Aaron Judge

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

If you collect pre-war cards you'll notice that there are many different variations of the same cards in different sets and the only thing that separates them is the manufacturer listed on the back. How can you think modern cards are ridiculous and then go buy a Lenox backed T206 for 100 times the cost of a Piedmont backed card and think there's nothing equally as stupid going on there? Or pay through the nose for a T216 that's no different from an E90 of the same player? What's the difference?

I don't care about those backs either, but I guess the difference is those were not made for the purpose of generating artificial scarcity, like all the multi color serially numbered refractors. They were just made as premiums for the product. They were not intended to have value. Now, you could take a card, make five with a blue dot, and people will pay ungodly sums for the rare blue dot variation. It seems stupid to me.

[packs]

But the premiums put on the pre-war cards with certain backs is just as artificial wouldn't you say? There's no reason that a Lenox has to be expensive.

[rjackson44]

Hi Peter I'm going to take your advice I got offered insane amount for all but declined hope he goes to the lakers lol

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

But the premiums put on the pre-war cards with certain backs is just as artificial wouldn't you say? There's no reason that a Lenox has to be expensive.

If I am not misunderstanding your question, it's not only the player but also the rarity of said cards/backs that make them worth what they are.

Something 1 of 1, or something very few people can obtain/own has and will alway carry a premium.

[MattyC]

Packs,

That is a really astute and interesting observation regarding PreWar back premiums and the analogy to some of today's variations.

What some miss is that not all modern collecting is for value and resale, to be dumped/sold when there is a profit to be taken, or to be hidden in shame if value dips. Just as with PreWar and vintage, collectors can collect because we are really into the player. That is, after all, what collecting is supposed to be about.

For example, when I was a kid, I bought and loved Mattingly, Strawberry, Gooden, etc. I bought and collected and loved having those cards not because they went up or down in value in a Beckett or CCP guide, but because they were "my guys," who I rooted for with heart. When I would wake up in the morning, I would check the box scores to see how my favorite guys did. I own those same cards today, and thoroughly enjoy having them in my collection— despite the fact that they are not worth thousands and the players did not make the Hall of Fame.

Funny thing is, as a much older 'kid' now, I do the same exact thing. I've bought both the expensive and non-expensive cards of my current favorites like Judge, Bird, Sanchez, Montgomery, Severino, etc., with the endeavor being to 'Collect'em all' as the hobby saying goes. Does that play into the companies printing variations? Sure. No different than collecting in the 80s played into me wanting an 86 Sportflic of Mattingly or the 84FU Gooden. And the fun and enjoyment is there from collecting a player you like, whether he becomes a HOFer or not, and whether the cards become worth money, or worth nothing.

In my modern splurging lately, I've learned that today we can have many officially designated RC's with the RC logo, and then there is usually a player's earlier Bowman Chrome Prospect Auto card.

Much as there is debate among PreWar collectors over what card is so-and-so's rookie card, the same dialogue exists in the modern realm. Some guys view the Bowman Chrome as a rookie, others view it as a Minor League RC or something akin to an XRC. Some like only cards with the official RC logo for their rookies. And then there are guys who want to collect all the cards of their player.

Similarly, back in '84, there were guys who were satisfied with Darryl Strawberry's 84T. Others felt their collections needed to add the expensive 83T. Still others felt a need to add the Donruss and Fleer 84 issues. I remember encountering the 1985T #1 Draft Pick card of Strawberry, or the 1986T Gooden Record Breaker or the 1986 Fleer 'in action' cards, and I wanted to add them. The same way I see the 1960 style Archives Judge Auto and the 1983 style auto and want to add them to my others. Player collecting, especially of stars, has a long history of leading collectors down a dizzying path— just look at all the cards in a Mickey Mantle Master Set, LOL.

Ultimately, as always, it comes down to, "Collect what and who we like." If someone wants to pay a handsome premium for a Gold Refractor of Gleyber Torres or a Superfactor of Judge or a Lenox Back of a T206 non HOFer or a Pancho Herrer or a centered card that is usually found OC, they should go for it. If a collector buys what he wants and he's happy adding to his collection, it's never stupid or insane; it's always a good choice— because life is way too short and we can't take the cash with us.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What I find confusing about the modern RC designations is that nobody seems to question, for example, that the 1992 Bowman of Mariano Rivera is his RC, even though it depicts him in street clothes and was issued 3 years before he put on a major league uniform. Or the 85 McGwire on Team USA. But many of the same people would say that the Team USA issues of Kershaw, Harper, and others are not RCs, and the apparent rationale is that they were issued before they appeared in the majors. I am sure there is an answer but I don't get it.

