Depressing

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

I agree with your post. I have not kept up with the new products, but I have to wonder about the expectations of a person paying thousands of dollars for a new card.

My expectation, when I pay thousands for a new card, is that I will enjoy my new card.

That expectation is met each and every time.

It's the same expectation I have when I buy a card from 1914, 1952, or 1975.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by MattyC

My expectation, when I pay thousands for a new card, is that I will enjoy my new card.

That expectation is met each and every time.

It's the same expectation I have when I buy a card from 1914, 1952, or 1975.

Matty, we get that you collect for the sheer purity, love and enjoyment of the hobby. You can afford it, and could care less if Aaron Judge (or whoever) becomes a bust and you lost several thousands on their cards. But I think you are in the minority there. Just because you are an intelligent collector with means, it doesn't follow that many others aren't risking big bucks chasing the promise of the next Mike Trout. We all got burned in the 80's, but that was CHUMP CHANGE compared to the money being spent on speculative prospects like Strasbourg. I think that is the greater point of this thread. But as I mentioned in a previous post, I think any form of collecting cards is good for our hobby, and I'm all for it.
I will also echo Sam's sentiment from a previous post in that I would love to buy the cards of modern players, but just hate that each guy has 1,000 rookies IN DIFFERING YEARS. There are too many to choose from. I don't want to just buy his 472nd "best" rookie, but I also don't want to spend 5-figures on one of his top 5 rookies. I will spend it on Ruth or Cobb because the cards are awesome and their status as immortals is already secured.

[Snapolit1]

The mania surrounding the Otani autographs in the new Topps Heritage set is instructive. A ton of mania out of the box to get these cards and get on eBay. People who were asking $75,000 a month ago. If someone paid that they are a sorry sorry guy, because they are now a few thousand last time I checked. This is just people buying a lottery ticket.
Manufactured scarcity. Signing in different ink colors and then trying to say a certain color is more valuable. Cmon. That’s nuts.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

The mania surrounding the Otani autographs in the new Topps Heritage set is instructive. A ton of mania out of the box to get these cards and get on eBay. People who were asking $75,000 a month ago. If someone paid that they are a sorry sorry guy, because they are now a few thousand last time I checked. This is just people buying a lottery ticket.
Manufactured scarcity. Signing in different ink colors and then trying to say a certain color is more valuable. Cmon. That’s nuts.

No one paid 75k or anywhere near that for his Red Ink Heritage cards. So trying to cite the crazy high ask in an attempt to slight that sector of the hobby is a bit specious. They have been changing hands in the 3-6k zone.

In terms of saying the difference between a Red Ink and Blue Ink auto is subtle and thus "nuts," I could see drawing a parallel to there being a massive premium to a card because it has a different advertising back— yet an identical front— to a much cheaper card. Some might call that "nuts."

Or a card that displays infinitesimal (if any) improvements over another card in a higher graded flip selling for exponentially more than a nearly identical (or better looking) card in the next flip down.

Or the cost of a rare common one needs to complete a set.

The salient point being that there are a lot of aspects to the hobby that different people might raise an eyebrow to— doesn't make any collector "nuts." And it doesn't make whatever they do with their money worthy of a supercilious treatment.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

The mania surrounding the Otani autographs in the new Topps Heritage set is instructive. A ton of mania out of the box to get these cards and get on eBay. People who were asking $75,000 a month ago. If someone paid that they are a sorry sorry guy, because they are now a few thousand last time I checked. This is just people buying a lottery ticket.
Manufactured scarcity. Signing in different ink colors and then trying to say a certain color is more valuable. Cmon. That’s nuts.

I must say I agree with much of this. I do not think you can compare a rare backed tobacco or Carmel card that was produced in small numbers because of supply and demand in that era to manufactured errors and rarities of the modern day. Drum, uzit, kotton, virginia extra...smaller niche brands likley ordered and distributed many fewer cards in the first place place...therefore fewer survive and they are rare. Brown old mills, lennox, red crofts candy... perhaps these occurred as sample runs with whatever ink was available who knows. Today they are rare and desirable.

Compare this to a bunch of executives sitting in a board meeting deciding they are going to “create” this variation or that variation. Smart yes! But in my opinion comparing these to vintage is apples to oranges.

I have not collected modern since 1991 and have made no effort to follow... there are just too many issues...and way too many cards that will remain in new condition.

