Is collecting modern cards a sickness?

[Neal]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I agree on not selling Mantles and Aarons to buy Jeters and especially Trouts. Some Trout cards my get more valuable in the short term but there is a 100% chance they will be worth way less in the long run.

Not so sure about that .... sure, some of the 2009 Trout cards that are 2-6K may have a ceiling, may collapse, but ya never know. For the record, these are not the cards I am talking about.

Some of these cards have a finite supply, and I believe have a good upside .... think numbered refractors and xfractors.

Trout is on his way to Cooperstown, and future collectors may not identify with the Mike Trout of the 50s (Mantle)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Neal

Not so sure about that .... sure, some of the 2009 Trout cards that are 2-6K may have a ceiling, may collapse, but ya never know. For the record, these are not the cards I am talking about.

Some of these cards have a finite supply, and I believe have a good upside .... think numbered refractors and xfractors.

Trout is on his way to Cooperstown, and future collectors may not identify with the Mike Trout of the 50s (Mantle)

There are millions of Trout cards. Ben is right, even if he lives up to his potential which is far from certain, the massive supply is going to keep prices down. Any individual issue that doesn't have a lot of copies is just manufactured scarcity which is never a recipe for value. Keep your eye on the big picture.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are millions of Trout cards. Ben is right, even if he lives up to his potential which is far from certain, the massive supply is going to keep prices down. Any individual issue that doesn't have a lot of copies is just manufactured scarcity which is never a recipe for value. Keep your eye on the big picture.

I am trying, but I believe the big picture is Trout. Sure, there are a ton of his cards out there, but select cards from 2009-2011 have a limited production run - and yes, I know they were designed that way. Some of these have some serious upside in my opinion, which could be sooner than later. Think about his career - 5 seasons, one ROY, two MVPs, and the other three seasons he finished 2nd. Five straight seasons finishing top two in MVP voting.

Bottom line, I agree that selling Mantles to buy Trout cards is not smart. But man o man, it is fun to think about.

Maybe selling Berra's and DiMaggios is the way to go

[Peter_Spaeth]

Pujols is closing in on 600 HR and 3000 hits. How are his cards doing?

[Rookiemonster]

Well some people consider gambling a sickness and modern cards are a gamble.
I started as a modern collector . Obviously by buying packs and trading with friends. Later I started to purchase the cards I wanted. I made the change when I got so disgusted with buying packs and boxes. Then the steroids put a damper on my single card purchases .

So I moved to vintage and I still look back a lot .what do I mean by that lol well I still buy some packs from time to time . Mostly for my five year old son but I might grab a few for myself here and there. I still have my childhood and teen and early 20s collection which is all modern.

Like they say collect what you like . Also a change from the norm is always a good idea. BUT KNOW That if trout ever gets caught using ( Ryan Braun) Peds. It's gonna hurt ! If jeter name comes out in the Mitchell report. The burn will be deep. This is a gamble .

[WillBBC]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Well some people consider gambling a sickness and modern cards are a gamble.
I started as a modern collector . Obviously by buying packs and trading with friends. Later I started to purchase the cards I wanted. I made the change when I got so disgusted with buying packs and boxes. Then the steroids put a damper on my single card purchases .

So I moved to vintage and I still look back a lot .what do I mean by that lol well I still buy some packs from time to time . Mostly for my five year old son but I might grab a few for myself here and there. I still have my childhood and teen and early 20s collection which is all modern.

Like they say collect what you like . Also a change from the norm is always a good idea. BUT KNOW That if trout ever gets caught using ( Ryan Braun) Peds. It's gonna hurt ! If jeter name comes out in the Mitchell report. The burn will be deep. This is a gamble .

Modern cards are only a gamble if you let them become a gamble. Nobody's forcing anybody to buy $500 boxes. You can still go to Target and buy a pack of cards for a couple of bucks and put together a set with a couple of 40-50 dollar boxes. I understand not wanting to part with one's money but you can still collect on the cheap. You can hop on ebay or BBCE and buy packs/boxes/singles/complete sets on the cheap. People choose not to collect those products then complain about the lack of value in the boxes they do open. It boggles my mind.

I personally stick to singles and pick up a few boxes of Topps Heritage and the base Upper Deck hockey sets. Two-three boxes of each and I have complete base sets + most of the SPs.

As for Jeter and the Mitchell Report--that was published in 2007 and he wasn't mentioned. What am I missing?

As for the question at hand--I actually did the opposite and sold a Trout Bowman Chrome to fund a '53 Topps Mantle, which I used to build some funding for a Hank Aaron rookie. Collect what you like! If you're looking for a modern investment--the Bowman Chrome Trout card is going to be worth quite a bit for a long, long time. Good luck!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by WillBBC

You can still go to Target and buy a pack of cards for a couple of bucks and put together a set with a couple of 40-50 dollar boxes.

What set would that be? Certainly none of the ones I've collected.


Other than what are essentially prepackaged sets like the recent Babe Ruth set, I haven't been able to build a set of anything for that outlay, not even a set less the SPs.


