1952 Topps set question?

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

You can make or lose money stocks, bonds, and real estate, which are considered investments. What makes you believe cards are different?

Stocks, bonds, and real estate generate income, which, as an owner, you share in. Stocks pay dividends, bonds pay interest and real estate earns rents. You calculate the intrinsic value of an investment by estimating its future earnings.

A baseball card has no earning power. The only way you can make money on a card is to sell it to someone for more than you paid for it. It has no intrinsic value.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Stocks, bonds, and real estate generate income, which, as an owner, you share in. Stocks pay dividends, bonds pay interest and real estate earns rents. You calculate the intrinsic value of an investment by estimating its future earnings.

A baseball card has no earning power. The only way you can make money on a card is to sell it to someone for more than you paid for it. It has no intrinsic value.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Investment definition:the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.

There is no requirement that your investment potentially earns income. Do your stocks pay a dividend if the company loses money? If your rental property generates more expenses than rental income, you are doing worse than investing in a non-income generating asset. Baseball cards are an investment.

To the OP, start with the big HOFers, Mantle, Robinson and Mays then move on to the other high number HOFers, the low HOFers and high number commons. Do the low number commons last.

[ALR-bishop]

If Al is right the person who bought this is going to regret it if they were hoping it was a good investment

[skelly423]

For what my two cents are worth, I don't view baseball cards as investments either, they're first and foremost a hobby. That being said, 1952 Topps has a long track record of increasing in value historically, and I don't know of any reason why that won't continue.

From a pure investment perspective there are better ways to invest your money. If you're looking to provide a tangible piece of nostalgia for your grandkids that might increase in value, 1952 Topps is as good as any option in the vintage baseball card sphere.

The cards are beautiful, scarce (relative to most sets that followed), in high demand, and are anchored by the most important card in the hobby. That seems to me like a good recipe to at least preserve the value of your money.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by rats60

Investment definition:the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.



There is no requirement that your investment potentially earns income. Do your stocks pay a dividend if the company loses money? If your rental property generates more expenses than rental income, you are doing worse than investing in a non-income generating asset. Baseball cards are an investment.



To the OP, start with the big HOFers, Mantle, Robinson and Mays then move on to the other high number HOFers, the low HOFers and high number commons. Do the low number commons last.

That's a very general definition, basically buying something with the intent to make a profit. That definition covers a lot of other things that are not investments, though. You can buy a lottery ticket or bet on a ball game, with the intent to win and make a profit, but that doesn't make those things investments.

And as you point out, you can make bad investments and lose money. Some investments are relatively safe, like bank CDs, while others are riskier.

The baseline question the OP asks is whether he should buy certain graded baseball cards as an asset for his heirs. If you want to speculate in cards, that's fine. You can do what you want with your own money. But if you think it's a good way to build wealth to pass on to your kids, that's misguided.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[rsdill2]

I tend to agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't buy baseball cards as investments.

But, it's hard to argue they haven't been good investments historically.

That's fine if you want to consider it an investment. Are your kids/grandkids collectors? Do they care who Cookie Lavagetto is? What about Smoky Burgess?

Not to take anything away from Lavagetto or Burgess, but about 90% of the 407 cards in the '52 set are commons that the average person doesn't know or care about. It's also much more difficult to store, sell, and ship 407 cards and their plastic tombs.

No idea what your budget is. But my advice would be to take whatever you think that budget is, and buy them a handful of cards. If you're fixated on '52 Topps, the Mantle, Robinson, Mays, and Mathews are inarguably the top 4. Venture out to '33 Goudey Ruth, T206 Cobbs. The classics.

If you're buying these purely for inheritance to your heirs in hopes they increase in value, my advice is quality over quantity.

[Smarti5051]

I think after thousands of years of history to draw on, "art" is rightly classified as an investment. Some goes up, some goes down. Some goes up, then comes down. If art can be deemed an investment, then certainly sportscards, visual displays of sports heroes of their time, are at least art adjacent, if not art itself.

