New York Times Leaf Article

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Which dealers were those, and when?

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

[citation needed]

Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

[Touch'EmAll]

Rookies cards, rookie cards. Sigh. Back in the day, someone did a heck of a job promoting this new notion of this thing called a rookie card. And everyone bit - hook, line & sinker.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the concept didn't resonate with collectors they would not have accepted it.

Not all of us collectors:

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Rookies cards, rookie cards. Sigh. Back in the day, someone did a heck of a job promoting this new notion of this thing called a rookie card. And everyone bit - hook, line & sinker.

Some of us still reserve the right to shake our heads or roll our eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Not all of us collectors:



Some of us still reserve the right to shake our heads or roll our eyes.

That YOU personally don't value rookie cards says nothing about the hobby as a whole, much less prove that this is some conspiracy foisted on dumb collectors by unspecified people at an unspecified time. Next point, if you have one?

[BioCRN]

The only RC that I feel like a fool for having in my collection is 1963 Topps Pete Rose because it's an ugly as hell card that has cost too much since the 80s.

I would say at least the value is way more than than when I bought it many years ago, but it's a card in my collection not an investment I'm trying to turn for a profit.

The 63T Tony Oliva is ugly as hell, too, but at least it's not anywhere near the price of a Rose.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That YOU personally don't value rookie cards says nothing about the hobby as a whole....

Well clearly not. Trying to wax eloquent and explain the hobby as a whole to even other collectors let alone non-collectors would be one of those Sisyphean tasks to which I referred two posts ago. Feel free to take on the task if you're so inclined.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

...much less prove that this is some conspiracy foisted on dumb collectors by unspecified people at an unspecified time.

I take it you've yet to notice that collecting isn't like mathematics. As a not entirely rational activity driven by deep-rooted psychological impulses (see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), it's not amenable to hard and fast proofs.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Next point, if you have one?

Yes I do indeed! Why do you and OhioLawyerF5 so often come across as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, or Abbott and Costello if you prefer? Is it the water in Ohio? Something more sinister perhaps? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like an explanation, if there is one.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by rats60

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.

In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.

As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

Oh absolutely! I agree!

It was the 1952 Mickey Mantle high numbered rookie card that got the ball rolling (helped along by sellers sitting on Mantle rookies circulating stories of untold cases of high numbers being dumped in the Hudson River). Then the Topps 1958-59 Bobby Hull rookie card was the last card in the set thus being more susceptible to pocket wear and rubber band damage. But those sitting on inventories of rookie cards, i.e. dealers, fanned the flames of demand for rookie cards which is how/why the silliness took hold and escalated beyond all reason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.



Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

If the concept didn't resonate with collectors they would not have accepted it.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.







Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible is insulting and ignorant.

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea. But they didn't come up with it.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

This is true. Let's take Marilyn Monroe, for example. Her stuff (TYPE 1 photographs, magazine covers, calendars, etc.) from the 1940s are worth more than her stuff from the succeeding decades. It has something to do with being young ... and fresh ... hey, that's human nature!!

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

This is true. Let's take Marilyn Monroe, for example. Her stuff (TYPE 1 photographs, magazine covers, calendars, etc.) from the 1940s are worth more than her stuff from the succeeding decades. It has something to do with being young ... and fresh ... hey, that's human nature!!

Yes, fresh, like the tomatoes I referenced in my previous post.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor.

Hmmmm. Apply the concept of cui bono and it is indeed an obvious point. If you are indeed a lawyer you should be well aware of the concept. In fact I'm wondering why you didn't apply it immediately.

You instead asked me to produce a "source" for something that should be obvious to any prudent man. Sellers will try to talk up the value of their wares. That's no surprise to any prudent man.

Or by source do you mean "originator"? If so I'll leave the Sisyphean task of sorting through the mists of time to find this originator up to you. After all, you're the only one who's interested in his identity.

Methinks you just want an argument. Fine then. You've come to the right place.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers.... It's literally human nature.

The last time I checked, collectors were a subset of consumers in general. But most every other consumer prefers the latest rather than the first, the latest fashions (well women do anyway), the latest most advanced tech, the latest and thus freshest bread, tomatoes, etc. Admittedly we collectors can be strange. Try explaining the exorbitant price rookie cards command to the proverbial prudent man on the street. The price differential in almost all cases comes down to marketing.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible....

Here, let me give you one of those sources:

Originally Posted by P.T. Barnum

There's a sucker born every minute.

These things are always a matter of degree. Yes, a prudent man might be able to understand a 60 year old card selling for 5-10% more than a 59 year old card. But 5X or 10X the price? He'll just shake his head and pronounce it "Crazy!"

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea.

That was just an unintended side effect, collateral damage you might say, of you asking for a source/originator. Very tough to say who did something first when it was then immediately done by all.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I love my Ken McMullen rookie card.