And Matt, yeah of course ultimately collect what you like, but debates about value are also an "inheritant" part of the hobby.

[packs]

Originally Posted by irv

If I am not misunderstanding your question, it's not only the player but also the rarity of said cards/backs that make them worth what they are.

Something 1 of 1, or something very few people can obtain/own has and will alway carry a premium.

This isn't true either. There are many sets that are considered "rare" that aren't valuable at all. You need the audience combined with the rarity in order for something to get expensive. Bowman is the premier rookie card manufacturer and its cards will almost always be the most expensive rookie cards to obtain. There's no difference between modern Bowman auto rookies and T206 rare backs. You might say that the T206 companies didn't manufacture the backs to be rare or expensive, but Bowman isn't manufacturing it's cards to be expensive either. The market has decided they're expensive, just as they have the T206 backs. Panini and Leaf put out a million variations too but no one is willing to pay for them. Just putting a number on the card doesn't make it valuable. It being Bowman makes it valuable.

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

This isn't true either. There are many sets that are considered "rare" that aren't valuable at all. You need the audience combined with the rarity in order for something to get expensive. Bowman is the premier rookie card manufacturer and its cards will almost always be the most expensive rookie cards to obtain. There's no difference between modern Bowman auto rookies and T206 rare backs. You might say that the T206 companies didn't manufacture the backs to be rare or expensive, but Bowman isn't manufacturing it's cards to be expensive either. The market has decided they're expensive, just as they have the T206 backs. Panini and Leaf put out a million variations too but no one is willing to pay for them. Just putting a number on the card doesn't make it valuable. It being Bowman makes it valuable.

If all that has been said in the thread didn't help you to understand, then I am at a loss on how to explain it further to you.

No disrespect. I'm just not good at explaining things I guess so I will leave that to other's who are.

[packs]

There's nothing you have to explain. A refractor is no different than an Uzit except that it has a little number on it. But that number isn't what makes the card expensive. The market makes it expensive. So saying that Uzit didn't know it was making valuable cards is a moot point, because the card is only made valuable by the market and people are only collecting the Uzit because it's different from the base Piedmont.

Also the argument that there are too many cards of players seems moot to me too. Ty Cobb has 4 T206 poses, plus the E90, T216, T215, T202, T205, E95, E93, etc. all released within the same three year span, some of them with the same pose. As much as things have changed, they remain the same.

[MattyC]

Packs, you are dropping some solid points here-- never saw it that way prior to your posts. An example that there is quality, insightful user content on the internet after all!

[bn2cardz]

Today it is a business and back then it was as well. If you think they wouldn't have used refractor technology if they had it then I would point you to the t204. When new technology came about they used it.

If you don't believe there was "manufactured" scarcity I would just point you to the 1933/34 Goudey Lajoie as a prime example that there was. (I see this was pointed out before I got back to finishing this comment)

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

There's nothing you have to explain. A refractor is no different than an Uzit except that it has a little number on it. But that number isn't what makes the card expensive. The market makes it expensive. So saying that Uzit didn't know it was making valuable cards is a moot point, because the card is only made valuable by the market and people are only collecting the Uzit because it's different from the base Piedmont.

Also the argument that there are too many cards of players seems moot to me too. Ty Cobb has 4 T206 poses, plus the E90, T216, T215, T202, T205, E95, E93, etc. all released within the same three year span, some of them with the same pose. As much as things have changed, they remain the same.

Well, although it seems moot to you, the fact remains that people are drawn to rarity/scarcity of HOF's who's card/pictures are hard to come by.
Judge has a ton of RC's. If he only had one or 2, then you would see those prices going through the roof, but, unlike Cobb, for example, people have a ton of other choices, especially if they cannot afford to obtain a true RC.

Also, Cobb is famous for various reasons, while Judge, for example is new and is just starting out. People have him in the hall already, lol, and many are speculating and the prices reflect that, but have him get injured and have a non HOF shortened career and he will be forgotten about as will his cards and what people once paid for them.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't care about those backs either, but I guess the difference is those were not made for the purpose of generating artificial scarcity, like all the multi color serially numbered refractors. They were just made as premiums for the product. They were not intended to have value. Now, you could take a card, make five with a blue dot, and people will pay ungodly sums for the rare blue dot variation. It seems stupid to me.

