Trout v. Legendary cards

[Bored5000]

The Trout card is not what I would buy if I had unlimited funds, but the "artificially created scarcity" argument for why it should not be a valuable card never makes sense to me. There are lots of "artificially created scarcity" pre-war cards that are valuable simply because of their artificial scarcity.

[chriskim]

I couldn't waited to see who bought the Trout card and what company he is trying to promote this time.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

There are lots of "artificially created scarcity" pre-war cards that are valuable simply because of their artificial scarcity.

Let me clarify what I meant. Intent is the focus. Artificially created scarcity with the sole purpose of creating value. This purpose did not exist during the pre-war years. The reason is cards had little, if any, value or market. No one knew that years later the cards would be worth a small fortune. Thus, the manufactures had no incentive to create scarcity like Bowman did with Trout. Bowman knew the one of one cards would have huge value if the player panned out.

Even the 1934 Lajoie doesn’t count. The reason is it was never supposed to exist. Goudey only created it, because people wrote and complained. Goudey created that card just to satisfy customers. It never intended on creating a holy grail card that people would highly collect 40 years later. Bowman did.

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

[Jim65]

Artificial scarcity is still scarcity, the reason is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Its still a 1/1.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Artificial scarcity is still scarcity, the reason is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Its still a 1/1.

You are correct at the end of the - scarcity is scarcity. However, at least to me, not all scarce cards are equal. Some cards are created scare. They have low print runs and go straight from packs to hard protective cases. They never see the sunlight or kid’s hands.

Other cards are scarce, because they have survived the tests of time. Survived: kid’s hands, moms cleaning out rooms, rubber bands, moves, fires, being passed down from generation to generation, etc.

My point is that it surprises me that the Trout card, whose scarcity was artificially created for value purposes, sold for many times more than “survivor” cards of absolute legends.

To each his own.

[Tomi]

Lets say Trout has a career ending injury in a few years and career is over. What is the future of this card?
Or lets say Trout tests positive for PED's. What is the future of this card. Will there be a difference in the value with the two possibilities.
Not wanting any of those things to happen, but these are reasons why modern is such a huge gamble with cards like this. Almost $4 million for something that might be worth $100K years from now is a scary investment.
Thoughts?

[Delray Vintage]

Agree with you Tyruscobb and Tomi . There is a big difference in this created scarcity with the unintended scarcity by card companies. Yes by definition scarcity is real if it is 1 of 1 but that will not be the same as vintage scarcity over the long haul. Each collector is making their own determination but quality has a way of enduring. Trout refractor has little chance of meeting that enduring quality. Hey, it’s not my $4 mill so good luck to the buyer.

[insidethewrapper]

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[commishbob]

Buyer could be this guy: Apparently he's the seller

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/c...baseball-cards

LINK FIXED

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

I hope everyone has Vegas Dave’s attitude! Sure my collection’s value would significantly increase if new money flooded into vintage, but the flood would also probably price me out of the market. I’m not done collecting (not investing).

[Seven]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

If more people take that approach then we could see the vintage market go down, but it's unlikely. I feel the majority of the card collectors do it so they can connect with the history of the game. Because in the case of many of the players that are long dead, Cards are one of the last connections to them. As someone who (for the most part) collects strictly vintage, I feel the exact opposite way that this guy does.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

It could be, but he was the seller of the card. He has definitely come out good putting his money in Trout. The buyer of this card could also be someone that has Wagner, Ruth and Mantle and was looking to add one of the best modern cards to his collection. There are people in this hobby that are playing at a different level than most on here.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by rats60

It could be, but he was the seller of the card. He has definitely come out good putting his money in Trout. The buyer of this card could also be someone that has Wagner, Ruth and Mantle and was looking to add one of the best modern cards to his collection. There are people in this hobby that are playing at a different level than most on here.

He's not in our hobby, he's an investor, gambling on a (so far) solid bet.

(cough, Fiydrich, cough)

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

The link is not working. I don’t know who this guy is, but I don’t really care, and I am happy I don’t compete against him in auctions (because I buy the guys who are so old their children are probably underground). But I respectfully disagree with his logic - by that token, an official White House document from Trump is better than something from George Washington’s hand; a modern artist is better than Monet, a Colin Kapernick BLM piece is a better investment than a letter by MLK; and a first print Harry Potter book is better than a first print edition of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities. I do not believe any of these and do not agree with the guy’s quote (although I do think a first print Harry Potter is probably a pretty good investment).