So, if you reject the concept of art as an investment, then I guess it follows that sportscards are also not an investment. Otherwise, on some level, you must concede that sportscards are an investment, leaving the only issue open to debate whether sportscards are a good or bad investment.

Once you have a certain amount in stocks, bonds, real estate and bitcoin, it is kind of nice to spread your "investments" into things that bring you enjoyment. Art, rare cars, watches, and sportscards fall into that category. I certainly view my collection as an investment and justify allocating a portion of my income to sportscards as investments (even have my wife on board).

As for 1952, my opinion is long term it will continue to do well. However, if you are trying to support the opposite view, the original collectors of 1952 Topps cards are now in their 70s and 80s, so the ones holding/collecting these cards for true nostalgia's sake is waning. I feel reasonably old, and I never saw Hank Aaron or Willie Mays play, and they were still hitting in the 70s, much less Mantle, Jackie, Matthews, Berra and a handful of others that drive the value of the set.

Once all of the current older collectors pass on their 1952 collections to heirs that are not interested in sportscards, how will that impact the supply in the market and where will the "new" demand come from? The fact that you are not currently a 1952 Topps collector but are contemplating starting one is anecdotal evidence that there are new 1952 Topps collectors still entering the market, but where the supply and demand curves meet in the future is the unanswerable question.

[swarmee]

Different issue:
PSA 1-4s are considered "Collector's grade" for a reason. They don't drastically change in value, but neither are they sought out (except maybe the high numbers and gray backs).

I did a study on here a few years ago that showed the drastic losses that PSA 8 1952 Topps grades suffered.

[raulus]

I'd agree with the general sentiment here that if you want to collect the 52T set, then do it for your collecting enjoyment, and maybe even something that you can share with your progeny.

If the cardboard goes up in value between now and some future date when it's sold, then that's just gravy. But if the investment element is your primary focus, then my recommendation would be to invest in more traditional investment assets.

[Volod]

Found this cartoon in an issue of Esquire back in the 80's - always wondered if the diplomas on the wall behind the desk were business related or psychology.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Different issue:

PSA 1-4s are considered "Collector's grade" for a reason. They don't drastically change in value, but neither are they sought out (except maybe the high numbers and gray backs).



I did a study on here a few years ago that showed the drastic losses that PSA 8 1952 Topps grades suffered.

John, that sounds interesting. How can we find that piece?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

I think after thousands of years of history to draw on, "art" is rightly classified as an investment. Some goes up, some goes down. Some goes up, then comes down. If art can be deemed an investment, then certainly sportscards, visual displays of sports heroes of their time, are at least art adjacent, if not art itself.



So, if you reject the concept of art as an investment, then I guess it follows that sportscards are also not an investment. Otherwise, on some level, you must concede that sportscards are an investment, leaving the only issue open to debate whether sportscards are a good or bad investment.



Once you have a certain amount in stocks, bonds, real estate and bitcoin, it is kind of nice to spread your "investments" into things that bring you enjoyment. Art, rare cars, watches, and sportscards fall into that category. I certainly view my collection as an investment and justify allocating a portion of my income to sportscards as investments (even have my wife on board).



As for 1952, my opinion is long term it will continue to do well. However, if you are trying to support the opposite view, the original collectors of 1952 Topps cards are now in their 70s and 80s, so the ones holding/collecting these cards for true nostalgia's sake is waning. I feel reasonably old, and I never saw Hank Aaron or Willie Mays play, and they were still hitting in the 70s, much less Mantle, Jackie, Matthews, Berra and a handful of others that drive the value of the set.



Once all of the current older collectors pass on their 1952 collections to heirs that are not interested in sportscards, how will that impact the supply in the market and where will the "new" demand come from? The fact that you are not currently a 1952 Topps collector but are contemplating starting one is anecdotal evidence that there are new 1952 Topps collectors still entering the market, but where the supply and demand curves meet in the future is the unanswerable question.

You make some interesting points, especially when you touch on one of the risks of speculating in cards.

