Waste.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Since manufactured scarcity is meaningless, does that apply to leaf Graziano, caramel McKinley and Lindstrom, and Goudey Lajoie? In my opinion these are all the same as the LeBron 1/1. Short produced to keep people purchasing their products. The only difference I see is the level of transparency.

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.

[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....

[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.

[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!

[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.