To me, being alive, let alone not being retired, presents only downside (e.g. OJ Simpson). And, as one moves further from their playing days, their relevance wanes and the public‘s interest tends to diminish- does anyone care about Rod Carew, Dave Winfield, or Steve Carlton the way people loved them in the 80’s and 90’s? Anyway, I just don’t agree with this guy, but I am a vintage guy and this is a vintage Board. All I know for sure is what is good for cards is good for cards, and it’s his money to spend how he chooses. And, he must be doing something right if he is spending 7 figures on cards each year.

Opinions are like assholes.... everyone has one

[commishbob]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

The link is not working.

I fixed it. I should never try this on my iPad

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

All I know for sure is what is good for cards is good for cards, and it’s his money to spend how he chooses. And, he must be doing something right if he is spending 7 figures on cards each year.

Opinions are like assholes.... everyone has one

exactly!

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

If he has an Picasso's, Davincis or Michaelangelos laying around I'll take those. I mean they are long dead why would anyone buy them?

[drcy]

The post arguing against the "invalidity" of artificially rare cards is correct. Rare is rare and a number is a number.

However, rarity should be looked more broad based and not myopocially. 1000 different one-of-ones is not the same as three one-of-100.

And sales prices is just sales price, and indicates only sales price. Quality cannot be quantified.

Also, the sales price at a particular moment is indicitive of the sales price at that particular moment. McGuire's 70th home run ball once sold for over $3million and a Tiger Woods SI rookie once for $100,000. Those "values" are nothing more that historical curiosities (and sometimes jokes) now.

Hobby fixation on financial financial value doesn't interest me.

[mrmopar]

i have to believe that there are people out there that fit that description.
i don't follow the vintage market, but surely there are millionaires buying old baseball cards. If not mega millionaires, plain old regular millionaires are.

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[Republicaninmass]

The lower the pop, the easier it is to "set" a price

[Joshwesley]

The question begs to be asked:


Is there anyone on here that would take the Trout over a T206 Wagner (if given the chance)?

I think that number is gonna be low...

You don’t invest in players that are still active/still alive.

While very unlikely: What if Trout went
OJ Simpson or Joe Paterno later in life?

What if he shreds his knee chasing a fly ball later on this week and is never the same?

If you’ve got 4mm to put in a baseball card, I guess it doesn’t matter anyhow

[wdwfan]

I'm not sure it ever will. I think people buy what they see. They see Trout. They see/saw players from the last 2-3 decades. They never saw Babe, Cobb, etc. So they have no interest in them because they can't connect with them.

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

They never saw Babe, Cobb, etc.

Neither has anyone here.

I like collecting players I've never seen and I like collecting players I watch every day, both give me enjoyment.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

Agree with you. There is a big difference in this created scarcity with the unintended scarcity by card companies. Yes by definition scarcity is real if it is 1 of 1 but that will not be the same as vintage scarcity over the long haul. Each collector is making their own determination but quality has a way of enduring. Trout refractor has little chance of meeting that enduring quality. Hey, it’s not my $4 mill so good luck to the buyer.

What about older cards that have intended rarity because trading in a complete set got the winner a prize?

[Delray Vintage]

All vintage cards were collected as a hobby, no one got a baseball card as an investment. No card company even thought of their cards or premiums as valuable things. Yes, when I was a kid we were unlikely to put a Mantle on our bicycle spokes or intentionally mishandle it. That was because he was valuable as a trade for many cards not because we expected it to be worth a lot years later. There is no comparison to what any card company did through the 1970’s to what is being done today creating scarce cards.

[rdwyer]

Even rarer. Mike Trout Debut & 1st hit panel tickets. Most season ticket holders tore each ticket out and took to the game. Then they would take the ticket back home. Most likely, the person who had these for some reason didn't go to either game. Only one other in PSA pop report and it's not signed. (Graded a 9 for the ticket). I searched PSA pop report from 2011-2020 and found only 4 panels. Two for BB, and 2 for Hockey.

