Calling ticket experts! - holy grail find?

[Dave Grob]

Some thoughts on general pricing data, and these tickets in particular… and this is NOT directed at anyone in particular.

In instances when you have small populations or sample sizes, the relevance of each individual data point (ticket, jersey, card, bat) becomes less relevant/more sensitive. This is not an opinion, but a core component of statistical analysis. With small populations and sample sizes, it is also essential to know these samples in detail; specifically it is even a true sample size, or have some of these items been offered more than once within the same sample. This is key since if collectors are actually seeing the same item often offered more than once, this creates a false read on true rarity. This can lead to lower prices realized since the collector might assume, “Well, if I miss it here, I’ll just get the next one that comes along.” I alluded to this in a previous post on Brooklyn Dodger “Welcome Banners.”

As for the specific data on these proofs as previously offered by Stephen:

GAME 3
October 12 2016 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $3350.05
April 22 2015 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $2250
March 05 2015 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $5000
December 4 2014 - Mile High Game 3 Proof PSA - $1,535.76
December 31 2013 - Game 3 Proof - $5750
GAME 4
December 18 2013 - Game 4 Proof PSA - $801
August 22 2013 - Game 4 Proof PSA - $4000
GAME 5
This game does not trade often, but when it does, it commonly sells in the $150-$300 range as it is a mere novelty.

General Observations
- The highest prices paid/realized are from the oldest examples, not the most recent.

- There is a huge difference in prices between the games, with Game 3 obviously commanding the most money.

- Full sheets are not candidates for grading/encapsulation.

Why these factors may not automatically translate into a much higher price for the sheet as being offered and priced today.

1. The highest prices are oldest. This could suggest that the strongest buyers have already obtained what they were looking for and are likely not interested at all, regardless of price. Use of even the low average of $3,577 for Game 3 as a pricing metric fails to acknowledge that this figure is in fact higher than the price on the two most recent sales.

2. When collecting tickets, there appear to be fairly strong differences and preferences for stubs, full tickets and proofs. It could be that the proof is seen as the least desirable of the three. Here you have to be careful in applying an otherwise macro trend (ticket prices are going up), to a subset of the larger group that may not have same macro-level appeal.

3. The collector interested in a proof, may not be interested in one from Game 4 and or Game 5, and as such, is not willing to pay a premium for what he wants, while absorbing the acquisition of items he does not want.

All of this creates a couple of courses of action.

1. If the goal is strictly to provide the maximum return on investment, separate the tickets and have them graded/encapsulated and then sold individually. This maximizes the possibly demand for the Game 3 ticket and works to satisfy what may be the collector’s preference for graded/encapsulated product.

2. Keep the sheet as is and hold onto it until a buyer is found at a more palatable sales price.

Dave Grob

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Some thoughts on general pricing data, and these tickets in particular… and this is NOT directed at anyone in particular.

In instances when you have small populations or sample sizes, the relevance of each individual data point (ticket, jersey, card, bat) becomes less relevant/more sensitive. This is not an opinion, but a core component of statistical analysis. With small populations and sample sizes, it is also essential to know these samples in detail; specifically it is even a true sample size, or have some of these items been offered more than once within the same sample. This is key since if collectors are actually seeing the same item often offered more than once, this creates a false read on true rarity. This can lead to lower prices realized since the collector might assume, “Well, if I miss it here, I’ll just get the next one that comes along.” I alluded to this in a previous post on Brooklyn Dodger “Welcome Banners.”

As for the specific data on these proofs as previously offered by Stephen:

GAME 3
October 12 2016 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $3350.05
April 22 2015 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $2250
March 05 2015 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $5000
December 4 2014 - Mile High Game 3 Proof PSA - $1,535.76
December 31 2013 - Game 3 Proof - $5750
GAME 4
December 18 2013 - Game 4 Proof PSA - $801
August 22 2013 - Game 4 Proof PSA - $4000
GAME 5
This game does not trade often, but when it does, it commonly sells in the $150-$300 range as it is a mere novelty.

General Observations
- The highest prices paid/realized are from the oldest examples, not the most recent.

- There is a huge difference in prices between the games, with Game 3 obviously commanding the most money.

- Full sheets are not candidates for grading/encapsulation.

Why these factors may not automatically translate into a much higher price for the sheet as being offered and priced today.

1. The highest prices are oldest. This could suggest that the strongest buyers have already obtained what they were looking for and are likely not interested at all, regardless of price. Use of even the low average of $3,577 for Game 3 as a pricing metric fails to acknowledge that this figure is in fact higher than the price on the two most recent sales.

2. When collecting tickets, there appear to be fairly strong differences and preferences for stubs, full tickets and proofs. It could be that the proof is seen as the least desirable of the three. Here you have to be careful in applying an otherwise macro trend (ticket prices are going up), to a subset of the larger group that may not have same macro-level appeal.

