Trout v. Legendary cards

[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)

[CJinPA]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

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

(cough, Fiydrich, cough)

STOP - please! completely off topic but Trout is one of the best of all time. I'm a new vintage collector and love all the things that make vintage attractive.

But Trout plays baseball at a different level than his peers and has for the past 7 years. He is no Fydrich (I think you were just doing a tongue-in-cheeck there, btw). The guy has the single best mechanical swing in baseball - only Barry Bonds was as efficient in his mechanics.

Just for moment, imagine the greatest and our favorite heros of the past facing #2 and #3 starters who are sitting 97mph in the 4 and 5th innings. Not the ace of the staff, but your mid-level starters? It's crazy, and a conversation for another thread.

Sorry to get off-topic - I'm just a huge Trout fanboy. I don't own a single card of his and have no desire. But as a result of coaching and training high level high school players, there's just nobody better over the past several years and there looks to be at least another 5-7 years left - kids got it all!

[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!

[Directly]

These type of headlines mega sales and all the media hype are feeding the fire, we haven't seen anything yet - past buyers are returning plus thousands of new collectors, investors are jumping on the band wagon! (buying vintage and modern, especially basketball )

[GasHouseGang]

I think The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" may apply in this case. The hype surrounding this card sale may help raise the prices in the short term of other Mike Trout cards. Whether it can be sustained is the question.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Another great discussion!

Obviously, as this is a discussion board about vintage baseball cards, the majority of us (myself included) would prefer a rare Wagner, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, etc. to a Mike Trout card.

However, in no way do I dismiss this recent Trout sale (as well as any future sale of that card) as any crazier than prices paid for blue chip vintage.

I think a lot of current vintage collectors probably went through a time in our lives as younger collectors when we used to look longingly at those expensive vintage cards and couldn't imagine a day that we could someday own them. Fast forward to our current and future selves when we are lucky enough to be in a position in our lives to have some disposable income that we actually CAN have cards of Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays! And that is what has been driving the increased price/value in vintage over the last 20 years.

Right now there are probably a lot of modern collectors/baseball fans in their twenties, teens, or younger that read about the sale of an almost $4 million dollar 1 of 1 Mike Trout card...and they can't imagine ever owning it. However, it will only take TWO of those kids to become wealthy in their future years to get into a bidding war for what, to them, is the ultimate baseball card.

It's unlikely for that card to sell for more than 4 million in any auction coming up in the next year or so....but I wouldn't be shocked to see that card sell for 10 million, 50 million, 100+ million in 15 to 20 years.

The same nostalgia that we feel for vintage cards is the same nostalgia that current collectors will feel when they hit that stage in their life/careers where they can collect/invest in things that make them happy and bring them back to their childhood. While a lot of us have a hard time understanding the allure of new, shiny, 1 of 1 cards, there is whole generation of collectors growing up with it. And in their lifetime, that Mike Trout card may come to be known as the pinnacle of collecting. Who knows how much that card might auction for in the future.

[iwantitiwinit]

Someone paying 4 million for that card is nonsense.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Directly

These type of headlines mega sales and all the media hype are feeding the fire, we haven't seen anything yet - past buyers are returning plus thousands of new collectors, investors are jumping on the band wagon! (buying vintage and modern, especially basketball )

I agree. All large sales are good for the hobby, in general. Nothing goes up forever, but cards have been overlooked for some time now & the people that think that they're toys & not investments should reconsider.

[rdwyer]

Another rare item. Just picked up today. Practice ball.

[Shoeless Moe]

Arod
Bonds
Cabrera
Manny

all better hitters.........that "could" change in 10 years, but as of now.

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Arod
Bonds
Cabrera
Manny

all better hitters.........that "could" change in 10 years, but as of now.

Pujols was a better hitter than all those guys. Power and average.
3 of those guys needed help (PED's) with their numbers so Cabrera would be the only one without PED ties.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Arod
Bonds
Cabrera
Manny

all better hitters.........that "could" change in 10 years, but as of now.

All absolutely amazing hitters. And here is how they stack up roughly through their first 8.7 seasons. "Better" is a loose term.

Bonds - .281/.388/.914 --- 222HR --- 679RBI --- 801Runs --- 71.9WAR
Arod - .301/.368/.935 --- 298HR --- 872RBI --- 881Runs --- 55.9WAR
Miggy - .311/.384/.931 --- 247HR --- 879RBI --- 741 Runs --- 39.7WAR
Manny - .312/.406/1.003 --- 275HR --- 924RBI --- 753Runs --- 36.0WAR
Trout - .305/.417/1.097 --- 295HR --- 777RBI --- 920RUNS --- 73.5WAR

Originally Posted by Tomi

Pujols was a better hitter than all those guys. Power and average.
3 of those guys needed help (PED's) with their numbers so Cabrera would be the only one without PED ties.

Agree. Pujols is the most feared hitter of the modern generation. He would probably be bold across the board save for WAR if I added him to above.

[puckpaul]

Hard to know if any of them are clean, especially Pujols... but wouldn’t surprise me if Cabrera and Trout juiced as well.

Originally Posted by sbfinley

All absolutely amazing hitters. And here is how they stack up roughly through their first 8.7 seasons. "Better" is a loose term.

Bonds - .281/.388/.914 --- 222HR --- 679RBI --- 801Runs --- 71.9WAR
Arod - .301/.368/.935 --- 298HR --- 872RBI --- 881Runs --- 55.9WAR
Miggy - .311/.384/.931 --- 247HR --- 879RBI --- 741 Runs --- 39.7WAR
Manny - .312/.406/1.003 --- 275HR --- 924RBI --- 753Runs --- 36.0WAR
Trout - .305/.417/1.097 --- 295HR --- 777RBI --- 920RUNS --- 73.5WAR




Agree. Pujols is the most feared hitter of the modern generation. He would probably be bold across the board save for WAR if I added him to above.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Pujols is the most feared hitter of the modern generation. He would probably be bold across the board save for WAR if I added him to above.

Seriously? Barry Bonds was walked 232 times in a season-- more than 1 1/2 times a game. He was INTENTIONALLY walked 120 times that year--and Pujols has never walked 120 times a season period. Bonds is the all-time leader in walks and IBB- more than twice as many IBB as Pujols, and he led the league in IBB a dozen times. Sure he had a good eye, but no way pitchers wanted anything to do with him. He was intentionally walked with the bases loaded.

Whatever you think of the man, the player Barry Bonds was the best I have ever seen and ever will see. Let's revisit this when Trout gets to 750 HRs.

[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.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by drcy

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.

I remember when the 1990 Score Eric Lindros "Future Superstar" card was the hottest thing in the hockey card world and was going for top dollar. A few years ago I found one in a screwdown holder with a $1.00 price sticker. Normally when I buy a card in this kind of a holder I would get rid of the screwdown and put it in a top loader, but I kept this one as is. The reason I bought it in the first place was as a tangible example of, as drcy describes it, a historical curiosity.