Mine are both signed & inscripted. MLB cert. Gonna send to PSA and get auto grades.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

Even rarer. Mike Trout Debut & 1st hit panel tickets. Most season ticket holders tore each ticket out and took to the game. Then they would take the ticket back home. Most likely, the person who had these for some reason didn't go to either game. Only one other in PSA pop report and it's not signed. (Graded a 9 for the ticket). I searched PSA pop report from 2011-2020 and found only 4 panels. Two for BB, and 2 for Hockey.

Mine are both signed & inscripted. MLB cert. Gonna send to PSA and get auto grades.

Those are amazing. Exemplifies exactly what I’ve said throughout this post. Sure there were 45,050 (stadium’s capacity) printed, but those are scarce from non-attendance and survival; not due to a one of one printing.

They survived the trash can (discarding non-used tickets) and from being ripped by not attending the game. Even if most stadiums don’t rip anymore, because they use scanners, it’s still hard to preserve pristine tickets when you go to the game. They are usually bent.

It’s a different market, but, at least to me, those are cooler than that $4M card. Congratulations. Now, you just have to hope that there aren’t many others that survived and, if there are, the owners don’t get them signed.

[samosa4u]

Number of championships: Zero

Number of postseason appearances: One

$4 million? Really?

[chriskim]

It is so funny that I have been searching who is VegasDave but I have no idea and no intention to find out who Mike Trout is.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Number of championships: Zero

Number of postseason appearances: One

Same as Ted Williams. And Trout has roughly 10 more years to play.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Jim65

What about older cards that have intended rarity because trading in a complete set got the winner a prize?

You answered your own question... the point was to limit the amount of prizes obtained, hence, there was NEVER monetary value associated with these cards, so it is completely different.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

You answered your own question... the point was to limit the amount of prizes obtained, hence, there was NEVER monetary value associated with these cards, so it is completely different.

The point is one card is just as rare as the other and both have intended rarity, the reason is irrelevant. Rarity is rarity.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The point is one card is just as rare as the other and both have intended rarity, the reason is irrelevant. Rarity is rarity.

The reasons are never irrelevant. Cards of the past never had original monetary value, while modern cards have inflated monetary value. This isn't rocket science... there is a HUGE difference.

[benjulmag]

While the card may have been hammered down at $3.2M, we have no idea how deep the market is, or even if there was more than one bidder above $1M. Here is how the auction rules read:

Minimum Bids and Reserves: Every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published, except that two days prior to the auction close, any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with “Reserve Not Met” in the online bidding. Reserve bids are available to the House and the House may, at its discretion, confidentially place reserve bids and set "up to" bids where the next bid in succession would hit the reserve price. No reserve price bids placed by the House will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "pass" in the online catalog.[/B][/B]

For all we know the reserve was the next bid above $3M and the auction house put in the $3M bid.

The card is a 1/1 based on a contrived scarcity. The next version of this card, which has twenty-five known copies, is identical in all material respects except for the color/type of border. So that adds over $3M in value?

Let's just say I'm a bit skeptical about what is going on here.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

While the card may have been hammered down at $3.2M, we have no idea how deep the market is, or even if there was more than one bidder above $1M. Here is how the auction rules read:

Minimum Bids and Reserves: Every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published, except that two days prior to the auction close, any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with “Reserve Not Met” in the online bidding. Reserve bids are available to the House and the House may, at its discretion, confidentially place reserve bids and set "up to" bids where the next bid in succession would hit the reserve price. No reserve price bids placed by the House will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "pass" in the online catalog.[/B][/B]

For all we know the reserve was the next bid above $3M and the auction house put in the $3M bid.

The card is a 1/1 based on a contrived scarcity. The next version of this card, which has twenty-five known copies, is identical in all material respects except for the color/type of border. So that adds over $3M in value?

Let's just say I'm a bit skeptical about what is going on here.

Whats the difference in price between a T206 Magie and a Magee? Its just one letter.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Whats the difference in price between a T206 Magie and a Magee? Its just one letter.

The Magie is a genuine error card not created for the purpose of creating value by intentionally misspelling the player's name. With the Trout card, it is akin to the beanie baby phenomena of created scarcity. More and more "scarcities" were created, which had the effect of devaluing the scarcity they were creating. So instead of being looked at as 1/1s, collectors began to lump all such prototypes into the same category.

