OT but front page worthy Jordan card ebay

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I suppose its similar but different to me. Short printing a card to avoid too many contest winners plus the fact that in some cases the winners cards were not returned = rarity.

Upper deck making a few cards with a different color background to create a rarity is not the same.

Ill agree to disagree with you.

Well one difference is the modern manufacturer is creating scarcity to create a speculative secondary market in its product and to create the illusion it's a financially valuable commodity. Neither of which were the goals of the President of the Goudey card company. The old scarcities are rare today because they are scarce, not because someone set out to make them desirable on Ebay.

[A2000]

Let’s not forget Topps purposely creating a short print on 1952 topps high numbers by dumping pallets of the stuff into the ocean

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Well one difference is the modern manufacturer is creating scarcity to create a speculative secondary market in its product and to create the illusion it's a financially valuable commodity. Neither of which were the goals of the President of the Goudey card company. The old scarcities are rare today because they are scarce, not because someone set out to make them desirable on Ebay.

This is well stated. Enos Goudey was attempting to get kids to spend extra pennies to try to complete a set. Topps’ primary objective is to get middle aged dudes to drop three and four figures on case breaks trying to win the lottery. There’s a huge difference.

[MattyC]

Or, through the design of many variations, they are creating a layered and engaging collecting endeavor— for those who like to chase and assemble sets (i.e., Topps Heritage).

To try and say collecting ad backs or color runs of PreWar is somehow intrinsically superior to doing the same with modern is flat out wrong.

[PowderedH2O]

I collect mostly vintage, but I grab new stuff here and there. The NBA doesn't have 150 years of history. It started in the 1940's, and there were only three major sets issued before 1969. What early rare cards is the basketball collector supposed to chase once they have completed the Big 3? For a person with deep pockets, where do you go? The 1970's? Easy to complete. 1980's? If you jumped in early, those aren't that difficult either. These rare inserts are the only truly tough cards out there. The investor here is thinking that extreme rarity combined with a sure thing like Michael Jordan is this generation's T206 Wagner... except that 320,000,000 Americans know who Michael Jordan is, and probably less than 5 million know who Honus Wagner is.

Not my cup of tea, but if someone has the cash and they want to sink that kind of money into the hobby, by all means do it!

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Or, through the design of many variations, they are creating a layered and engaging collecting endeavor— for those who like to chase and assemble sets (i.e., Topps Heritage).

To try and say collecting ad backs or color runs of PreWar is somehow intrinsically superior to doing the same with modern is flat out wrong.

A layered and engaging collecting endeavor? That’s rich.

Yes, modern brands are manufacturing rarity for the sole purpose of creating “a layered and engaging experience” for the collecting purists like yourself who simply value the cards with no regard to value.

Do you honestly believe that?

I’m not even saying it’s better or worse than vintage back runs it color runs. Those are your words. But let’s call it what it is. The marketing objectives of 1930s Goudey and 2019 Topps are very different.

[Snapolit1]

People can collect whatever they want. Years ago I had friends loading up on limited edition Thomas Kincaid paintings. Made them happy. Today they ain't worth diddly squat. Does that make them stupid? No. If they spent their kids college money on them believing it was a good investment, does that make them smart. Uh, no.

I enjoy buying modern cards. Two or three times a year I buy a big ass box of a new release and enjoying going through them. Usually at the card store there are bunch of "kids" (i.e., guys in their 30s) ripping open boxes and flinging cards into a garbage can trying to find one or two special added relic or autograph cards. Don't strike me as "collectors" as the term is used on this board.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

A layered and engaging collecting endeavor? That’s rich.

Yes, modern brands are manufacturing rarity for the sole purpose of creating “a layered and engaging experience” for the collecting purists like yourself who simply value the cards with no regard to value.

Do you honestly believe that?

I’m not even saying it’s better or worse than vintage back runs it color runs. Those are your words. But let’s call it what it is. The marketing objectives of 1930s Goudey and 2019 Topps are very different.

When I was a kid collecting Topps I never had trouble "engaging" when there were only base cards, not multiple levels of inserts, parallels, what have you.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When I was a kid collecting Topps I never had trouble "engaging" when there were only base cards, not multiple levels of inserts, parallels, what have you.

Well you know as well as I know that the kids of today are nothing like the kids of yesterday and the day before. As a kid ripping packs open the cards had relatively no value at that time it was only the older cards that had any value. We ripped packs to try to complete the set and to collect our favorite team and players.

The lottery mentality started in the late 80s early 90s and now it has been taken to the nth degree just like the kids of today. The hobby is now a hobby for adults for the most part!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Well you know as well as I know that the kids of today are nothing like the kids of yesterday and the day before. As a kid ripping packs open the cards had relatively no value at that time it was only the older cards that had any value. We ripped packs to try to complete the set and to collect our favorite team and players.

The lottery mentality started in the late 80s early 90s and now it has been taken to the nth degree just like the kids of today. The hobby is now a hobby for adults for the most part!

And that's my point. I don't think with due respect to Matt that the point of all the million inserts and parallels is to make collecting more interesting, it's about artificially creating and chasing value. Collecting was plenty interesting with your 598 or whatever card base set.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When I was a kid collecting Topps I never had trouble "engaging" when there were only base cards, not multiple levels of inserts, parallels, what have you.

I agree 100% with this. Personally, I loved collecting when it was simpler. But in the past year I bought a couple boxes of Topps Heritage, and it was awesome. I thought the cards were beautiful. I didn’t get any “hits” though, and that wasn’t my primary motivation. But my belief is that Topps’ bullseye consumer is not me, the passive collector, but the dudes Steve describes who are breaking cases to try to hit it big. The sponsored case breaks at the National are not a celebration of set building.