3. The collector interested in a proof, may not be interested in one from Game 4 and or Game 5, and as such, is not willing to pay a premium for what he wants, while absorbing the acquisition of items he does not want.

All of this creates a couple of courses of action.

1. If the goal is strictly to provide the maximum return on investment, separate the tickets and have them graded/encapsulated and then sold individually. This maximizes the possibly demand for the Game 3 ticket and works to satisfy what may be the collector’s preference for graded/encapsulated product.

2. Keep the sheet as is and hold onto it until a buyer is found at a more palatable sales price.

Dave Grob

Dave,

THANK YOU! now that is informative and very very helpful. It's good when you take into account things as such and yes you make great points. I agree with a lot of what you are saying if not all of it.

My only thing is, I do not think these pop up often. Aside from your Heritage example which was included in a lot, were you able to find any other sheets offered for sale from this series?

Thanks again for this post. It opens up a real discussion.

[packs]

What would the ticket grail be? I've got to think Lou Gehrig's debut would be a grail.

[Dave Grob]

Stephen,

Please don’t take this as a poke in the eye, but I think you are missing the point of what I took the time to lay out. My apologies if I was confusing. Assuming for the sake of argument, the only two examples out there are yours and the Heritage example. If this were a fact (which I am not saying it is), it does not change or effect the likely perceived market value or likely demand for the item in question as suggested above. Rarity, whether it be numeric or condition based, does not always translate into enhanced value over comparative items for any number of reasons. That is what I had hope was the “take away” from my previous post.

Is there a way to change this dynamic? There could be, but this requires that demand be created for the artifact/item in question. This can come though educational efforts (convincing collectors/the industry that the item is undervalued in a way that makes objective sense to them). In short, growing the number of collectors who would want what you are selling. In this case, numeric or condition based rarity might not be enough.

Offering comparative pricing data may not be enough since it appears (only an observation), that demand for the whole sheet may not be as strong as for the eaches. The dynamic might also change though the application of industry wide pressure. By this I mean the demand for grading/encapsulation of odd size product like this. I don’t think this will likely happen since this would require a market strong enough to justify the additional cost of creating new holders. For the most part, grading/encapsulation is based a volume business model. As such, there is little incentive to invest money in developing a supporting infrastructure for low density items.

I really don’t have anyone more thoughts or information on this particular topic. Maybe others do.

Dave Grob

[Sophiedog]

Those WS tickets are really cool. There's probably a very limited market as well. I think the best way to get your price for them is to list them on Ebay with best offer and be prepared to let them stay there until an acceptable price comes along...could take awhile. If you consign them with an auction house you would have to have a reserve to protect yourself as the right buyer may not see it in the month or so that the auction runs.

[Republicaninmass]

Holy grail? Id have to think the Addie Joss Benefit 7/24/11 game featuring the "all stars".


Least it would probably be mine

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Stephen,

Please don’t take this as a poke in the eye, but I think you are missing the point of what I took the time to lay out. My apologies if I was confusing. Assuming for the sake of argument, the only two examples out there are yours and the Heritage example. If this were a fact (which I am not saying it is), it does not change or effect the likely perceived market value or likely demand for the item in question as suggested above. Rarity, whether it be numeric or condition based, does not always translate into enhanced value over comparative items for any number of reasons. That is what I had hope was the “take away” from my previous post.

Is there a way to change this dynamic? There could be, but this requires that demand be created for the artifact/item in question. This can come though educational efforts (convincing collectors/the industry that the item is undervalued in a way that makes objective sense to them). In short, growing the number of collectors who would want what you are selling. In this case, numeric or condition based rarity might not be enough.

Offering comparative pricing data may not be enough since it appears (only an observation), that demand for the whole sheet may not be as strong as for the eaches. The dynamic might also change though the application of industry wide pressure. By this I mean the demand for grading/encapsulation of odd size product like this. I don’t think this will likely happen since this would require a market strong enough to justify the additional cost of creating new holders. For the most part, grading/encapsulation is based a volume business model. As such, there is little incentive to invest money in developing a supporting infrastructure for low density items.

I really don’t have anyone more thoughts or information on this particular topic. Maybe others do.

Dave Grob

I can tell you that in my time working at Wrigley Field in much of the decade of the 80's I did see several of these sheets located in various nooks and crannies of the old ball park. These proof sheets of all colors were typically found affixed to poster board (i doubt it was poster board as we know if today but some other kind of material from back in the day) and were used to show ushers and ticket takers examples of tickets so they knew where to point patrons based on ticket stub color. These have been stored in several places because, well lets just say the Cubs never threw anything out. The stuff I laid my eyes that was stuffed in filing cabinets in utility storage lockers and above work benches in the grounds crew room would have made me a millionaire by today's standards if I was a thieving type of guy.

The point being, while there may not be a number of these sheets in the hobby they are certainly out there and probably stuffed in the attics of long deceased ushers and security who worked those games.