I can't agree more Peter. I've been screaming this from the rooftops. "Aritificial scarcity" is the perfect way to describe it. This one is a1/1, but an identical card with a red dot is a 1/5, and so on. I can see where children fall for it, but adults? Really? I suppose they also believe that the company throws away the rest of the jersey after using one swatch on a 1/1. I've tried warning people, but they passionately defend it. The effort by packs to compare to t206 backs is clever, but it doesn't work. The backs were for advertising, not to have kids chase the rare backs as inserts, or to add value to the card. And like you Peter, I don't get the whole t206 back-chasing thing either.

I remember the first time I saw Aaron Judge, when his name was Kevin Maas. Another big problem with manufactured scarcity it that these guys are paying 3k for an Aaron Judge, while at least I only lost 10 bucks on my Kevin Maas or David Justice speculating. Remember the Canseco craze? His Donruss went up to a whopping $100. If Canseco were a young player today performing as he did early in his career, these guys would be dropping 5-figures on his cards! Here's the thing: hall of famers are rare. Common players are, well, far more common. There have been prospects since The beginning of baseball, and most prospects become common players. So keep dropping big bucks looking for the next mike trout if you want, but it's a bad idea.

Finally, this auto-craze is absurd. You know why Thurman Munson autos are worth more than DiMaggio or Ted Williams? Because what makes autos valuable is rarity! By the time mike trout retires, he will have signed a million baseball cards. Then he will sign 5 million more post-retirement. His auto will be more common than Pete Rose's auto. But rather than listening to experience, when I tell young collectors all of this, they scoff at me. They will learn the hard way.

You can choose to chase potential hall of famers at obscene prices if you want, but I suggest you spend that 3k on a guy who is already in the hall of fame. Spend it on a guy who is already a legend. Spend it on a guy whose cards will not continue to be produced at alarming rates. Spend it on a timeless card with historic value. That's my advice to you guys who buy the shiny new stuff.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't understand the autograph thing either. As you point out, the signature itself has almost no intrinsic value, so it's just another way to artificially distinguish one group of a player's million plus rookie cards from another group. And what drives it home for me is that they now have different color signatures, some of which apparently are worth more. The RED autographs, on some issues anyhow, are far more valuable than the BLUE autographs. Uh, ok, sure, whatever. I am sure some marketing guru will come up with even further differentiation of autographs. How about an ultra super rare version where the player actually writes out his full name instead of a chicken scratch of his initials? Or maybe they could add the date and call it the ultra super rare "with date" version? It all seems artificial to me.

And yeah, baseball prospects are notoriously unpredictable. And a few good months, or even a few good years, doesn't mean anything either in this most difficult of sports.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

a few good months, or even a few good years, doesn't mean anything either in this most difficult of sports.

Yes, it is enormously difficult.

But you really think a few good "years" doesn't mean anything?

To whom— certainly not the players. Real baseball players take it game to game, at bat to at bat, pitch to pitch. They don't live their lives thinking, "Gee, I have to make the HOF." So the players certainly wouldn't agree with that.

The fans? I think fans of a team or player don't live in a "HOF or bust" space either. Fans will love lots of non HOF worthy players.

So how does a few good months or years mean nothing? The game is enormously hard. If anything, in such an environment having a great season is something a player or fan would love and value.

The only realm where that statement could apply is the realm of selling a baseball card for money.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes, it is enormously difficult.

But you really think a few good "years" doesn't mean anything?

To whom— certainly not the players. Real baseball players take it game to game, at bat to at bat, pitch to pitch. They don't live their lives thinking, "Gee, I have to make the HOF." So the players certainly wouldn't agree with that.

The fans? I think fans of a team or player don't live in a "HOF or bust" space either. Fans will love lots of non HOF worthy players.

So how does a few good months or years mean nothing? The game is enormously hard. If anything, in such an environment having a great season is something a player or fan would love and value.

The only realm where that statement could apply is the realm of selling a baseball card for money.

Yes, of course, but that's the context we are discussing, namely the values we are seeing on some of the modern cards. Or at least that was the context in which I made the statement.

