The issue to me isn't that Trout is not a great baseball player, or not a great ambassador for the game. Nor is the issue that a person doesn't have the right to spend his/her money how he/she pleases. And if the individual who spent $4M for this card feels it is worth every penny of that based on how he/she values collectibles, who am I too judge?

Rather the issue to me is that the value derives from an intentionally created scarcity manufactured for the sole purpose of generating value.

So, one might ask, what is wrong with that if what in the end is created is a true 1/1 card of a once-in-generation player? Nothing, except what is to prevent a whole slew of newly-designed 1/1 cards for each new player to enter the league? And in addition to that do the same for all existing star players. Certainty the economic incentive will be there for the card manufacturers to do precisely that. It will be akin to a marketing strategy made in heaven.... at least short term. But isn't there a risk that if this were to happen collectors in time might begin to look at such 1/1s as representing not a 1/1, but instead view each 1/1 to be part of the same group? So, say, if in 20 years this has been done to all new players that entered the league in that period, and each player had four 1/1s created for him, and for all existing star players until they retired they too each year had four 1/1s created for them, instead of the Trout card being a 1/1, it instead might be viewed as more akin to 1/few thousand? And if so, maybe a lot of the luster of (i.e., demand for) the card will dissipate.

I can't predict the future any better than the next person, other than to opine that whatever it holds, the economic incentive that was placed on card manufacturers will play a significant role. And if what I have described in fact takes place, and what is to stop it, then for the Trout card to hold (or increase) its value it will need to be perceived as a different kind of 1/1 prototype. Again, maybe it will, but from the purely investment perspective (in contrast to the collecting perspective), IMO it is a very risky investment.

The model you're talking about has existed for a very long time. Every modern Bowman product produces a 1/1 for every card in the set. Trout just happens to be Trout, but the same card already exists for every player in every set.

Very true. There is a big schism and culture war within the sportscard world these days. Perhaps not as much between vintage vs modern collector as it is between collectors and profiteers (be they flippers, an AH that shills, the chop shops, etc.).

Greatest player (after Bonds) who will NEVER win a World Series, yah I'd agree with that.

And a guy who's career BA when it's all said and done may very well be under .300

That's not the greatest player I've seen.

Trout is a great player no doubt but he's no Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.

Trout Rarity
 

I applaud the marketing behind these 1 of 1 cards. It certainly helps sell regular cards to people hoping to find gold in a pack. That is fine. Smart. Win the card lottery and retire off the proceeds.

However, as a collector and investor it is not a positive. Forget how great Trout is or what will happen in his future. That is not the issue. If card companies can create marketing “rarities” that feed a speculative frenzy, that fever will likely lead to dissapointment. Why, because speculation almost always leads to collapse. I am not concerned about the buyer of a $4 mill Trout. What about the kids thinking they cannot lose by buying hyped up refractors with their savings?

I accept the dichotomy of card collecting and speculation. The Vegas component unfortunately seems to be where the industry is heading. The vintage world will still do well but without the enormous speculative fever. My 52 Mantle has done well albeit more gradually. Vegas Dave made a big bet and won. Different goals and I accept not everyone cares to patiently collect, hold and enjoy. I want to make money too but my horizon is decades not months.

Why not? He's ranked 5th all time in center on baseball reference, one spot ahead of Griffey. And why not Bonds? He's finished second in MVP four times in addition to winning three of them. He's also not cheating.

I got this 1-of-1 for a whole lot cheaper.


Even though its condition is further away from a 10 than the Trout, I prefer it.


It's modern, geologically speaking.


Attachment 415297

Through 28 years old him and Griffey are neck and neck with Griffey getting the edge on power. We all know the 2nd part of Griffeys career were derailed by injuries so we'll have to see whats in store for the 2nd half of Trouts career.

As for Bonds I don't really have an issue with his PED use as the pitchers used it too which imo just leveled the playing field. Also PED don't make you into the greatest hitter of all time or else everyone would have his Stats. I know others don't agree and that's their opinion which is just as valid as mine. So we will have to agree to disagree on that one :)

I think that I know where the 1 of 1 craze is headed.


The next step is to produce a 1 of 1 card, and then cut it in half and seed the halves into separate packs.

This then provides two (2) halves of 1.