With regard to the Trout card, what the card companies might take from this is from this point on, for each new player that enters the league, to create for him the same thing as was done for Trout. Some of those players will pan out, some spectacularly so, and in time there will be a whole new class of 1/1 cards of this category. If that were to happen, then maybe the Trout card might be viewed as a something less than a true 1/1.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

.

[puckpaul]

I think the difference is that many of the vintage scarcities, even if contrived, were done to sell the set, and demand often comes from collectors competing for a scarce few cards to finish the set. Not that those scarcities haven’t developed a following from there scarcity, which is similar to the Trout.

I doubt anyone collects the set that Trout is in. Or even knows if there is a set!

I have the T206 “set” minus the big 4. It feels somewhat empty. Given enough $$, i would love to finish it.

Given the passage of time, there seems a lot more inherent risk in paying up for a Trout.

Pretty happy that i own a W600 Cobb, though... I anticipate that the umbrella of these prices keeps that one going.

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Let me clarify what I meant. Intent is the focus. Artificially created scarcity with the sole purpose of creating value. This purpose did not exist during the pre-war years. The reason is cards had little, if any, value or market. No one knew that years later the cards would be worth a small fortune. Thus, the manufactures had no incentive to create scarcity like Bowman did with Trout. Bowman knew the one of one cards would have huge value if the player panned out.

Even the 1934 Lajoie doesn’t count. The reason is it was never supposed to exist. Goudey only created it, because people wrote and complained. Goudey created that card just to satisfy customers. It never intended on creating a holy grail card that people would highly collect 40 years later. Bowman did.

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Pretty happy that i own a W600 Cobb, though... I anticipate that the umbrella of these prices keeps that one going.

If my memory serves me well, even a different color Trout reactor recently sold for more than the W600 Cobb in the same auction.

Congrats on owning one!

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

I think the difference is that many of the vintage scarcities, even if contrived, were done to sell the set, and demand often comes from collectors competing for a scarce few cards to finish the set. Not that those scarcities haven’t developed a following from there scarcity, which is similar to the Trout.

To me, that is some pretty generous logic to say that manufactured rarities from 100 years were more pure because manufacturers were just trying to scam collectors with cards that were impossible (or virtually impossible) to attain.

The lack of set collecting today isn't better or worse; it is just how the hobby has evolved.

Manufactured rarity is manufactured rarity, be it in 2020 or 1920.

[MikeGarcia]

[QUOTE=Bored5000;2011166]To me, that is some pretty generous logic to say that manufactured rarities from 100 years were more pure because manufacturers were just trying to scam collectors with cards that were impossible (or virtually impossible) to attain.

The lack of set collecting today isn't better or worse; it is just how the hobby has evolved.

Manufactured rarity is manufactured rarity, be it in 2020 or 1920.



..

it is time for a pre-war card to make an appearance.... soooo...how good are your eyes ??

.....I was unaware of the term " manufactured rarity" until this post , but now at least I know what to call this Dixie Premium of Old Double X --- the story I got from the New Jersey seller , about thirty years ago ? , was that the grandfather had worked for the printers who had had the Dixie Ice Cream contract and that this 1938 printers'proof/office copy set of four color premiums was just sort of gathered up and walked out the door when Gramps got his "Greetings" draft board letter in December of '41 ; he was originally from Boston and was a fan of Jimmie Foxx and figured it was being wasted sitting in the back of a filing cabinet. .....it is the only one I've ever seen without the two punched holes.. A borrowed "manufacturing rarity" ; I'm hoping that the New Jersey statute of limitations for receiving stolen property has run out.

..

..

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

The Wagner was pulled from production, one of those things not counted.
The 1916 Sporting news Ruth is by far the most graded card in that set.
The Mantle is a double print.
All more common than hundreds of other cards even before the whole 1/1 thing began.

Many of the prewar cards had really small print runs by modern standards. So I'm not sure just what you count. Both George C Miller and US Caramel deliberately made very few of one card in a set, and Goudey trying to be sly and simply not making a card to push more sales is well known. (The first 0/0?)

Would I spend 4 million on a Trout card? No. But not because it's rarity is somehow fake.