Quote:
Originally Posted by brunswickreeves
To the question at hand, choice between a 1:2 ’52 IC Aaron pre-rookie, or a 1:25 PSA 9 ’54 Topps Aaron rookie…there are a couple of ways to look it: Long-term investment or PC, positives and negatives.
’52 IC Aaron pre-rookie:
Positive: Negotiating power-With the owner effectively controlling 50% of the market and retaining approximately 50% of the market cap, they can set future auction reserve and move the market inorganically to the desired minimum exit price. Thus, the sky’s the limit…$400K(ish) is possible to match the established market of the PSA 9 ’54 Topps Aaron rookie. If current buyer paid up about 40% in 1 year ($199K to $275K), perhaps another buyer would pay up 40% next to $385K? However, given current buyer is specifically an Aaron collector and lives in Atlanta, there’s a specific xfactor of nostalgic and regional connection that could be driving individual demand. There’s significant upside from an investment standpoint, given possible ROI.
Negative: Price volatility-The case study of the Baltimore News Ruth pre-rookie proved just because one person pays up for a super scarce card, doesn’t guarantee the next won’t actually pay less. This effectively created a ‘down round’ as it were. However, that may have been a function of timing, marketing opportunity, and/or pricing strategy. There’s a significant upside from a PC perspective, given ROI wouldn’t matter if the card’s held in perpetuity.
’54 Topps Aaron rookie:
Positive: Mature market-There’s a well established market for the PSA 9, created by hundreds of transactions over many decades, moving the price organically up to $400K. Additionally, there are an unknown number of PSA 8 owners whom could be high potential bidders and acquirers of the PSA 9 as an upgrade of the PSA 8 version they already have invested in and committed to. However, 1:25 is less appealing than 1:2. There’s significant upside from an investment standpoint, given the protective moat created by a well established market.
Negative: Alternative investment-The elephant in the room is that a $400K price point can buy a collector pretty much any card they want. So at this level, it’s not ’54 Topps Aaron vs. ’52 IC Aaron, but Aaron’s vs. ’50 Toleteros Gibson vs. ’52 Topps Mantle vs. ’14 CJ Joe Jackson, and on and on. I’m a fractional CFO and financial modeling consultant, and advise companies through raising millions in investment capital, reminding CEO’s that VCs and PE firms don’t have a choice between equity in their company vs. sitting on their capital, but rather their company vs. hundreds of other investment options (including pretty much a satisfaction guarantee in vintage baseball cards!). There’s a significant upside from a PC perspective, given this card is the rookie of one of the game’s most influential and transcending players.
So the answer, classically is, it depends…
|
This is a very 'consultant' answer. I am also in consulting lol. But you didn't answer the question. Which would you prefer?
I appreciate the points you raised about the strengths and weaknesses of each option. The Baltimore News Ruth is actually a fascinating comparison to the Aaron. Both pieces fall outside the strict definition of a “card,” and both are scarce pre-rookies. But one thing that still stands out to me is the population and valuation gap: Aaron sits at 2 known copies versus roughly 10 for the Ruth, and a ~$275K valuation versus a ~$4M card even after shedding $3M on its most recent sale.
That puts the implied market cap for the Ruth around $40M and the Aaron around $500K. To me, that discrepancy feels difficult to justify. Should Ruth really trade at an 80x multiplier? I’m not arguing the Aaron should be worth anywhere near half of Ruth’s market cap, but I do believe there’s meaningful room for growth. And yes—I fully admit my bias.
A similar comparison can be done with the 1952 Indianapolis Clowns Aaron and the 1954 Topps Aaron PSA 9 from a market cap and relative value perspective. I think at minimum the PSA 9 Aaron and the Postcard should be worth the same amount