The key would be two acquire both halves to possess the 1 of 1 card, which would make it twice as difficult and therefor even more valuable! :D




I started out typing this as a joke, but now think there might actually be something to this! :eek:

The way I feel about Bonds is that (due to his own doing) you'll never really know how good he was. He won 3 MVP awards and then decided to cheat to win 4 more. I know that PEDs won't turn me into Barry Bonds, but you can clearly see what it turned Barry into and I don't think he gets there without them.

About a year ago we were discussing another Modern superfractor sale. Luis Robert his card sold for $56,000.00. Not in the same leauge as the Four Million Dollar Mike Trout. (Damm thats alot of money). But many including me were asking who is Luis Robert? I read up and bought a couple of his cards. ( kinda like at racetrack following the money) Now I would have to say that the person who bought that card would probably turn a profit!!! Who knew....

Delete your post before Topps gets the bright idea to cut up 52 mantles and create memorabilia cards from them!

They haven't done that to 52 Mantles yet but have done that to T206 Wagners but they do preserve some part of the actual card. You never wonder why there are a few Wagners missing their borders and not the Mantles? :)

This is a good summary of what is happening:

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...p-crushing-it/

Trout
 

Is an 11 year old piece of cardboard,with a picture on the front,
worth $4,000,000? 11 years old?A PIECE OF CARDBOARD?
Sorry,this is just my opinion.

Someone paying 4 million for that card is nonsense.

Question for Ken
 

How do you ship.....or hand deliver, a 4 million dollar card?

And does he give you a big briefcase filled with 4 Mil.

With the Buyers permission you need to video that. Would love to see the exchange, and then where the new owner puts it.

Like Bonds?

What "attack" are you talking about? Ignorant? Way to go man, really nice and professional response. Re-read what I wrote. Trout is just not there yet as a player compared to those on the cards mentioned in this thread. He is not even tracking to match a mid-tier HOFer. Otherwise, I just responded to you and stated a fact. Wasn't looking for gratitude. He too was of fighting age during war time. So, that was not a fair comparison to Williams because Williams fought. I could likely bet my farm that Trout never hits .400 and unlikely to end up with comparable career stats. Doesn't mean I think he sucks. This conversation cannot really be had for another ten years or so. Lastly, I agreed that the card was worth what it brought. Simply because it sold for that amount. May not be worth that later, but for now it is. Signing off.

haha touche', yes .298.

BUT will Trout also have 762 home runs?

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

Say what? He's on track to be a top-tier HOFer. No one - no one - has 7 top 2 MVPs finishes in their first 8 seasons. And his 8th year he was the frontrunner for MVP when he got hurt. Played 3/4 of a season, still finished 4th.

It's weird the way baseball fans simply refuse to believe current players can possibly be as great as their heroes of the past. But let's be clear - Trout is as great as anybody we'll ever see.

You mentioned Trout won't hit .400. You're right, he won't. But Ted wouldn't hit .400 today either. Ted played in a completely different environment - not integrated, no one throwing 100 mph (let alone dozens of guys), no short relievers, no cross-country travel, barely any night games and so on.

As for manufactured scarcity, yep, it's an issue. Not a new one, given the Goudey Lajoie, etc. Would *I* pay $4m for a Trout rookie? No. But I totally get why somebody would.

If he roids to the eyeballs around age 32 I all but guarantee it...

Yeah, but Ted was a marine and so was the poster who mentioned that. Mike had a chance to to be a marine but he decided to take the easy way out and is therefore less than. That’s at least what i got.

Frank Thomas was not a 5 tool player

Most comparable by age is Mickey Mantle. I know, according to some here Mantle is way better because he single-handedly took crappy Yankees teams and led them to the promised land. On the other hand, Trout has lost with some loaded teams. Oh, wait...

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

And we don't even know what we missed in Ted's prime years when he was in the war

Mike Trout is a poor man's Ron Kittle, and that is just stating undisputible fact.

. . . . That should keep this discussion continuing for a while.

This card is a total beast! Great card.

Obviously you've never seen his Nugenix commercials.

Nice to know that people who aren't Marines are lesser human beings. Didn't know that.

If Frank Thomas's stats hadn't tailed off toward the last 1/3 of his career . . .

Gwynn & Brett both played 2/3 of a season. They don't count.

Ryne Duren? Sure, one guy. There are numerous guys hitting 100 now and DOZENS hitting 98. It's unquestionable that guys throw A LOT harder now.

