Is collecting modern cards a sickness?

[Neal]

I just can't stop looking for Jeter and Trout .... to name a few. I am even considering selling Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron cards to get more lol!

Has anyone else suffered from this? Is it fleeting, or can this become a serious addiction?

Some of the Trout auto'd cards are a siren ....

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you have some extra cash have some fun, but don't sell Mantles and Aarons to buy Jeters and Trouts is my advice.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you have some extra cash have some fun, but don't sell Mantles and Aarons to buy Jeters and Trouts is my advice.

I agree on not selling Mantles and Aarons to buy Jeters and especially Trouts. Some Trout cards my get more valuable in the short term but there is a 100% chance they will be worth way less in the long run.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I agree on not selling Mantles and Aarons to buy Jeters and especially Trouts. Some Trout cards my get more valuable in the short term but there is a 100% chance they will be worth way less in the long run.

Not so sure about that .... sure, some of the 2009 Trout cards that are 2-6K may have a ceiling, may collapse, but ya never know. For the record, these are not the cards I am talking about.

Some of these cards have a finite supply, and I believe have a good upside .... think numbered refractors and xfractors.

Trout is on his way to Cooperstown, and future collectors may not identify with the Mike Trout of the 50s (Mantle)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Neal

Not so sure about that .... sure, some of the 2009 Trout cards that are 2-6K may have a ceiling, may collapse, but ya never know. For the record, these are not the cards I am talking about.

Some of these cards have a finite supply, and I believe have a good upside .... think numbered refractors and xfractors.

Trout is on his way to Cooperstown, and future collectors may not identify with the Mike Trout of the 50s (Mantle)

There are millions of Trout cards. Ben is right, even if he lives up to his potential which is far from certain, the massive supply is going to keep prices down. Any individual issue that doesn't have a lot of copies is just manufactured scarcity which is never a recipe for value. Keep your eye on the big picture.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are millions of Trout cards. Ben is right, even if he lives up to his potential which is far from certain, the massive supply is going to keep prices down. Any individual issue that doesn't have a lot of copies is just manufactured scarcity which is never a recipe for value. Keep your eye on the big picture.

I am trying, but I believe the big picture is Trout. Sure, there are a ton of his cards out there, but select cards from 2009-2011 have a limited production run - and yes, I know they were designed that way. Some of these have some serious upside in my opinion, which could be sooner than later. Think about his career - 5 seasons, one ROY, two MVPs, and the other three seasons he finished 2nd. Five straight seasons finishing top two in MVP voting.

Bottom line, I agree that selling Mantles to buy Trout cards is not smart. But man o man, it is fun to think about.

Maybe selling Berra's and DiMaggios is the way to go

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are millions of Trout cards. Ben is right, even if he lives up to his potential which is far from certain, the massive supply is going to keep prices down. Any individual issue that doesn't have a lot of copies is just manufactured scarcity which is never a recipe for value. Keep your eye on the big picture.

I was down in South Jersey a few months ago and decided to look up and see if there was a card store in the area. Yep, found one. Nothing vintage but they had at least three showcases, multi level, full of nothing but shiny Trout cards. And then boxes of Trout cards. Of course he comes from down there. But it was absurd how many variations of shiny cards there actually was. I'll go out on a limb and say (guess) that they may already be more Mike Trout cards than any player who has ever lived.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Neal

Not so sure about that .... sure, some of the 2009 Trout cards that are 2-6K may have a ceiling, may collapse, but ya never know. For the record, these are not the cards I am talking about.

Some of these cards have a finite supply, and I believe have a good upside .... think numbered refractors and xfractors.

Trout is on his way to Cooperstown, and future collectors may not identify with the Mike Trout of the 50s (Mantle)

In a word, one simple word, NO. Trout will never, ever have the years Mantle had in 1956 (.353, 52 HR, 130 RBI), '57 (.365, 34 HR, and 146 walks), and '61 (.317, 54 HR, 128 RBI, and 126 walks). Or be one of the seven or 8 players in the history of the game to create over 200% of the league average runs created (as Mantle did, along with Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb and Jackson, an extremely exclusive club, and a stat which takes into account the differences in playing conditions in different eras). Trout is in fact the likeliest to fade in memory, when compared to the true icons such as Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays and AAron. It also didn't hurt that Ruth and Mantle hit them as far as McGwire but without the artificial additives.

Regards,

Larry

[Neal]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

In a word, one simple word, NO. Trout will never, ever have the years Mantle had in 1956 (.353, 52 HR, 130 RBI), '57 (.365, 34 HR, and 146 walks), and '61 (.317, 54 HR, 128 RBI, and 126 walks). Or be one of the seven or 8 players in the history of the game to create over 200% of the league average runs created (as Mantle did, along with Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb and Jackson, an extremely exclusive club, and a stat which takes into account the differences in playing conditions in different eras). Trout is in fact the likeliest to fade in memory, when compared to the true icons such as Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays and AAron. It also didn't hurt that Ruth and Mantle hit them as far as McGwire but without the artificial additives.

Regards,

Larry

Why is it that players from the 50s on down are considered the "true icons" of the sport? The game was much different then, and many greats have played since they hung up their cleats. How would a hitter like George Brett do back in the days before Jackie? How would Ruth do today? Would the Mick have been on TMZ?

Thus goes the great sports debate .....

I am not taking anything away from Ruth, Aaron or Mantle btw. These guys were dominant, dynamic ball players. A long time ago ....

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you have some extra cash have some fun, but don't sell Mantles and Aarons to buy Jeters and Trouts is my advice.

A HUGE +1 there. As to Trout, although he's on a Cooperstown path, a lot of things can still happen. It looked like Rocky Colavito was on a 500+ HR path, but his last even arguably good year was at age 33, and he fell far short. See also Dale Murphy--'nuff said. Even Eddie Mathews, who hit 512, seemed headed for 600+ homers (he had 370) at age 30 until a severe shoulder injury interrupted that march, leaving his last really good year at age 30 in 1961--although he played through 1968, his hitting was never the same after the injury. Jeter, IMHO, is vastly overrated, with an OPS+ of around 111 or so, indicating he was roughly only 11% better than average on offense, and a number of people have opined that his defensive metrics were not all that good.

Plus, Trout cards are still at or right around their highest point in the demand part of the equation. If he has the stellar career his potential indicates, wait until he is on his downslide in his mid to late 30's--all the speculative and transient components of the demand for his cards will have moved on to the newest and latest, greatest phenom by then. Not the time to buy.

Best,

Larry

[Enfuego]

IMO, selling your Mantles, Aaron's etc is a bad decision. Ok, so maybe trout will be a hofer someday....sure Jeter is a lock with the potential of a unanimous vote, but you're older items should be valuable in a more "historical" sense. A lot of my vintage is solely based on who it is and what I know of that player and his major contributions to the game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk