Trout v. Legendary cards

[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.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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

If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

[Goldin Auctions]

Here is. Great read. Everyone trying to understand what is going on in the business , and any vintage collector should read
And look at quote about Wagner and what it would sell for today....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...dg7DX-0L68fCr0

[Dpeck100]

The 1993 SP Derek Jeter PSA 10 was under a pop 10 and $6,500 when I got serious about buying cards in 2009. Considered the most over valued card in the hobby on every message board. At $15,000 it was insane and there was no where to go but down.

There is one of these and only one person can say they own the Super Refractor.

In 1986 the Donruss Jose Canseco was the card. Peaked at $120 in the Beckett. Anyone with enough money could get one. No matter how deep your pockets are only one person can say they own this card.

I don’t pretend to know if this is a good buy or a bad one but the price is a function of our current reality. How much would a Jordan rookie 1/1 be? There are 313 PSA 10’s at an average of $75,000 so it has a market cap of nearly 23.5 million just in that grade from PSA alone.

The closest substitute is a numbered to five card. The artificial scarcity has worked year after year with sports cards and this guy just happens to be the best player in the league at the moment.

If someone put a gun to my head and said you have to pick a direction my bet would be up.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

Not comparing them. Just pointing that they have the same amount of playoff experience. Judging players by postseason appearances is silly, is Ernie Banks not a great player?

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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

And Ted Williams sells for how much? Yeah, Trout has ten more years to play ... with the Angels.

Originally Posted by Jim65

Judging players by postseason appearances is silly, is Ernie Banks not a great player?

Not silly at all. I think when it comes to determining the value of any player, the most important criteria is how many championships he won. Why do people spend crazy money on Mantle, Ruth, Jordan, Gretzky, Brady and Pele? Because these guys were all winners, and they did it many times. Yes, Ernie Banks was a really gifted player, but he never won, and this is why his cards sell for peanuts compared to the other guys.

[sbfinley]

It's funny to me the disdain and annoyance that some vintage collectors (my primary focus) have towards modern cards and to some extent the prices they command. One is old, one is new. At the end of the day it's all pictures of dudes from a sport we love or like, and to 99.99% of the world spending even $500 on a baseball card is absurd. The current excitement in modern collecting world is great for the hobby because A) it cements the next generation of hobby members and B) the majority of "vintage" collectors start with current issues and begin working backwards.

Personally, I have no shock this card reached this value. If you even minimally follow the game on a daily basis it's clear he the best all-around player in the game and a multi-generational talent. Other members have mentioned names like Fidrych and Lindros and questioned his hobby future should he be injured tomorrow. It makes me wonder if they even currently follow the game. He's not a hyped prospect or the latest sensation. He is universally recognized as the best player in the game without question. In 8 full seasons (on primarily a losing team) he has finished 2,2,1,2,1,4,2,1 in MVP voting. He will be top 50 in career WAR for position players after 8.5 seasons following the abbreviated 2020 year. That stated, this is his singular most important card and given the current state of economic investments this price doesn't shock me. It might not be your cup of tea but be happy the hobby is rolling forward.

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

As someone who taught history (including the story of Ted Williams and his service during both WW2 and Korea) I completely understand both his importance to game and his contributions to our nation. But the comparison provided between Trout and Williams is about as relative as it gets in the context this of this entire thread and the comment the reply was referencing. The entire context of the comparison was their seminal greatness in the game of baseball and the comparative lack of team success. We can praise and celebrate Ted Williams' service to his country without belittling someone who lived in an entirely different time and circumstances. Also.... "Puckett" is a terrible analogy because A) he won 2 World Series Rings in 12 years and B) Trout is much much better statistically speaking.

[Republicaninmass]

What about all my stuff from the home shopping network in the 80s that was guanrarees to go up and I could retire with the proceeds? Just didnt say when I could retire, where, or how long!

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

It's funny to me the disdain and annoyance that some vintage collectors (my primary focus) have towards modern cards and to some extent the prices they command. One is old, one is new. At the end of the day it's all pictures of dudes from a sport we love or like, and to 99.99% of the world spending even $500 on a baseball card is absurd. The current excitement in modern collecting world is great for the hobby because A) it cements the next generation of hobby members and B) the majority of "vintage" collectors start with current issues and begin working backwards.

Personally, I have no shock this card reached this value. If you even minimally follow the game on a daily basis it's clear he the best all-around player in the game and a multi-generational talent. Other members have mentioned names like Fidrych and Lindros and questioned his hobby future should he be injured tomorrow. It makes me wonder if they even currently follow the game. He's not a hyped prospect or the latest sensation. He is universally recognized as the best player in the game without question. In 8 full seasons (on primarily a losing team) he has finished 2,2,1,2,1,4,2,1 in MVP voting. He will be top 50 in career WAR for position players after 8.5 seasons following the abbreviated 2020 year. That stated, this is his singular most important card and given the current state of economic investments this price doesn't shock me. It might not be your cup of tea but be happy the hobby is rolling forward.




As someone who taught history (including the story of Ted Williams and his service during both WW2 and Korea) I completely understand both his importance to game and his contributions to our nation. But the comparison provided between Trout and Williams is about as relative as it gets in the context this of this entire thread and the comment the reply was referencing. The entire context of the comparison was their seminal greatness in the game of baseball and the comparative lack of team success. We can praise and celebrate Ted Williams' service to his country without belittling someone who lived in an entirely different time and circumstances. Also.... "Puckett" is a terrible analogy because A) he won 2 World Series Rings in 12 years and B) Trout is much much better statistically speaking.

You're correct. Comparing him to Puckett was a huge mistake. Trout has 1351 hits and a .304 so it's unlikely he improves his BA over the next three seasons and gets a thousand hits to match Puckett. He may with longevity do it, but doesn't seem on track at present. I wish Trout the best, but he's got a long ways to go to be in the same breath of the greats. Relative to card value - they are only worth what someone will pay so apparently Trout is worth it to some. Can't argue when there's no right answer. I'm not much older than Trout and I fought in two theaters as a Marine so he could have too but sports and money were more important. He probably would have been great to have on my team. It's a good reminder that these are just athletes playing a game and none of their pictures should be worth millions. To think what I could do with $3.2 million. Wouldn't be buy baseball cards.

[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.