Auction psychology

[raulus]

Originally Posted by JimC

There are no set rules in this game. If you applied a strict, disciplined approach to what you would pay for quality Ruths and high end Mantle cards in 2017 the satisfaction you would have gotten from not "overpaying" would not have lasted long as you watched prices skyrocket from those levels.

You also have to decide what you want more, a good deal or the item. Prices for rare items are tough to predict because you never know when two buyers will decide they don't want to wait ten years for another shot. Personally I have more regrets over the items I didn't buy because I thought the price was too high than over the ones where I overpaid. Example: every Jim Thorpe I didn't buy.

It has certainly been the case historically that I've regretted missing out on stuff. However, over the last 24 months, I've regretted losing a lot less, even though I'm losing a lot more. Maybe I'm just numb to it, but more likely, the prices are just so high that losing seems like winning sometimes, particularly if I am willing to wait for another one to come back onto the market.

Just for fun, here's a couple of somewhat recent examples where I was the underbidder, and I'm not really regretting it:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=103985

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=103692

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

It has certainly been the case historically that I've regretted missing out on stuff. However, over the last 24 months, I've regretted losing a lot less, even though I'm losing a lot more. Maybe I'm just numb to it, but more likely, the prices are just so high that losing seems like winning sometimes, particularly if I am willing to wait for another one to come back onto the market.

Just for fun, here's a couple of somewhat recent examples where I was the underbidder, and I'm not really regretting it:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=103985

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=103692

What is even more surprising to me were the final hammer prices. Both PSA 9s, but the older '54 Topps Mays card going for exactly 30% less than a '62 Topps Mays?!?!? They are both not always found well centered, but if anything, I would have expected those prices to more likely be the other way around. Possibly a case of two determined collectors fighting for registry improvement or superiority in regard to the '62 Mays?

The PSA pop reports show a total of 16 '54 Mays cards graded as 9s, with three of them having qualifiers, but none graded higher. Meanwhile, the pop report shows a total of 9 '62 Mays cards graded as 9s, with none having any qualifiers, but in this case there is 1 single higher graded '62 Mays card graded 10. Though there are actually fewer '62 Topps Mays cards graded 9, or higher, I can't see enough of a difference in the numbers to justify and explain the big difference in those final auction prices being based on these pop reports alone.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

What is even more surprising to me were the final hammer prices. Both PSA 9s, but the older '54 Topps Mays card going for exactly 30% less than a '62 Topps Mays?!?!? They are both not always found well centered, but if anything, I would have expected those prices to more likely be the other way around. Possibly a case of two determined collectors fighting for registry improvement or superiority in regard to the '62 Mays?

The PSA pop reports show a total of 16 '54 Mays cards graded as 9s, with three of them having qualifiers, but none graded higher. Meanwhile, the pop report shows a total of 9 '62 Mays cards graded as 9s, with none having any qualifiers, but in this case there is 1 single higher graded '62 Mays card graded 10. Though there are actually fewer '62 Topps Mays cards graded 9, or higher, I can't see enough of a difference in the numbers to justify and explain the big difference in those final auction prices being based on these pop reports alone.

1962T in high grades tends to sell at a pretty good premium. Wood borders can be a real issue with getting dinged up pretty easily, and I think that’s what’s coming into play here with the prices.

If you look historically at those two cards in PSA 6, 7, 8, the 1962T consistently sells for a lot more than the 1954T in the same grade. And often the difference is 2x or 3x.

Also, we’ve seen a few of the 1954T in PSA 9 come onto the market over the last 5 years. I think this might be the only 1962T in PSA 9 in that span. So there was probably some pent-up demand for the 62T.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

1962T in high grades tends to sell at a pretty good premium. Wood borders can be a real issue with getting dinged up pretty easily, and I think that’s what’s coming into play here with the prices.

If you look historically at those two cards in PSA 6, 7, 8, the 1962T consistently sells for a lot more than the 1954T in the same grade. And often the difference is 2x or 3x.

Also, we’ve seen a few of the 1954T in PSA 9 come onto the market over the last 5 years. I think this might be the only 1962T in PSA 9 in that span. So there was probably some pent-up demand for the 62T.

Don't disagree at all, just don't really get why his '54 card would sell for less than his '62. IMO the '54 is a much better looking card to begin with. There are many people who are not real crazy about the wood grain effect on '62 Topps cards at all. And the '54 set also marks the first Topps cards they actually used real player photos on, so there is that added extra as well.

As I said, the pop reports don't seem to offer a reasonable explanation for such a price difference at all. What does possibly help explain it is if the high grade '62s have been hoarded in the recent past and not showing up for sale, as you mentioned. In which case, that difference could be due to two collectors just waiting a long time to finally find a high grade '62 Mays card for sale, and both went after it. Which actually just reinforces my original point that I don't think it was primarily the pop reports alone that explain the differences in the prices paid for those two different Mays cards.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree at all, just don't really get why his '54 card would sell for less than his '62. IMO the '54 is a much better looking card to begin with. There are many people who are not real crazy about the wood grain effect on '62 Topps cards to begin with. And the '54 set also marks the first Topps cards they actually used real player photos on, so there is that added extra as well.