Source?

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

...is insulting and ignorant.

Hey, I can dole out as many insults as you deserve! Once again you've come to the right place for those. The ignorance though you'll have to seek elsewhere.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Hmmmm. Apply the concept of cui bono and it is indeed an obvious point. If you are indeed a lawyer you should be well aware of the concept. In fact I'm wondering why you didn't apply it immediately.

You instead asked me to produce a "source" for something that should be obvious to any prudent man. Sellers will try to talk up the value of their wares. That's no surprise to any prudent man.

Or by source do you mean "originator"? If so I'll leave the Sisyphean task of sorting through the mists of time to find this originator up to you. After all, you're the only one who's interested in his identity.

Methinks you just want an argument. Fine then. You've come to the right place.



The last time I checked, collectors were a subset of consumers in general. But most every other consumer prefers the latest rather than the first, the latest fashions (well women do anyway), the latest most advanced tech, the latest and thus freshest bread, tomatoes, etc. Admittedly we collectors can be strange. Try explaining the exorbitant price rookie cards command to the proverbial prudent man on the street. The price differential in almost all cases comes down to marketing.



Here, let me give you one of those sources:



These things are always a matter of degree. Yes, a prudent man might be able to understand a 60 year old card selling for 5-10% more than a 59 year old card. But 5X or 10X the price? He'll just shake his head and pronounce it "Crazy!"



That was just an unintended side effect, collateral damage you might say, of you asking for a source/originator. Very tough to say who did something first when it was then immediately done by all.



Source?



Hey, I can dole out as many insults as you deserve! Once again you've come to the right place for those. The ignorance though you'll have to seek elsewhere.

That's a long way of saying, "I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertion." :rollseyes:

For someone so verbose, you sure lack logical substance. Comparing collecting mentality to broader consume markets is asinine. They are literally the opposite. Consumers, by definition, are buying to consume. Collectors are buying to keep/hoard/curate/build a collection. Very different purposes. A distintion that causes one to want the newest, and one to prefer the oldest, for obvious reasons that a prudent man would understand.

But given that you appear to think your post actually contained a shred of evidence to support your claim that rookie cards are preferred because once upon a time dealers convinced gullible collectors what they should like, tells me you aren't even remotely close to being a prudent man.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That's a long way of saying, "I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertion."

I brought out Adam Smith and P.T. Barnum. Who more do you want? Taylor Swift? I'm happier to leave her in your corner.

And had not my contention been intrinsically sound, you wouldn't have been immediately compelled to simply obfuscate by calling upon my "sources".

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

For someone so verbose, you sure lack logical substance. Comparing collecting mentality to broader consume markets is asinine. They are literally the opposite. Consumers, by definition, are buying to consume. Collectors are buying to keep/hoard/curate/build a collection.

Oh?! Here. Let me give you a quick lesson in both logic and set theory. Only some consumers are also collectors. But all collectors are nonetheless consumers. Therefore collectors are a subset of the set of consumers. Collectors therefore share the traits of consumers.

My apologies though for venturing into set theory which is a subset of mathematics. I know many of you individuals in the legal field went into law because math isn't your strong point. But numbers very often intrude into the real world, they really do.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

...every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

I won't ask you for your "source" because that's absolute, unmitigated nonsense that can be dismissed with one or two quick counter examples.

The very oldest semi-organized field of collecting may be that for coins. Coin collecting predates the Roman Empire. The coins most prized by collectors are those which best combine scarcity and aesthetic appeal. Those coins are rarely the oldest. For example, coins picturing the Emperor Decius postdate those picturing the Emperor Tiberius by nearly 250 years but Decius coins are more highly prized because they're rarer.

And in the art world it's not a painter's earliest pictures that fetch the biggest bucks; it's his best.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Actually he can. It may come as a surprise to you, but those two factors can go hand-in-hand.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first caAll you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

After your long-winded characterizing of collectors as those who inherently prize the old, you now have the gall to accuse another poster of denigrating the way others collect? What about all those collectors snapping up the new 2025 releases of sports cards? You've implied that they're not proper collectors because they're not going after the oldest.

Incidentally the word is "rationalize". Yes, yes, I make mistakes too. But at least I have sufficient consideration for my fellow posters to read over my posts with a view to editing out any mistakes.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox....

Hey, despite your many and varied personal deficiencies, you too can have an impact (at least on this board)! How do you like my "new" old avatar which I'm resurrecting to better showcase the sly side of my character?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I brought out Adam Smith and P.T. Barnum. Who more do you want? Taylor Swift? I'm happier to leave her in your corner.

And had not my contention been intrinsically sound, you wouldn't have been immediately compelled to simply obfuscate by calling upon my "sources".



