I think the difference is that many of the vintage scarcities, even if contrived, were done to sell the set, and demand often comes from collectors competing for a scarce few cards to finish the set. Not that those scarcities haven’t developed a following from there scarcity, which is similar to the Trout.
I doubt anyone collects the set that Trout is in. Or even knows if there is a set!
I have the T206 “set” minus the big 4. It feels somewhat empty. Given enough $$, i would love to finish it.
Given the passage of time, there seems a lot more inherent risk in paying up for a Trout.
Pretty happy that i own a W600 Cobb, though... I anticipate that the umbrella of these prices keeps that one going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyruscobb
Let me clarify what I meant. Intent is the focus. Artificially created scarcity with the sole purpose of creating value. This purpose did not exist during the pre-war years. The reason is cards had little, if any, value or market. No one knew that years later the cards would be worth a small fortune. Thus, the manufactures had no incentive to create scarcity like Bowman did with Trout. Bowman knew the one of one cards would have huge value if the player panned out.
Even the 1934 Lajoie doesn’t count. The reason is it was never supposed to exist. Goudey only created it, because people wrote and complained. Goudey created that card just to satisfy customers. It never intended on creating a holy grail card that people would highly collect 40 years later. Bowman did.
I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.
Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?
|