Future values?....

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by packs

Why don't you let 70 years pass? We're comparing a guy who died in 1948 to guys who died in the 90s. Obviously there is going to be better condition material because less time has passed. If Ruth's autograph wasn't a collectible, why did he sign so many? His autograph is not valuable because it's scarce. It's valuable because of his following, fame, and legend. That's criteria that Mantle and DiMaggio meet as well.

In 70 years, these will still be a zillion signed Mantle, Dimaggio and Williams items in near mint condition.

Are you really making the argument that someday a signed Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams baseball will sell for $50,000+ like a minty single signed Ruth ball would today? (Adjusted for inflation, it would be a lot more than $50,000.)

[csotus]

In my opinion this correlates with my other hobby of coin collecting. The younger generation appear to have no interest in collecting coins and those that do have a small interest find real quick that the fakes from China really dilute and negatively effect the market. The fakes are so good that at one time or another expect to get burned.

With autographs, the same concept applies. I agree with the poster who mentioned non-HOF players. I think 20 years from now the only names that will be valuable are the instant name recognition. I personally dont see Mantle, etc getting to Babe's value level. I think both will increase, but Babe is the Babe, simple as that.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

In 70 years, these will still be a zillion signed Mantle, Dimaggio and Williams items in near mint condition.

Are you really making the argument that someday a signed Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams baseball will sell for $50,000+ like a minty single signed Ruth ball would today? (Adjusted for inflation, it would be a lot more than $50,000.)

I am making the argument that scarcity isn't what makes Ruth's autograph valuable. You're the one who said that because there are a lot of Mantle and DiMaggio's out there they won't ever be as valuable. My point is there are just as many Ruth's as there are anyone's autograph. A ball that's snow white today is not guaranteed to be snow white in 70 years either. I have many balls from the 90s that have already turned brown and you're assuming a lot when you say they'll all survive.

While I don't think anyone will match Ruth's value, I think Mantle and DiMaggio will certainly increase because they have similar things working for them: career Yankees, the biggest sports personalities of their day, and a similar folk hero legacy.

[David Atkatz]

Mantle and DiMaggio values will never reach Ruth levels. Never.

Ruth transcends sports. Mantle and DiMaggio do not.

Every single post-playing-days Mantle and DiMaggio ball is in a ball cube, and has been virtually from the moment it was signed. They are pristine, and will remain so.
Most Ruth-signed balls are in lousy condition.

Everyone who wants a high-quality Mantle or DiMaggio has one. Not so for Ruth.

Sorry, packs. Your kids ain't gonna cash in on the modern stuff.

[packs]

I've already cashed in. I paid $50 each for Mantle and DiMaggio in White Plains back in the 90s. I'm sitting on a tidy profit after only a few decades.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

I've already cashed in. I paid $50 each for Mantle and DiMaggio in White Plains back in the 90s. I'm sitting on a tidy profit after only a few decades.

A tidy profit. But not a Ruthian profit.

[packs]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

A tidy profit. But not a Ruthian profit.

I of course don't think Mantle or DiMaggio will be as expensive as Ruth, but I do think they will continue to climb because they have a lot going for them.

[Baseball Fan]

Originally Posted by packs

I am making the argument that scarcity isn't what makes Ruth's autograph valuable. You're the one who said that because there are a lot of Mantle and DiMaggio's out there they won't ever be as valuable. My point is there are just as many Ruth's as there are anyone's autograph. A ball that's snow white today is not guaranteed to be snow white in 70 years either. I have many balls from the 90s that have already turned brown and you're assuming a lot when you say they'll all survive.

While I don't think anyone will match Ruth's value, I think Mantle and DiMaggio will certainly increase because they have similar things working for them: career Yankees, the biggest sports personalities of their day, and a similar folk hero legacy.

Not saying you are right or wrong, but it seems tough to believe that there are just as many Babe autographs out there as Mantle, DiMaggio or anyone else who had a full playing career and also took part in show signings and company signings for years after their careers.

[packs]

Ruth was the most famous man on earth for much of his life and he signed autographs for anyone and everyone who asked him for one. This is pure speculation on my part but I'd guess he signed a million autographs in his life.

[Topnotchsy]

I may be biased but the only player who I think has a shot of reaching Ruth levels of transcendence is Jackie Robinson. I collect Robinson, (so as stated I may be biased), but I think the reasons I collect him are the reasons he could one day be viewed on a similar level to Ruth. His importance and fame extends way beyond baseball.

[Runscott]

If Cobb prices can't come close to Ruth, how can we expect Mantle and Williams to?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Runscott

If Cobb prices can't come close to Ruth, how can we expect Mantle and Williams to?

+1

[Klrdds]

Maybe the only one to come close to Ruth could be Gehrig . But yet Gehrig never transcended baseball as Ruth did.

[packs]

Cobb never had the celebrity that Ruth had and is a poor comparison. Yes, Ruth was an all world talent like Cobb, but his autograph is not expensive solely because of how well he played baseball. I would say Mantle and DiMaggio shared a similar spotlight in public consciousness in comparison to Ruth, though of course Ruth is always king.

When people talk about the greatest active player, Mike Trout's name is usually brought up. When people talk about how great a player Trout is, the man they typically compare him to is Mickey Mantle, not Ty Cobb.

I think in the long run Mantle outpaces DiMaggio but I think both players will see their memorabilia increasingly rise as time goes on and they may be some of only a handful of players who are immune to time and shifting generations.

[tazdmb]

This doesn't pertain as much to certain players as it does to future values in general. I (was) a member of Autographs 101 on Facebook and they had over 20,000 members as well as other autograph social media sights with thousands of members each. Every one of them wants a Mantle as bad as a Mike Trout (granted the average age is these members is probably around 20). They want to show off that they have all the autographs of the current superstars.

Bottom line, kids/young adults are still collecting baseball autographs today in probably a bigger proportion than they did when I was a kid. I am hoping/banking that a 1% of these kids will grow up, become wealthy and then want to go after the HOFers of past generations. Not just the Mantles/Mays but also the Bottomleys and Wagners.

My guess is that Trout signed more autographs last year than Wagner signed in a lifetime. Supply (excluding forgeries) isn't growing for deceased HOFers, I am hoping that the Demand will.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

Cobb never had the celebrity that Ruth had and is a poor comparison.

Okay, well that'll shut me up - you've still got the touch.