1952 Topps set question?

[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.