[MattyC]

Gotcha, Peter, makes sense in that context. Wasn't sure since a prior post was referencing price-performances of guys who had relatively brief flashes of greatness.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think it's all related. What I see, from a limited vantage point anyhow, is that hype tends to drive a player's values sky high based on relatively brief periods of success, as though the market is already pricing in that the guy is going to be an all time great. How else can we explain prices way in excess of 1K (and I have no idea how high it goes) for a guy such a Judge who has had two months of success?

Trout, I get, he has five outstanding years in, and it's a relatively strong assumption that he will continue (but see recent injury). Relatively strong, because you have guys who fall way off even after 10 years. Griffey is an example of that, his second half was nowhere near his first. But two months -- in this context -- is way too soon IMO to be paying thousands for his cards. Unless money is no object.

Take a look back at what some Strasburg cards were selling for during his rookie year, when people already had him in the HOF.

[irv]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hey Orly, why don't you let modern collectors or people like myself who will buy a modern player's cards decide how to spend our hard-earned money.

I could buy pieces like your Cobb postcard, but it doesn't interest me or appeal to me in the least. Do I enter your sandbox and verbally piss on your choices? No.

On the money topic, not everyone is in this for future investment, some people want to collect modern players they root for. And for those who are after a monetary return, people have done fine on the great current players, too.

You say modern Trout collectors will "learn the hard way." Ooh. What harsh lesson will this be? You think the kid or guy who paid a few hundred for a Trout will, in decades from now, walk around rueing the choice because the card dropped in value?

In 2027, will you walk the National with schadenfreude, hoping to hear the words: "Oh my God, my Trout was once worth $800. Now it's worth $200! My life is over! What a hard life lesson! If only I listened to that guy and bought a Cobb instead of the player I rooted for in my present life!"

Or what about the guy who can afford to drop a few grand or even ten grand on a Trout or Judge or Seager or Bellinger now? Will he learn the hard way if it drops to half its value in fifteen years? I don't think so.

- If he dropped 10k on a card and it loses nearly all its value, it's a loss the guy can shrug at. That's not a life-changing sum for someone with that cash to spend on a card.
- If he dropped 10k because he loves the player, he still loves the card, it's likely his favorite card or among them.

And if you think Judge is Kevin Maas, you've betrayed yourself as someone who doesn't know the game of baseball. Their approaches at the plate are different. Their ability to make adjustments is different. Their ability to hit for average and contact is different. As a cautionary anecdote about purchasing the cards of hot rookies that may not develop into bona fide stars, then yes, there's a comparison to be drawn— for now.

MC

I think this thread is getting way out of hand and it's original theme has been lost along the way?

My replies, to Packs, and I think others like Orly's were written to show/tell that "investing" in players such as Judge is not necessarily a wise investment, especially with the prices it currently costs to jump in.

No one is saying you're stupid to purchase these cards if you want them, but are saying, if you are purchasing for investment purposes, then it is not a wise investment at this point in their careers.

Like I mentioned earlier, I could care less what people collect nor how many cards are out there, but when someone can't understand when modern, newer cards of players who's amount of cards go on forever, aren't as valuable as some older, much harder to find, a legend if you will, player who is already in the HOF, then I don't know what else to say.

[irv]

Originally Posted by orly57

I can't agree more Peter. I've been screaming this from the rooftops. "Aritificial scarcity" is the perfect way to describe it. This one is a1/1, but an identical card with a red dot is a 1/5, and so on. I can see where children fall for it, but adults? Really? I suppose they also believe that the company throws away the rest of the jersey after using one swatch on a 1/1. I've tried warning people, but they passionately defend it. The effort by packs to compare to t206 backs is clever, but it doesn't work. The backs were for advertising, not to have kids chase the rare backs as inserts, or to add value to the card. And like you Peter, I don't get the whole t206 back-chasing thing either.

I remember the first time I saw Aaron Judge, when his name was Kevin Maas. Another big problem with manufactured scarcity it that these guys are paying 3k for an Aaron Judge, while at least I only lost 10 bucks on my Kevin Maas or David Justice speculating. Remember the Canseco craze? His Donruss went up to a whopping $100. If Canseco were a young player today performing as he did early in his career, these guys would be dropping 5-figures on his cards! Here's the thing: hall of famers are rare. Common players are, well, far more common. There have been prospects since The beginning of baseball, and most prospects become common players. So keep dropping big bucks looking for the next mike trout if you want, but it's a bad idea.