Oh?! Here. Let me give you a quick lesson in both logic and set theory. Only some consumers are also collectors. But all collectors are nonetheless consumers. Therefore collectors are a subset of the set of consumers. Collectors therefore share the traits of consumers.

My apologies though for venturing into set theory which is a subset of mathematics. I know many of you individuals in the legal field went into law because math isn't your strong point. But numbers very often intrude into the real world, they really do.



I won't ask you for your "source" because that's absolute, unmitigated nonsense that can be dismissed with one or two quick counter examples.

The very oldest semi-organized field of collecting may be that for coins. Coin collecting predates the Roman Empire. The coins most prized by collectors are those which best combine scarcity and aesthetic appeal. Those coins are rarely the oldest. For example, coins picturing the Emperor Decius postdate those picturing the Emperor Tiberius by nearly 250 years but Decius coins are more highly prized because they're rarer.

And in the art world it's not a painter's earliest pictures that fetch the biggest bucks, it's his best.



Actually he can. It may come as a surprise to you, but those two factors can go hand-in-hand.



After your long-winded characterizing of collectors as those who inherently prize the old, you now have the gall to accuse another poster of denigrating the way others collect? What about all those collectors snapping up the new 2025 releases of sports cards? You've implied that they're not proper collectors because they're not going after the oldest.

Incidentally the word is "rationalize". Yes, yes, I make mistakes too. But at least I have sufficient consideration for my fellow posters to read over my posts with a view to editing out any mistakes.



Hey, despite your many and varied personal deficiencies, you too can have an impact (at least on this board)! How do you like my "new" old avatar which I'm resurrecting to better showcase the sly side of my character?

404 Error: Logic not found

Case in point, I never denigrated people who do not collect the earliest. If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't collect the earliest. My argument was just that you can't support your assertion that collectors like rookies because dealers duped them into it. And I've been right all along. In all your walls of text, you've yet to even attempt to prove that claim. You keep making irrelevant arguments using poor logic about statements I made, all while missing the point.

I guess I'll just wait for you to produce literally any evidence to support your claim. But I won't hold my breath.

By the way, since it's clear it went over your head, "[citation needed]" is a meme based in wikipedia, meaning you have posted something without supporting evidence.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

404 Error: Logic not found

Neither is common sense in your case. Have you ever even opened a Logic textbook? You know, one with basic syllogisms such as (-A ----> A) ----> A .

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Case in point, I never denigrated people who do not collect the earliest.

But you did say:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers.... It's literally human nature.

And now you're even offering yourself up as yet another counter example!

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't collect the earliest.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

My argument was just that you can't support your assertion that collectors like rookies because dealers duped them into it.

My support comes from the fact that both the man on the street and newbie collectors are bewildered at all the fuss regarding rookie cards. Even my old childhood collecting buddy wondered decades later why rookie cards fetched more collecting interest than say the card from the player's best year.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And I've been right all along.

Only in your dreams.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

In all your walls of text, you've yet to even attempt to prove that claim. You keep making irrelevant arguments using poor logic about statements I made....

Were you any kind of logician, you'd know that positive assertions border on impossible to prove. But negative assertions can be disproven with one simple counter example.

For example, I provided not just one but several counter examples to your assertion that collectors naturally prefer the old.

Moreover you argued that collectors are a set distinct from consumers. This is nonsense since collectors are nonetheless a subset of consumers (and thus influenced by marketing).

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

By the way, since it's clear it went over your head, "[citation needed]" is a meme based in wikipedia, meaning you have posted something without supporting evidence.

Sorry. I never claimed omniscience. Only common sense.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible is insulting and ignorant.

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea. But they didn't come up with it.

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.

In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.

As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rats60

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.



In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.



As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Regardless of your contradiction, every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox, the fact that dealers anf manufacturers leaned into and embraced the desire of collectors to have the earliest cards of a player, does not mean they created that desire.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

All you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Regardless of your contradiction, every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox, the fact that dealers anf manufacturers leaned into and embraced the desire of collectors to have the earliest cards of a player, does not mean they created that desire.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

All you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

It was plainly stated in my post, but I will repeat it again. Cards in the early days of rookie cards were valued based on rarity. It wasn't until later that there was a preference for rookie cards. This preference for older doesn't necessarily apply to baseball cards. A players oldest card isn't always his most valuable. Mickey Mantle's most valuable card is his 1952 Topps, it is not his oldest card.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

It was plainly stated in my post, but I will repeat it again. Cards in the early days of rookie cards were valued based on rarity. It wasn't until later that there was a preference for rookie cards. This preference for older doesn't necessarily apply to baseball cards. A players oldest card isn't always his most valuable. Mickey Mantle's most valuable card is his 1952 Topps, it is not his oldest card.

His Topps card is still a first appearance card. It was his first Topps card in what people consider to be the first major Topps set. It is a short print, but it was also double printed and I don't think anyone in the hobby considers it a rare card.