What can I say the hobby has changed and I have not changed with it. Hopefully these manufactured rarities will maintain their desirability more than their beanie baby counterpart over time.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I must say I agree with much of this. I do not think you can compare a rare backed tobacco or Carmel card that was produced in small numbers because of supply and demand in that era to manufactured errors and rarities of the modern day. Drum, uzit, kotton, virginia extra...smaller niche brands likley ordered and distributed many fewer cards in the first place place...therefore fewer survive and they are rare. Brown old mills, lennox, red crofts candy... perhaps these occurred as sample runs with whatever ink was available who knows. Today they are rare and desirable.

Compare this to a bunch of executives sitting in a board meeting deciding they are going to “create” this variation or that variation. Smart yes! But in my opinion comparing these to vintage is apples to oranges.

I have not collected modern since 1991 and have made no effort to follow... there are just too many issues...and way too many cards that will remain in new condition.

What can I say the hobby has changed and I have not changed with it. Hopefully these manufactured rarities will maintain their desirability more than their beanie baby counterpart over time.

From the standpoint of manufacturing and intent at inception, that is correct. Yet one could compare an ink color difference to a back difference in terms of how one could find those differences between the cards rather insignificant, relative to the prices.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by MattyC

From the standpoint of manufacturing and intent at inception, that is correct. Yet one could compare an ink color difference to a back difference in terms of how one could find those differences between the cards rather insignificant, relative to the prices.

I’ll give u that.😋

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by orly57

I will also echo Sam's sentiment from a previous post in that I would love to buy the cards of modern players, but just hate that each guy has 1,000 rookies IN DIFFERING YEARS. There are too many to choose from. I don't want to just buy his 472nd "best" rookie, but I also don't want to spend 5-figures on one of his top 5 rookies. I will spend it on Ruth or Cobb because the cards are awesome and their status as immortals is already secured.

In all fairness the PreWar "rookie" space is not as cut and dry as you make it seem, relative to modern. Look at the debate that swirls around Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth and what their "rookie" card is. When I first ventured into PreWar I found it disorganized, relative to what I saw as the direct, clear-cut Post War space. I took the time to wade in and learn, from reading and fellow collectors, and was soon able to select cards I wanted. I am sure anyone could do the same for modern, if they so choose. I have far too much fun watching baseball and rooting for certain players to abstain from collecting the cards of theirs which I find awesome, just because they may not achieve immortal status. Their status is already secured with me, based on the fun I have in the present watching, rooting, and collecting. That is why, when I look at my cards, I smile at the Gooden, Strawberry, Mattingly, and Bo Jacksons the same way I smile at the Ruths and Cobbs.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by MattyC

In all fairness the PreWar "rookie" space is not as cut and dry as you make it seem, relative to modern. Look at the debate that swirls around Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth and what their "rookie" card is. When I first ventured into PreWar I found it disorganized, relative to what I saw as the direct, clear-cut Post War space. I took the time to wade in and learn, from reading and fellow collectors, and was soon able to select cards I wanted. I am sure anyone could do the same for modern, if they so choose. I have far too much fun watching baseball and rooting for certain players to abstain from collecting the cards of theirs which I find awesome, just because they may not achieve immortal status. Their status is already secured with me, based on the fun I have in the present watching, rooting, and collecting. That is why, when I look at my cards, I smile at the Gooden, Strawberry, Mattingly, and Bo Jacksons the same way I smile at the Ruths and Cobbs.

But Matty, would you be smiling at Gooden and Strawberry and Mattingly if you had dropped 15k on them during their heyday when they were looking like sure-fire hall of famers? You can smile at the Bo Jackson that you saved up your allowance to buy for a whopping $20. It's a nice memory. But that isn't the case today.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by orly57

But Matty, would you be smiling at Gooden and Strawberry and Mattingly if you had dropped 15k on them during their heyday when they were looking like sure-fire hall of famers? You can smile at the Bo Jackson that you saved up your allowance to buy for a whopping $20. It's a nice memory. But that isn't the case today.

I will be in that exact 15k analogy/boat with my Aaron Judge collection. Will definitely smile at the cards no matter what they are worth down the line. I could sell them at a profit today, but that is not why I collect them. With all baseball cards, I go in thinking of them as sheer expenditures/luxury goods bought for pleasure. If I want to swap some out to buy others down the line and can sell some for profit or breakeven or anything at all, sure that is always nice and optimum, but never the expectation or desire going in. Basically, I walk into Vegas expecting to lose the whole wad.