Steve B

[WillBBC]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Well some people consider gambling a sickness and modern cards are a gamble.
I started as a modern collector . Obviously by buying packs and trading with friends. Later I started to purchase the cards I wanted. I made the change when I got so disgusted with buying packs and boxes. Then the steroids put a damper on my single card purchases .

So I moved to vintage and I still look back a lot .what do I mean by that lol well I still buy some packs from time to time . Mostly for my five year old son but I might grab a few for myself here and there. I still have my childhood and teen and early 20s collection which is all modern.

Like they say collect what you like . Also a change from the norm is always a good idea. BUT KNOW That if trout ever gets caught using ( Ryan Braun) Peds. It's gonna hurt ! If jeter name comes out in the Mitchell report. The burn will be deep. This is a gamble .

Modern cards are only a gamble if you let them become a gamble. Nobody's forcing anybody to buy $500 boxes. You can still go to Target and buy a pack of cards for a couple of bucks and put together a set with a couple of 40-50 dollar boxes. I understand not wanting to part with one's money but you can still collect on the cheap. You can hop on ebay or BBCE and buy packs/boxes/singles/complete sets on the cheap. People choose not to collect those products then complain about the lack of value in the boxes they do open. It boggles my mind.

I personally stick to singles and pick up a few boxes of Topps Heritage and the base Upper Deck hockey sets. Two-three boxes of each and I have complete base sets + most of the SPs.

As for Jeter and the Mitchell Report--that was published in 2007 and he wasn't mentioned. What am I missing?

As for the question at hand--I actually did the opposite and sold a Trout Bowman Chrome to fund a '53 Topps Mantle, which I used to build some funding for a Hank Aaron rookie. Collect what you like! If you're looking for a modern investment--the Bowman Chrome Trout card is going to be worth quite a bit for a long, long time. The 2011 Topps Update base card of Trout is another solid option. Pretty easy to find and it's only now starting to creep over the $100 mark consistently.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pujols is closing in on 600 HR and 3000 hits. How are his cards doing?

Not like they were obviously, but I don't believe that Pujols has what Trout does

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Neal

Not like they were obviously, but I don't believe that Pujols has what Trout does

Compare their numbers for the first 6 seasons. Pujols destroys him.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Compare their numbers for the first 6 seasons. Pujols destroys him.

more than numbers ..... Pujols was not Trout. Not even close.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are millions of Trout cards. Ben is right, even if he lives up to his potential which is far from certain, the massive supply is going to keep prices down. Any individual issue that doesn't have a lot of copies is just manufactured scarcity which is never a recipe for value. Keep your eye on the big picture.

I was down in South Jersey a few months ago and decided to look up and see if there was a card store in the area. Yep, found one. Nothing vintage but they had at least three showcases, multi level, full of nothing but shiny Trout cards. And then boxes of Trout cards. Of course he comes from down there. But it was absurd how many variations of shiny cards there actually was. I'll go out on a limb and say (guess) that they may already be more Mike Trout cards than any player who has ever lived.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I was down in South Jersey a few months ago and decided to look up and see if there was a card store in the area. Yep, found one. Nothing vintage but they had at least three showcases, multi level, full of nothing but shiny Trout cards. And then boxes of Trout cards. Of course he comes from down there. But it was absurd how many variations of shiny cards there actually was. I'll go out on a limb and say (guess) that they may already be more Mike Trout cards than any player who has ever lived.

LOL, but I would guess Jeter and Griffey have him beat .... for now

I would never want to collect every Mike Trout card. There are, however, 5 or 6 cards from 2009-2011 that I would like to own and I believe have room to grow. The 2009 Bowman Sterling is one of them. Limited run, expensive pack, and autographed. The 2011 Finest X-Fractor is another. The 2011 Bowman Chrome Refractor w/auto has hit the ceiling, imo. Plus, I really could never spend 2-4K on a Mike Trout card.

[VoodooChild]

I have limited experience with modern, but from what I've noticed, sticker autographs like the 2009 Sterling are not in as high of demand and may not be the best long term investment.

[KMayUSA6060]

No way in Hell will Trout cards EVER hold the long term investment value that Aaron/Mantle/Ruth/Cobb/etc., have.

I have a crap-ton of modern cards, probably peanuts compared to many, but still thousands of modern cards. I enjoy collecting them because it's what I grew up doing. I'll go back through every once in a while and reminisce. It's fun and nostalgic for me. My favorite player of all time is Jim Thome. I have hundreds of his cards. I would love to collect as many Thome cards as possible, but get discouraged when I remember that there are around 9000 different Jim Thome cards. 9000! The guy is #7 on the HR list, and top 5 if you take out Bonds and ARoid for juicing. He's a 1st ballot HoFer next year, and his cards will continue to go up in value for the time being. How is anyone supposed to put together a master Thome set with over 9000 possible cards that include 1/1s and crap like that?

Part of why vintage cards hold their value is the ability to collect the sets. 1952 Topps, while aesthetically pleasing, holds its value because you can put together the set (might have to sell a kidney for the Mantle, though), but know that it's still a rarer feat to put together the set or own the cards due to their lower print run. Today's sets are a joke. The value of the sets is manufactured with a false bottom.

