors have focused on since at least the 1930s. Better looking specimens are more desirable and therefore more valuable. It seems like common sense to me.

.

[begsu1013]

.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

so all toilet paper isn't created the same?

Not like Charmin Ultra Soft!

[Eggoman]

Originally Posted by Leon

Agreed. ...It's almost exactly opposite of what is stated . And as for condition, it has always been something collectors have focused on since at least the 1930s. Better looking specimens are more desirable and therefore more valuable. It seems like common sense to me.

.

Does that hold true for WOMEN too???