Ted was great but lemme ask you this - if the two guys switch places, whose stats would improve and whose wouldn't?

I'll go back to my post yesterday - Mike Trout is the best player today and the last 50 years and perhaps. EVER!!! Only Bonds can compare w/ efficiency of swing mechanics. Just listen to the 'real' baseball community, the D1 - D3 coaches, the professional htting coaches in the US. Bonds and Trout are the very best they've ever seen!! Bonds never had to juice, but he did because of ego.... so sad....

Mike Trout is the best. Forget injuries, strikes, pandemics. Mantle dealt with knee blowouts and constant hangovers from his alcholism and is still beloved and AWESOME!!!.... Trout is Mantle X2 - believe it and watch! The dude faces 95+ mph fastballs and UNGODLY offspeed pitches every single AB..... the MLB in the 50's and 60's don't even compare to the Double A these days guys. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays 1st round pick this year.... at 17 year old out of PA, Nick Bitsko - SITS 97 MPH!!! good luck after a late night bender!

Not in my view at least.

I know, shouldn't have quote you, sorry.

I don't think this. It was an extra accomplishment/challenge that some had and took on which separates them from the pack. Trout is an amazing player and seemingly good guy. He may turn out to be the best. But even statistics won't categorize him with with the likes of Ted and Yogi in my eyes. My only reason for bringing it up was because it was used as an unfair comparison. There are the rare birds like Tillman, but I don't expect entertainers to follow suit.

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.

That assertion gets made every single time on here when a modern card sells for a staggering figure. Did you foresee the card rising 10 fold when it was a $400,000 card?

Maybe the value will go up and maybe it will go down, but these assertions that modern cards will automatically go down in value have been proven wrong a whole lot in recent years.

Best player ever and hitting .262 C'mon.

Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax don't mean shit to anyone under 40. Just sayin'.

Why do people look at is as a bad thing when contemporary cards take off. It's a great thing. Keeps hobby vibrant. Kids today don't listen to Crosby Stills and Nash or the Doors or the Byrds They have their own musical heroes. Exactly as it should be. That's what keeps things moving.

I would agree if it was actually kids in the hobby but I don't know any kids collecting baseball cards. This hobby is geared to people 25 and over with disposable income right now. If there are kids they are probably collecting basketball but even that's priced out of their range.

You answered your own question... the point was to limit the amount of prizes obtained, hence, there was NEVER monetary value associated with these cards, so it is completely different.

Literally the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. And that's saying something.

Trout is one of the best to every play the game.

That being said, what is the likelihood this card is still in the same league as a T206 Wagner 5 years from now? 10? 20? 40? Very, very low. Maybe the buyer doesn't care, though. So there's that...

You are Correct... jus maybe not so on how ole' the "Kids in the Hobby' are taday!? In this era's time, the 'Kid in the Hobby' are 25+ years ole'...

The Hobby Card Industry of taday have Re Focus'd on that Money's Age Group!
Guys like 'Vegas Dave', are in trusted by these 25 year ole's as sumwhat of a mentor! This is hard to swallow fir guy who grew up wit CSN, Marshall Tucker, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc... Howevar it's True!

True. I am 40. Younger than probably most on this site. I have literally no interest in cards from the 50s-70s. Mickey Mantle? Bob Gibson? Tom Seaver? Ted Williams? Greats, sure. But I don't have any interest in collecting them.

I think as the boomer generation ages and slowly passes on, prices/demand for Pre-war cards will stay high, while the market will soften on the midcentury greats.

The point is one card is just as rare as the other and both have intended rarity, the reason is irrelevant. Rarity is rarity.

Strongly disagree. Mantle was, is and will continue to be one of the strongest draws for me to collect. The Mick is iconic, there will always be people that want to collect him. I was barely a year old when he died, and the cards of his that I own, are my favorites in my small collection. It might be the minority but there's a good amount of people who grew up hearing stories about him from their fathers and grandfathers, and names like him and Koufax were the names thrown around when we were introduced to the Hobby.