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Ok. I get that. I use that rational when I purchase a pre World War II card. I fully understand the price fluctuations that can happen in the hobby. But if you paid let’s say $1,000 for a newer card and the value drops precipitously in the following years after the purchase, will you be enthusiastic about spending that type of money on a newer card in the future? Personally I would not.

If I am enthusiastic about the player, want him represented in my collection, want the specific card, and can afford the pricetag, I would be fine pulling the trigger again if another modern card I bought lost its value.

There are certainly prospectors and flippers who are into modern solely for a sort of "day trading," if you will. They time their buying and selling with the ebb and flow of achievement/hype/excitement/expectations around a player. In contrast I just collect modern guys I like. It does strike me as odd, the way a prospect's toughest cards will sometimes be priced as if he has already achieved Ruthian status in MLB. But if a seller can get that price, then more power to him. I have seen prices on modern cards for unproven players that dwarf the price of a nice Mantle or other elite HOFer. I don't agree with it, personally, but not my place to say other than in the holstering of my wallet. But I holster it for some PreWar or PostWar cards that are considered amazing and valuable. Just personal preference, end of day.

[Snapolit1]

There was certainly a lot of hi-jinks and manipulation in the old days. Short prints and the like. But today it's like the only hook to generate sales are gimmicks, lottery tickets. It's like Willie Wonka and the golden ticket.

By the way, I love the new Topps Heritage cards. Bought two boxes and had a blast opening them.

[pawpawdiv9]

I might grab 1-2 boxes at Xmas time of the shiny new stuff. Heck, I don't even know who is hot or not most times, just the fun of ripping something I guess.
That's why I join in at secret santa time, as its more of a surprise than anything.
A few yrs ago I opened one from SS, and had a retro 1957 RC Bart Starr red ink auto
It then makes me ponder IF there be a retro CJ, T206 , 48/9 Leaf or 33 Goudey cards?? or has it been done.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by orly57

Matty, we get that you collect for the sheer purity, love and enjoyment of the hobby. You can afford it, and could care less if Aaron Judge (or whoever) becomes a bust and you lost several thousands on their cards. But I think you are in the minority there. Just because you are an intelligent collector with means, it doesn't follow that many others aren't risking big bucks chasing the promise of the next Mike Trout. We all got burned in the 80's, but that was CHUMP CHANGE compared to the money being spent on speculative prospects like Strasbourg. I think that is the greater point of this thread. But as I mentioned in a previous post, I think any form of collecting cards is good for our hobby, and I'm all for it.
I will also echo Sam's sentiment from a previous post in that I would love to buy the cards of modern players, but just hate that each guy has 1,000 rookies IN DIFFERING YEARS. There are too many to choose from. I don't want to just buy his 472nd "best" rookie, but I also don't want to spend 5-figures on one of his top 5 rookies. I will spend it on Ruth or Cobb because the cards are awesome and their status as immortals is already secured.

Very well stated, as usual, Orly. It brings to mind the thought that just over 1% of the players who ever played major league baseball actually made the HOF. Even Trout is not yet anywhere near a sure thing. This game is essentially one for vigorous young men in their twenties, and for a small few, their early thirties, by and large. Check out Bill James' studies on player performance versus age. By age 35, even the few good enough to still play at a major league level are then producing at a rate of only about 65% of their peak, and it's downhill from there for almost all. The last time Willie Mays was really Willie Mays was 1966, when he was 35 years old. Aaron appeared to play at a higher level longer, but the Fulton County "Launching Pad" masked a lot of his decline--check his home/road splits after the Braves moved to Atlanta. I enjoy watching Trout, because he's the closest thing I have seen to Mickey Mantle since I have been a baseball fanatic in the very early sixties, but sorry, he's only really reached second base, and is still far from home.

Best to you,

Larry

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by MattyC

My expectation, when I pay thousands for a new card, is that I will enjoy my new card.

That expectation is met each and every time.

It's the same expectation I have when I buy a card from 1914, 1952, or 1975.

Ok. I get that. I use that rational when I purchase a pre World War II card. I fully understand the price fluctuations that can happen in the hobby. But if you paid let’s say $1,000 for a newer card and the value drops precipitously in the following years after the purchase, will you be enthusiastic about spending that type of money on a newer card in the future? Personally I would not.