Trout v. Legendary cards

[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.

[Shoeless Moe]

How do you ship.....or hand deliver, a 4 million dollar card?

And does he give you a big briefcase filled with 4 Mil.

With the Buyers permission you need to video that. Would love to see the exchange, and then where the new owner puts it.

[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.

[vthobby]

I can't tell a lie......I bought a BGS 9.5 Signed Trout RC Refractor (the one that there are 500 of) about a year ago for a tidy sum but it still rocketed over 100% in the last year.......

Literally sold the Trout RC this week to a private collector. It paid entirely for my new REA win of a 1952 Topps Mantle (my 1st one ever) which by the way set a world record for a PSA 1! Undergraded IMO!

The "swap" was not planned but after my Mantle "coup" I was offered an insane amount for my Trout. I pulled the trigger and still had enough left over for a nice dinner or two!

Crazy world indeed!

Peace, Mike

item_68909_1_152812.jpg

[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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

That argument doesn't hold any water to me though. If Trout hits 750 homers it won't be because he cheated to do it. You simply can't be the best at anything if you cheated. The best at anything doesn't need to cheat. Therefore, Bonds can not possibly be the best player of all time. If he was, he wouldn't have cheated.