Are Baseball Cards Destined to Slowly Diminish in Value?

[theseeker]

I was going to ask the very same thing.

Gettin back to the discussion at hand:

The last, large scale hobby participation of kids is the generation now entering their early thirties. They were the first generation to enter the hobby with an eye on investment, due to the excessive greed and shortsightedness of manufacturer's and dealer's. It has forever changed the hobby landscape. A large part of the longterm decline can be traced to how those late 80's/early 90's investments turned out, IMHO. It's still a hobby. My golf clubs are a much worse investment, yet are well worth the cost to me in terms of the pleasure I derive from their use. My card collecting hobby fits into the same basic category-- one of life's pleasant deversions. A balancing act to the serious stuff.

If the opinions of the posters here, on this topic, that fall into that early thirty-something demographic group are correct and the postwar cards have a drop in value due to their lack of interest, in favor of the prewar stuff, I'll happily jump in at the reduced prices. Although I am also not old enough to remember most of the 50's, 60's, and early 70's, I see the Topps series issued era as arguably the best of all time. I'll always feel a closer kinship to this era of early TV and classic radio than I ever could for anything from 1911. Then again, I'm not looking at it as an investment and can strictly allow my passions to rule.

In your early thirties and you have no interest in cards from the 60's and 70's because "you never saw them play?" Yet, there is interest among this age group in cards from the much more distant past? Sounds like investment still is the force leading the younger generation of card collector. It is, at the heart of the matter, resembling the cautionary tulip investment tale.

[itjclarke]

I' ve been reading this thread for a few days and had to chime in. I, like many of the others to post am in my 30's (34). Being this age I feel like I came from one of the last generations, who as small kids enjoyed the gum almost as much as the cards. I still have my old shoebox of circa 1980-1984 Topps cards, which also included 5 mysterious/AMAZING cards from a time prior to my existence, 1971. I doubt many people much younger kept and carried their collections around in shoeboxes.

I enjoyed bringing my box to school everyday, sticking cards to my desk, trading between classes, etc.. Loved my cards so much, I wrote my name on the back of most. Around 1986-1987 this changed for us. At this point we'd all upgraded to binders with plastic pages. People started coming to school with 1987 Topps Mark McGwires in sleeves, which in the Bay Area were selling for $7. It was amazing! There were a few dozen hot cards that were worth the cost of 2, 5, 10 packs. Everything changed. All of a sudden some kids (w/ generous parents) had 3 and 4 year old Mattingly, Strawberry, and Gooden rookies. One kid even had the Rated Rookie Canseco. Our innocent hobby had become something very different... BUT needless to say much more exciting at the time.

I've often wondered about the questions being asked. Will cards' demand fade over time.. specifically once my generation, the last to have collected in the same style kids had from 1914-1970, ages? Younger people may continue to be drawn by baseball's incredible history, or the obvious investment/$$$$ motivations.. But I think there'll generally lack the nostalgia of collecting with that total innocence. For me I like to think it's more that nostalgia and love for history that drives me to spend lots and lots of money now.. I have never sold a card.. Though the investment side minded side of me is always present.

ANYWAY- sorry for the long windedness.. The main point/idea I want to add, is this- I've always wondered about the demographic makeup of the current collecting population. I've come across dozens of threads surveying back variations/errors/font colors, most of which yield interesting data. I'm curious if similar data on collectors' info (age, collecting interests/goals, willingness to spend) has, or can be gathered. Most who've posted seem to think the age of collectors is a general indication of the health, and future of the hobby (more younger=better). Can we gather this data? Maybe just starting with info based on what's listed in Net54 user profiles.. Then possibly get more specific and chart.. % of different age ranges, what different ages collect or even spend in a year, will they continue, etc?? It seems like a big task, but any real data from a poll/survey could be very interesting.