Concerning your second point, I'll have you know that Crosby Stills Nash and Young is a hell of a group! :)

I could be wrong though. A good portion of the people I meet though are firmly convinced I'm a 75 year old man at heart, but I don't see anything wrong with that! :D

Not true. There is a guy on here doing a Koufax run because he was his dad's favorite player. There are lots of guys collecting Mantle who are under 40. The 52 T Mantle keeps Mickey relevant. I have no issue with people collecting Trout because he is the best player in the game. However, MLB didn't start in 2010 or 2000 or 1990, etc. People need to stop acting like it did and older players were no good or are irrelevant. There are also lots of young people who listen to the Beatles, Doors, Byrd's, CSNY etc. and prefer their music to newer bands. The Rolling Stones made more money than any other band last year. It's not just old people spending money on them, it is younger people too.

It seems kind of odd to see a post like this on a board of people collecting prewar cards of players they never saw like Wagner, Cobb, Ruth and Gehrig.

I guess you didn't read earlier in this thread or catch the sarcasm or both. If I truly felt that way, yes it would be ridiculous.

I think the issue is more can demand for postwar vintages stay up with supply. I think people will always be after Mantle, Jackie, Clemente, Mays, Aaron, Koufax, etc. Just will there be thousands with desire to own those cards.

I just turned 40 and my interests have always been in the history and greats of the game. Yes, I do watch the new players but I'm a history buff and the older I get the more I appreciate these guys who built the game and trailblazed.

Why does your argument that Ted would be a star in any era discount the same fact about Trout? I'm not sure why anyone would think that the best player in the game by far (Trout) who is playing the game at the highest level at a time when the game is at its most complex, would not be a star if he were playing a simpler version of the same game.

I'm 45 and I love collecting post-war vintage. And I imagine I'm far from alone in feeling some nostalgia for that era's players (even though I wasn't alive to see many of them play).

And most people who love the T206 and other older cards are in the same boat, even if they're from my parents' generation.

If plenty of people are still buying up Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson now, the same could easily be true for Mantle and Mays in 30 years

For the new generation of investor driven mega refractor cards, it's clear the allure is not all about skills, but pizazz and style as well. Hottest new cards on the market now are Tatis and Vlad Jr. Also Yankee prospect Dominquez. (Imagine paying $20,000 for a kid years away from the majors?) Hottest basketball player by far is Zion, followed by Ja Morant. Funny how a great player like DeGrom commands basically no interest in the high end market. Follow who the kids want to be next. There's you next mega refractor card star. Sounds absurd but isn't that how the Mickey Mantle card became what it is today. Seemed larger than life, doing stuff kids of the day were wowed by.

I think he was referring to the guy who did say those things (and criticized "Little Mikey Trout's" character and life decisions because he didn't join the military instead of using his baseball skills to make a living).

The few card investors who put big $ into unproven prospects did the same thing during the junk wax boom, but it was just done in a different way. Instead of spending 20 k on a Dominguez card, they'd try to get a few thousand Gregg Jefferies '88 Fleer or John Olerud '90 Upper Deck

Haha yeah sorry. I had read some of this thread a few days ago, but today just clicked on the most recent page. So I thought you were being serious and was like...woooooowww...

The reasons are never irrelevant. Cards of the past never had original monetary value, while modern cards have inflated monetary value. This isn't rocket science... there is a HUGE difference.

Seriously? Barry Bonds was walked 232 times in a season-- more than 1 1/2 times a game. He was INTENTIONALLY walked 120 times that year--and Pujols has never walked 120 times a season period. Bonds is the all-time leader in walks and IBB- more than twice as many IBB as Pujols, and he led the league in IBB a dozen times. Sure he had a good eye, but no way pitchers wanted anything to do with him. He was intentionally walked with the bases loaded.

Whatever you think of the man, the player Barry Bonds was the best I have ever seen and ever will see. Let's revisit this when Trout gets to 750 HRs.

That argument doesn't hold any water to me though. If Trout hits 750 homers it won't be because he cheated to do it. You simply can't be the best at anything if you cheated. The best at anything doesn't need to cheat. Therefore, Bonds can not possibly be the best player of all time. If he was, he wouldn't have cheated.

I agree. I have not been able to get into ultra-modern. Way too many sets and subsets. The new wave of kids collecting cards in the 2000s don't care a lot about the vintage stuff is my guess - only related to the current players.

The argument that Bonds walking a lot makes him the best is hard to swallow since most of that came after he started cheating. The better argument, it seems to me, is that in 1998 Bonds became the first player in history to have 400 home runs and 400 stolen bases (it might be 300, I'm not looking it up). But, instead of being celebrated for it, McGwire and Sosa got all the attention.