I am a big proponent of collecting what you love. But at some point you also have to remember there is monetary value here. That monetary value is a bonus as to why I collect more vintage/pre-war now. Aside from the historical significance, I know that if an emergency situation were to occur and I were to need money, I could flip my collection very quickly for cold hard cash. It's very liquid, and will always be in demand. I'm not saying collect strictly based on value, but if you already have some of the cornerstone pieces of the hobby, don't flip them for potential fools gold. Find a different way to fund your Trout collection.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Neal

Not so sure about that .... sure, some of the 2009 Trout cards that are 2-6K may have a ceiling, may collapse, but ya never know. For the record, these are not the cards I am talking about.

Some of these cards have a finite supply, and I believe have a good upside .... think numbered refractors and xfractors.

Trout is on his way to Cooperstown, and future collectors may not identify with the Mike Trout of the 50s (Mantle)

In a word, one simple word, NO. Trout will never, ever have the years Mantle had in 1956 (.353, 52 HR, 130 RBI), '57 (.365, 34 HR, and 146 walks), and '61 (.317, 54 HR, 128 RBI, and 126 walks). Or be one of the seven or 8 players in the history of the game to create over 200% of the league average runs created (as Mantle did, along with Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb and Jackson, an extremely exclusive club, and a stat which takes into account the differences in playing conditions in different eras). Trout is in fact the likeliest to fade in memory, when compared to the true icons such as Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays and AAron. It also didn't hurt that Ruth and Mantle hit them as far as McGwire but without the artificial additives.

Regards,

Larry

[Neal]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

In a word, one simple word, NO. Trout will never, ever have the years Mantle had in 1956 (.353, 52 HR, 130 RBI), '57 (.365, 34 HR, and 146 walks), and '61 (.317, 54 HR, 128 RBI, and 126 walks). Or be one of the seven or 8 players in the history of the game to create over 200% of the league average runs created (as Mantle did, along with Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb and Jackson, an extremely exclusive club, and a stat which takes into account the differences in playing conditions in different eras). Trout is in fact the likeliest to fade in memory, when compared to the true icons such as Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays and AAron. It also didn't hurt that Ruth and Mantle hit them as far as McGwire but without the artificial additives.

Regards,

Larry

Why is it that players from the 50s on down are considered the "true icons" of the sport? The game was much different then, and many greats have played since they hung up their cleats. How would a hitter like George Brett do back in the days before Jackie? How would Ruth do today? Would the Mick have been on TMZ?

Thus goes the great sports debate .....

I am not taking anything away from Ruth, Aaron or Mantle btw. These guys were dominant, dynamic ball players. A long time ago ....

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Neal

Why is it that players from the 50s on down are considered the "true icons" of the sport? The game was much different then, and many greats have played since they hung up their cleats. How would a hitter like George Brett do back in the days before Jackie? How would Ruth do today? Would the Mick have been on TMZ?

Thus goes the great sports debate .....

I am not taking anything away from Ruth, Aaron or Mantle btw. These guys were dominant, dynamic ball players. A long time ago ....

Neal, some would say that since MLB now draws its athletes from a significantly larger total population, the standard deviation reflecting talent has grown much smaller--i.e., the median player has so much talent that it is very hard for anyone to dominate the way that those discussed above did. I personally do not subscribe to this theory for the reason that other major sports have grown in popularity exponentially--football, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer--and have consequently drawn a lot of talent away from baseball. I wouldn't blame you, however, for taking the opposite approach. Under it, Mike Trout might well actually be as good as Mantle was (having seen him play in his later prime in the early '60's, however, my own opinion is to the contrary), but won't be able to demonstrate it if that theory is true--he'd have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER to even dominate to the same degree. And domination is where iconic status comes from.

Best regards,

Larry

[Neal]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Neal, some would say that since MLB now draws its athletes from a significantly larger total population, the standard deviation reflecting talent has grown much smaller--i.e., the median player has so much talent that it is very hard for anyone to dominate the way that those discussed above did. I personally do not subscribe to this theory for the reason that other major sports have grown in popularity exponentially--football, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer--and have consequently drawn a lot of talent away from baseball. I wouldn't blame you, however, for taking the opposite approach. Under it, Mike Trout might well actually be as good as Mantle was (having seen him play in his later prime in the early '60's, however, my own opinion is to the contrary), but won't be able to demonstrate it if that theory is true--he'd have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER to even dominate to the same degree. And domination is where iconic status comes from.

Best regards,

Larry

Nice post, Larry. I agree with some of it. A few things .... first, yes, MLB draws from a larger pop. Included in that larger pool are nations and races that MLB never considered. Mantle had some nice seasons, but never dominated. Ruth DOMINATED. He was the only baseball player who has, imo. Mantle had a few powerhouse years, and a fantastic HOF career. Ruth was the only one. Not taking anything away from Mantle btw


Bottom line is that as much as Mantle and Ruth, among others, are considered "iconic" (and I would agree with that), there are a few others like Griffey, Pujols, and quite possible, Mike Trout, who should be considered "worthy" of being considered when the same ole list of icons is repeated over and over.

Good stuff