With respect to whether art is an investment, I think you answered your own question. Many people, once they achieve a certain level of wealth, spend some of their money to buy things for their own enjoyment. It's fine to have a collection of nice watches or a garage full of vintage cars. And it's nice to have expensive paintings on your wall. But people don't do that, for the most part, to increase their wealth but instead to appreciate what they have.

You mentioned Bitcoin as an investment. Do you own Bitcoin? If so, tell me how you decide what is a fair price. It's trading right now for about $100,000 per coin. Do you think that's a good deal or a bad deal? Tell me why.

For any investment, you should be able to estimate how much income the asset will earn for you, over what period of time, and based on that, you can decide how much you will pay for it.

If instead you are speculating, then all you can say is I expect this asset to go up or down because.....

There are some instances I suppose where art can be an investment. For example, if an art museum wants to display a Jackson Pollock and you can rent one to them, then there is intrinsic value there to base a price. For the most part, though, art is not an investment. You could make money on art: as you say, it goes up and down, but volatility in price does not by itself make something an investment.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

You make some interesting points, especially when you touch on one of the risks of speculating in cards.

With respect to whether art is an investment, I think you answered your own question. Many people, once they achieve a certain level of wealth, spend some of their money to buy things for their own enjoyment. It's fine to have a collection of nice watches or a garage full of vintage cars. And it's nice to have expensive paintings on your wall. But people don't do that, for the most part, to increase their wealth but instead to appreciate what they have.

You mentioned Bitcoin as an investment. Do you own Bitcoin? If so, tell me how you decide what is a fair price. It's trading right now for about $100,000 per coin. Do you think that's a good deal or a bad deal? Tell me why.

For any investment, you should be able to estimate how much income the asset will earn for you, over what period of time, and based on that, you can decide how much you will pay for it.

If instead you are speculating, then all you can say is I expect this asset to go up or down because.....

There are some instances I suppose where art can be an investment. For example, if an art museum wants to display a Jackson Pollock and you can rent one to them, then there is intrinsic value there to base a price. For the most part, though, art is not an investment. You could make money on art: as you say, it goes up and down, but volatility in price does not by itself make something an investment.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I hate to hijack another's thread by taking it too far off track, but since you posed direct questions, I will venture to address them. You asked if I own Bitcoin. Yes, I own one coin, which I bought a few years ago, along with 5 Ether. I admit that every ounce of my being rejected the concept of cryptocurrency for a decade before I purchased, and I still think it is a "pet rock." But, I ultimately decided that to be truly diversified, I needed to have a little piece of every asset class just to ensure that I am not the one left behind. If Bitcoin rises to $10M some day and crypto-kids are ruling the world, at least I will be able to continue my current quality of life.

You seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes an investment, and for you the definition includes some ability to forecast future returns. Ironically, the three investment types you reference (stocks, bonds and real estate) fail your own definition. We can no more predict what Nvidia, P&G and Microsoft will be worth in 10 years than we can a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. And anybody that believes the real estate market is predictable was not paying attention during the bust cycles in the 80s and late-00s. I have spent enough time in both the stock market and real estate market to know that neither one of them is the least bit predicable, but I invest heavily in both because (like cards and numerous other asset classes), they have performed well over my lifetime and, as previously stated, I want to be invested in what everyone else is investing in so I am not the one left behind when society prospers.

At base, I believe every dollar you spend on an asset that is not intended to be "used up" is on some level an investment. From there, it is up for society to determine whether such purchase was a "good" or "bad" investment, which is usually only knowable with hindsight.

Circling back to your original premise that art purchasers are primarily people who have achieved a level of wealth and simply want to spend their money to "enjoy" a piece of art, I do not believe that to be true. I have talked and read of several art purchasers who purchase notable art pieces, and while enjoyment certainly enters the equation, the expectation that the art will appreciate is usually at the core of their purchasing decision (unless it is a publicity stunt where a guy just wants to burn millions of dollars to eat a banana). I believe that in over 90% of cases where a 1952 Topps Mantle is sold, the purchaser's motivation includes value retention and appreciation. Very few are spending 6 digits completely ambivalent to the asset's future value.