Best investments by player and decade

[joshleon]

Originally Posted by Frank A

I hate to disagree with you because I love early cards too. But in five decades it will be the players of today that dominate. New cards are on fire. I know it will pass to a point, but all the newcomers are into todays players.

Disjointed ramblings below:

-No one likes manufactured scarcity in the long run. 20 years from now, these new cards won't seem special. (I would counter this argument with: "yeah, like Honus Wagner's t206?"). Anything whose release was intended as a "collectible" usually fails as such.

-As for 1980+ cards, the few big ones (Henderson rookie etc) are worth about the same as they were in the 90s (I guess Gem mint slabs have changed that but I'm talking raw and "nice").

-I agree with whoever said that with 50s/60s, it will depend on the year and grade. Anyone can go get a Musial card, but his 1960 topps doesn't hold a candle to Leaf or early Bowman. Same with Mantle. Can't afford the 52? Get a 53 Bowman in decent shape...but I'll pass on late 60s.

-Pre war will always be top dog. t206 commons hold a lot more intrigue than commons from the 60s. Any cards that were called "pictures" at time of release will always hold value and go up.

-Bottom line: you don't need to remember the player playing for the value to remain. Look at civil war memorabilia.

-FWIW, these threads are interesting not bc of the money angle, but bc they flesh out what, at essence, makes this hobby what it is. Money is merely the manifestation of the desire for x card. Discussing what makes cards interesting to people is interesting to me at least.

-I've always wanted a Delong Traynor bc there was a picture of it in my first baseball card book. Little things like that drive desire, and hence, price.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by joshleon

Disjointed ramblings below:

-No one likes manufactured scarcity in the long run. 20 years from now, these new cards won't seem special.

They don't? This has been brought up before, but vintage collecting has numerous examples in which chase cards were extreme short prints to limit a prize redemption. Manufactured scarcity been happening for a very long time, and people like Fred Lindstrom, William McKinley, Rocky Graziano and many others all have cards that sell for far more than their accomplishments would otherwise dictate.

[joshleon]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

They don't? This has been brought up before, but vintage collecting has numerous examples in which chase cards were extreme short prints to limit a prize redemption. Manufactured scarcity been happening for a very long time, and people like Fred Lindstrom, William McKinley, Rocky Graziano and many others all have cards that sell for far more than their accomplishments would otherwise dictate.

Yeah, I hedged with the Wagner example which some theorize was held back on purpose.

But as a general rule, collectibles which are released and marketed as such, often don't have the staying power. This could be a whole other thread and is off-topic from investing but it's related.

One of kind because it's the "only one left" is a different thing than one of a kind "because they only made one." There was no widespread exposure to the latter, while there was to the former, and the former has been lost because it wasn't a collectible.

I will probably eat these words and the Trout Refractor Auto will be 10mm in 20 years time.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by joshleon

Yeah, I hedged with the Wagner example which some theorize was held back on purpose.

But as a general rule, collectibles which are released and marketed as such, often don't have the staying power. This could be a whole other thread and is off-topic from investing but it's related.

One of kind because it's the "only one left" is a different thing than one of a kind "because they only made one." There was no widespread exposure to the latter, while there was to the former, and the former has been lost because it wasn't a collectible.

I will probably eat these words and the Trout Refractor Auto will be 10mm in 20 years time.

I would put my money on eating the words...

We can grumble and shake a fist at modern production, but this is what those new collectors are chasing and growing up with. It will be the status quo when they get older and grow incomes to chase a new level of affordability.

Much like how the huge growth in 90s value as those collectors aged has become the rare inserts, scarce issues like "blue chips", or limited cards the same will happen.

I am way too old for even opening for autos in early 90s Upper Deck or even inserts other than Fleer stickers, but I recognize that the manufactured scarcity argument holds no water in card collecting if looked at critically with sales numbers.

[joshleon]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I would put my money on eating the words...

We can grumble and shake a fist at modern production, but this is what those new collectors are chasing and growing up with. It will be the status quo when they get older and grow incomes to chase a new level of affordability.

Much like how the huge growth in 90s value as those collectors aged has become the rare inserts, scarce issues like "blue chips", or limited cards the same will happen.

I am way too old for even opening for autos in early 90s Upper Deck or even inserts other than Fleer stickers, but I recognize that the manufactured scarcity argument holds no water in card collecting if looked at critically with sales numbers.

Won't be the first time I was wrong...

And I am probably looking at it through the narrow lens of "what I, myself, like"

[darwinbulldog]

First thing you ought to do if you're trying to predict who will have been a great investment is rule out anyone whose cards are already expensive.

If I could go back in time 30 years and buy a poor condition 1952 Topps Mantle for $1,000, it would be worth $25,000 today.

But if I go back in time 30 years and invest that same $1,000 in minty-looking 1985 Topps Tiffany Mark McGwires, sell them all in 1999, reinvest in Barry Bonds rookies, sell them in 2005, reinvest in Lionel Messi rookies, and sell them all in 2021, I would have enough $ to buy a PSA 9 1952 Topps Mantle today.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If I could go back in time 30 years and buy a poor condition 1952 Topps Mantle for $1,000, it would be worth $25,000 today.

Uh...30 years ago, I am pretty sure you could buy a poor 52 Topps Mantle for less than $1,000. I regret not being flush with money in those days, being a 1st Class/CPO in the Navy and being on CV-62/then Charleston while financing a home/family in Fort Lauderdale. But I went to many card shows, and I saw the 52 Mantles for sale. As I state in another thread, I bought 33 Goudey Ruth and Gehrig both for $500 ($250 each) in 1988, and in real nice shape both, using reenlistment bonus money.

[Kutcher55]

Good investments or investments in general need not achieve a certain grade threshold to qualify. I have bought and sold numerous high profile cards in the PSA or SGC 1.5 to 3 range in the past few years including successful purchases and sales during and after the peak of Feb 2021. I can assure you my average profit on these has been much higher than recent “traditional” investments such as stocks. I’m quite certain I’m not the only one. But I guess because these cards were lower than these arbitrary “investment grade” rules applied by the self-styled pundits they don’t count. Lol.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

They don't? This has been brought up before, but vintage collecting has numerous examples in which chase cards were extreme short prints to limit a prize redemption. Manufactured scarcity been happening for a very long time, and people like Fred Lindstrom, William McKinley, Rocky Graziano and many others all have cards that sell for far more than their accomplishments would otherwise dictate.

The Graziano was pulled, not short-printed. A few got out.