As I said, the pop reports don't seem to offer a reasonable explanation for such a price difference at all. What does possibly help explain it is if the high grade '62s have been hoarded in the recent past and not showing up for sale, as you mentioned. In which case, that difference could be due to two collectors just waiting a long time to finally find a high grade '62 Mays card for sale, and both went after it. Which actually just reinforces my original point that I don't think it was primarily the pop reports alone that explain the differences in the prices paid for those two different Mays cards.

Upon further reflection, and looking at some of the historical results a bit closer now, I may have over-stated the pricing differential here, pre-pandemic at least.

For example, at PSA 8, the 1954 Mays pretty routinely sold for about $3k-$4k. Same grade for 1962 was around $3.5k to $5.5k. Still a premium, but probably closer to 20-30%.

I'm not entirely sure that you can necessarily explain it just based on pop counts and aesthetics. For better or worse, the market tends to take on a life of its own, and often the results aren't as explainable as we might like. I guess if we were really adventurous, we could go out and take short positions on the 62, and long positions on the 54 so as to arbitrage and drive the pricing to a relative spot where we think makes more sense. But in the process, we might lose our shirts!

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by raulus

For better or worse, the market tends to take on a life of its own, and often the results aren't as explainable as we might like.

At this beginning of this year I sold a PSA 8 1975 Jose Cardenal for $150 and that wasn't even a top-3 sell price for that card in that time period. It was $100-$150 range in the year before, too.

A recent one sold for $61 (including shipping) and there's a $96 buy-it-now sitting around with no action on EBay right now.

I still have no idea why there was a run on the card. I bought 2 PSA 8's about 5 years earlier for $20 combined.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

At this beginning of this year I sold a PSA 8 1975 Jose Cardenal for $150 and that wasn't even a top-3 sell price for that card in that time period. It was $100-$150 range in the year before, too.

A recent one sold for $61 (including shipping) and there's a $96 buy-it-now sitting around with no action on EBay right now.

I still have no idea why there was a run on the card. I bought 2 PSA 8's about 5 years earlier for $20 combined.

While that kind of movement is big in percentage terms, in absolute dollar terms it's perhaps a little less exciting. It could be that the movement and action has more to do with the number of pieces on the market at the time and the number and aggressiveness of buyers that happened to be in the market for it. Or it could just be that a handful of buyers didn't mind paying an extra $50 or so to pick it up now, rather than wait for the next one to roll around at a lower price. Because hey, what's another $50 among friends when it means you get your cardboard today?!

Or it could also be one of your famous "fake sale" patterns, where someone was trying to establish a market at $150 or so, and then unload their real card at that price. Although for an extra $50 or $100 to create a fake higher market price, it seems like a lot of work to me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Upon further reflection, and looking at some of the historical results a bit closer now, I may have over-stated the pricing differential here, pre-pandemic at least.

For example, at PSA 8, the 1954 Mays pretty routinely sold for about $3k-$4k. Same grade for 1962 was around $3.5k to $5.5k. Still a premium, but probably closer to 20-30%.

I'm not entirely sure that you can necessarily explain it just based on pop counts and aesthetics. For better or worse, the market tends to take on a life of its own, and often the results aren't as explainable as we might like. I guess if we were really adventurous, we could go out and take short positions on the 62, and long positions on the 54 so as to arbitrage and drive the pricing to a relative spot where we think makes more sense. But in the process, we might lose our shirts!

LOL

That's okay, I'll be happy with the '54 and '62 Mays cards I already have.

And sounds like you're agreeing with me, it is not the pop reports causing what seems to be a bit of a pricing anomaly for these two cards. We'll probably never know what could have caused such a big price differential between those two PSA 9 Mays cards in that last REA auction then?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

That's okay, I'll be happy with the '54 and '62 Mays cards I already have.

And sounds like you're agreeing with me, it is not the pop reports causing what seems to be a bit of a pricing anomaly for these two cards. We'll probably never know what could have caused such a big price differential between those two PSA 9 Mays cards in that last REA auction then?

Obviously the bidders are responsible for the price differential. But beyond that, digging into why these two cards have the relative values that they have in relation to one another is likely to remain a bit of an enigma.

But the 1962T selling for 25% more than the 1954T seems to follow the historical relationship between these two cards pretty closely. Whether the bidders had that in mind in the heat of the action is unlikely. But that’s definitely where the chips fell in the end. The invisible hand at work!

[Jewish-collector]

Put a bunch of extra zeroes before the decimal place and dare anyone to outbid you.