[Exhibitman]

Good points again, Rich, on the cost to buy packs. This I published on my web site after the last National:

Ringside was there at a corporate booth with a box-breaking promotion: break a box of the 2010 product at their table and get an entry in a drawing for signed memorabilia. I broke down one box but didn't win anything in the drawings. As for the product itself, my feelings were mixed. The box I broke had only 40 cards in it. They were very thick (4 normal cards thick each). which is really inconvenient. Most of the cards were retired fighters, which I found disappointing. Of the 40 cards I pulled (no dupes) only two--Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto--were of active fighters. As for inserts, it is just gambling, plain and simple. The final pack I opened had a "1 of 1" card of Vito Antuofermo. Not even signed. I could have cared less but the guys working the table acted like I'd pulled out a golden ticket to the Wonka factory. A dealer sitting next to me breaking down boxes of Sport Kings product invited me over to his table and bought the card for more than I paid for the entire box! I will confess that I am baffled by the insert mania of the modern card market. I totally "get" autographed cards' appeal. I even see (though do not share enthusiasm for) the appeal of fighter-worn swatch cards. But the 1 of 1 and parallel set stuff is alien to me. I just do not understand the appeal of manufactured rarity. Why is a card that was intentionally made 1 of 1 and that isn't even signed and doesn't contain any fight-worn equipment swatches worth money to anyone? It seems so contrived. As for the base product, my feeling is that if collectors are going to basically throw away the base cards, the set is a failure. And what's with all the old dudes? I'd much, much rather see a set of base cards devoted to active fighters with autographs (like the 2008 Topps Co-Signers) or fight-worn materials on each "significant" card. We also need cards at base price far below the price point of the Ringside cards. At $85 a box retail for the TKO--40 cards total spread through 10 packs--and $175 for the KO--16 cards total but guaranteed at least 2 autographs and 1 memorabilia card--the issue is way too pricey to get a casual collector interested. I had to think long and hard over buying a TKO box and even then I'd not have done it but for the drawing promotion. My trepidation was financial--even the TKO boxes, which guarantee nothing by way of insert cards, cost over $2 per card.

[Big Ben]

Interesting thread. Agree with a lot of points that have been posted especially the following in no particular order.

High entry cost for kids to get started in the hobby
Demographics
Cyclical nature of the hobby
Economy
Different sports competing for the interest of today's youth. (soccer)


Personally I left the hobby in the early 1990's as it wasn't fun anymore and I refused to pay over $1.00 per pack for new cards. lol

I returned to the hobby in 2008 as cards I have always been interested in, (pre-world war II) seemed to be decent values when found on the internet.

IMHO, some things that will help the hobby..

Internet- ie message boards
Integrity or some form of policing in the hobby--in some ways I think that card grading helps the hobby. (I realize there are some cons to grading as well)
A marquee player who can capture the nation's attention ie Jordan in the NBA
Oddly enough a return of wealthy investors purchasing high profile cards in which the purchase makes headlines.

Just my two cents on a rainy day in my area.

[joeadcock]

Ian

There were 2 particular threads in 2010 dealing with the demographics of the net54 population such as age, career, education, etc.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by joeadcock

Ian

There were 2 particular threads in 2010 dealing with the demographics of the net54 population such as age, career, education, etc.

Thanks Joe.. I'll take a look for them. I joined a couple months ago, and am slowly, but steadily reading through some of the older threads. I'll venture to guess a large drop off in the 18-29 group for vintage/pre war.

[Rich Klein]

18-29 is that in many cases; these are the people who are just getting into the job world; marrying -- having kids, etc. They have not yet built up extra money for vintage cards and frankly in that age group -- they are usually more into modern cards.

Leon came to a little show my local card show owner had in his store and when I commented about how the audience at that show looked younger than at the more traditional card shows, he pointed out that the target audience was a bit different.

Yes for many reasons there are less 18-29 years old here, but that is not always a function of interest in cards; rather a function of interest in what type of cards

Rich