That was also the year that a St. Louis reporter wrote about seeing PEDs in McGwire's locker, kicking off a storm of protest not about PEDs, but about breached locker room privacy. LaRussa said the reporter should be banned from the club house, etc. It was an understandable, though not admirable, reaction by Bonds to feel that PEDs were an acceptable approach to becoming the most celebrated (and highest paid) player in the game. The rest is history and I am not condoning Bonds' behavior, but saying that his position as the best player of his era (at least) was arguably well in hand before he "got dirty".

Whether Bonds would have aged well without PEDs seems likely, but admittedly, is clouded by the drug use. At the same time, we don't yet know how well Trout will age.

John Olerud. Wow. Good hitter, but I'm hard pressed to think of a player in my life time who was more boring. Guy hardly spoke.

I'm 36 here and I love Mantle. Why? Cause' all you boomers passed on the Mantle love to us! I own a few of his cards too, including his Bowman rookie.

I'm a huge fan of the Doors and my favorite track is "Riders on the Storm." This was the last song Morrison recorded and then he died in Paris.

That's cool. And you are not representative of 36 year olds. I love Glenn Miller. That doesn't mean he has a huge following of 57 year olds.

Long term, I feel most safe, investment wise, with T206 major HOF'ers. You can't buy everything (at least not me) so I have passed on the Mantle cards, rookie cards, high dollar modern cards. I totally get buying Mantle/rookies/modern - people really like these cards. This is what is so nice about our hobby - something for everyone.

But doesn't a sale of a modern card like this one upset that vision of the hobby? We don't know who bought the Trout. If it's a young collector, the future may be modern.

This is a pretty fun argument. Would be very interesting to hear Mike Trout defend himself as a player and if he would recommend spending millions on his card. I wonder what he thinks when he hears comparisons to the past greats.

On another note - I never intend on shedding a negative light on my Marine Corps. I look at it through a different set of lenses. All my brothers in all branches are my heroes, not an athlete. So I give cred to those who did both. I've earned the distinction of being "ignorant" and being responsible for "the stupidest thing" ever heard/read on this site. I've spent my life ensuring the safety of civilians so my apologies for any discredit I've brought upon the Corps with my idiot thoughts and clear annoyance to a few card collectors with my opinion on probably one of the most privileged of all communities. Suggesting a lifelong ball player might fall short overall in a comparison to Ted Williams. Roberto Clemente probably falls short too since he was also a humanitarian and Marine and had better stats because those don't matter. I just can't believe I ever considered an entire impact beyond on field. I'm just a stupid, ignorant fool. I'm going off to apologise to my kids for what they have as a father. If only their dad could be a more passionate and intelligent baseball card collector.

The future has always been modern. It dwarfs vintage by a large margin.

But, today’s kids will grow up and become those 25 and over card collectors.

Yeah... just like Trout. :rolleyes:

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?

Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.

I have no real interest in this debate, but you should know that the shift you mentioned was actually deployed to defend against Ted Williams in 1941, so that part of your argument is not accurate. It was literally called the Ted Williams shift.

If Ted gets the 5 years of his prime that he spent in WWII and the Korean War, his stats absolutely go up. Bob Feller's fastball was clocked as fast as 105 mph, so Ted probably does OK against Aroldis Chapman too. As far as Trout, I don't know. How would Trout react when he picked himself off the dirt when a pitcher actually came inside? It is a completely different game, it is not a given that Trout could adapt and do better.

It is only your opinion that you think the game is harder. I disagree. The game has been watered down by expansion and the best athletes playing in the NBA and the NFL. African American participation is at a level of the mid fifties when some teams had none on their roster. Trout can't even dominate in this environment, no way he does in earlier eras in my opinion.

Um, you do realize that radical shifts were practically invented for Ted Williams. He also stubbornly refused to hit to the opposite field even though he was completely capable.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch...c_300x213.jpeg

If a T206 Wagner is the Mona Lisa of baseball cards, the Trout refractors are the Jeff Koons' giant colored balloon animals.

baseball -reference has Trout trending as a batter with Wally Joyner and Tommy Henrich.

Rob that's a great and hilarious comparison. I actually laughed out loud when I saw it. :D