Finally, this auto-craze is absurd. You know why Thurman Munson autos are worth more than DiMaggio or Ted Williams? Because what makes autos valuable is rarity! By the time mike trout retires, he will have signed a million baseball cards. Then he will sign 5 million more post-retirement. His auto will be more common than Pete Rose's auto. But rather than listening to experience, when I tell young collectors all of this, they scoff at me. They will learn the hard way.

You can choose to chase potential hall of famers at obscene prices if you want, but I suggest you spend that 3k on a guy who is already in the hall of fame. Spend it on a guy who is already a legend. Spend it on a guy whose cards will not continue to be produced at alarming rates. Spend it on a timeless card with historic value. That's my advice to you guys who buy the shiny new stuff.

Very well said!

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by orly57

I can't agree more Peter. I've been screaming this from the rooftops. "Aritificial scarcity" is the perfect way to describe it. This one is a1/1, but an identical card with a red dot is a 1/5, and so on. I can see where children fall for it, but adults? Really? I suppose they also believe that the company throws away the rest of the jersey after using one swatch on a 1/1. I've tried warning people, but they passionately defend it. The effort by packs to compare to t206 backs is clever, but it doesn't work. The backs were for advertising, not to have kids chase the rare backs as inserts, or to add value to the card. And like you Peter, I don't get the whole t206 back-chasing thing either.

I remember the first time I saw Aaron Judge, when his name was Kevin Maas. Another big problem with manufactured scarcity it that these guys are paying 3k for an Aaron Judge, while at least I only lost 10 bucks on my Kevin Maas or David Justice speculating. Remember the Canseco craze? His Donruss went up to a whopping $100. If Canseco were a young player today performing as he did early in his career, these guys would be dropping 5-figures on his cards! Here's the thing: hall of famers are rare. Common players are, well, far more common. There have been prospects since The beginning of baseball, and most prospects become common players. So keep dropping big bucks looking for the next mike trout if you want, but it's a bad idea.

Finally, this auto-craze is absurd. You know why Thurman Munson autos are worth more than DiMaggio or Ted Williams? Because what makes autos valuable is rarity! By the time mike trout retires, he will have signed a million baseball cards. Then he will sign 5 million more post-retirement. His auto will be more common than Pete Rose's auto. But rather than listening to experience, when I tell young collectors all of this, they scoff at me. They will learn the hard way.

You can choose to chase potential hall of famers at obscene prices if you want, but I suggest you spend that 3k on a guy who is already in the hall of fame. Spend it on a guy who is already a legend. Spend it on a guy whose cards will not continue to be produced at alarming rates. Spend it on a timeless card with historic value. That's my advice to you guys who buy the shiny new stuff.

Hey Orly, why don't you let modern collectors or people like myself who will buy a modern player's cards decide how to spend our hard-earned money.

I could buy pieces like your Cobb postcard, but it doesn't interest me or appeal to me in the least. Do I enter your sandbox and verbally piss on your choices? No.

On the money topic, not everyone is in this for future investment, some people want to collect modern players they root for. And for those who are after a monetary return, people have done fine on the great current players, too.

You say modern Trout collectors will "learn the hard way." Ooh. What harsh lesson will this be? You think the kid or guy who paid a few hundred for a Trout will, in decades from now, walk around rueing the choice because the card dropped in value?

In 2027, will you walk the National with schadenfreude, hoping to hear the words: "Oh my God, my Trout was once worth $800. Now it's worth $200! My life is over! What a hard life lesson! If only I listened to that guy and bought a Cobb instead of the player I rooted for in my present life!"

Or what about the guy who can afford to drop a few grand or even ten grand on a Trout or Judge or Seager or Bellinger now? Will he learn the hard way if it drops to half its value in fifteen years? I don't think so.

- If he dropped 10k on a card and it loses nearly all its value, it's a loss the guy can shrug at. That's not a life-changing sum for someone with that cash to spend on a card.
- If he dropped 10k because he loves the player, he still loves the card, it's likely his favorite card or among them.

And if you think Judge is Kevin Maas, you've betrayed yourself as someone who doesn't know the game of baseball. Their approaches at the plate are different. Their ability to make adjustments is different. Their ability to hit for average and contact is different. As a cautionary anecdote about purchasing the cards of hot rookies that may not develop into bona fide stars, then yes, there's a comparison to be drawn— for now.

MC

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course we don't know what the future holds in store for Judge, but the analogy to Maas as a "cautionary tale" is fairly apt.

https://www.baseballessential.com/ne...ee-kevin-maas/