[Orioles1954]

There are a lot of neat and affordable products in the $40-50 range that feature several retired players. These sets usually deliver close to a set, an autograph and/or a relic card per, parallels, etc. While base set collecting is clearly dying, I've seen an uptick in player collecting, prospecting, insert set collecting, etc. There are several new ways to collect and that's awesome. I'm also witnessing a lot of diversity in these collectors. Several are STARTING as late teenagers and young professionals. I've personally witnessed an uptick in female buyers and people of color. These folks have an appreciation for the past and could definitely dabble in vintage in the future.

[mark evans]

Another difference, although this is pure speculation, is that the new rarities are more likely to depreciate in value than the old rarities. There are a zillion different Jordan cards. How meaningful will these green cards be 50 years from now? Not so many Lajoies, although the old cards could take a hit as well once the baby boomers move on.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

A layered and engaging collecting endeavor? That’s rich.

Yes, modern brands are manufacturing rarity for the sole purpose of creating “a layered and engaging experience” for the collecting purists like yourself who simply value the cards with no regard to value.

Do you honestly believe that?

I’m not even saying it’s better or worse than vintage back runs it color runs. Those are your words. But let’s call it what it is. The marketing objectives of 1930s Goudey and 2019 Topps are very different.

What’s “rich” is your post claiming a “huge difference,” when all you did was highlight a similarity: companies trying to make cards that will sell. And your beloved Mr. Goudey targeting kids’ 1930’s pennies is somehow supposed to put the cards you like on some pedestal? Your alleged target audience for the two is different, yet the underlying motivation is by your own words a similarity. That said, the children I know who enjoy opening packs would seem to explode your exclusive middle aged men theory. There can be more than one target audience. You even admitted you opened Heritage in just the manner I am referencing.

Your posts above are both presumptuous and reductive; Topps certainly knows that while indeed there are buyers out there looking for an eBay flip, there are also collectors of all ages who do enjoy hunting for myriad variations— knowing full well that the Heritage Throwback semi-star they pulled yet desired for their set won’t be worth a dime down the line. Point being that it is highly presumptuous to claim you know why everyone is buying (for a “Lotto” ticket). The set design in that respect is layered and designed to engage the collector beyond the base cards; much in the same way some video games are layered to engage the player in multiple tasks, for example.

What is the endgame here? You want everyone to collect Gehringer or mid grade t206’s or whatever you collect? Sorry, but people are going to have different tastes no matter how hard some try and slight what they like. And — gasp— some of us will take home an e90-1 Shoeless and a Bryce Harper or Kershaw.

Last time I checked, all the cards in the hobby weren’t pitted against each other in some absurd battle; the collectors of them shouldn’t be either.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What’s “rich” is your post claiming a “huge difference,” when all you did was highlight a similarity: companies trying to make cards that will sell. And your beloved Mr. Goudey targeting kids’ 1930’s pennies is somehow supposed to put the cards you like on some pedestal? Your alleged target audience for the two is different, yet the underlying motivation is by your own words a similarity. That said, the children I know who enjoy opening packs would seem to explode your exclusive middle aged men theory. There can be more than one target audience. You even admitted you opened Heritage in just the manner I am referencing.

Your posts above are both presumptuous and reductive; Topps certainly knows that while indeed there are buyers out there looking for an eBay flip, there are also collectors of all ages who do enjoy hunting for myriad variations— knowing full well that the Heritage Throwback semi-star they pulled yet desired for their set won’t be worth a dime down the line. Point being that it is highly presumptuous to claim you know why everyone is buying (for a “Lotto” ticket). The set design in that respect is layered and designed to engage the collector beyond the base cards; much in the same way some video games are layered to engage the player in multiple tasks, for example.

What is the endgame here? You want everyone to collect Gehringer or mid grade t206’s or whatever you collect? Sorry, but people are going to have different tastes no matter how hard some try and slight what they like.

Endgame?

I don’t have one. I don’t give two sh*ts what other people collect. In fact, I would MUCH rather the big money go into modern than vintage. I’d rather not compete with the well-heeled fellow who has $600k to spend on a Purple Raspberry Platinum Refractor Jordan.

My argument is that the comparison between the manufactured scarcity of Goudey and 2019 Topps has different underlying drivers. Yes, both efforts are about selling more cards, but one was about driving kids to try complete a set (in vein); the other is about selling the promise of an instantly valuable “hit.” I’m saying this based on factual observations without assigning any value judgement. I’m not criticizing Topps or their consumers.

And yet your precious sensibilities are still offended.

We get it, Matty. You love your Aaron Judges and Gregg Jeffries just as much as your mid-grade centered Mantles. The purity of collecting is heavenly. It warms the heart. You feel like you must be the holy defender of all things modern.

But if you believe that Topps’ manufactured scarcity is only driven by a desire to make set collecting more “layered” and “fun,” you’re believing in a fiction on par with a Rambo sequel.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

But if you believe that Topps’ manufactured scarcity is only driven by a desire to make set collecting more “layered” and “fun,” you’re believing in a fiction on par with a Rambo sequel.

From Peck & Snyder to Old Judge to ATC to Goudey and Topps/Bowman the common denominator is marketing and money.. Otherwise, why bother? Modern is growing and pre-war is shrinking. Collectors should be hoping that the modern hobby continues to surge.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

This is well stated. Enos Goudey was attempting to get kids to spend extra pennies to try to complete a set. Topps’ primary objective is to get middle aged dudes to drop three and four figures on case breaks trying to win the lottery. There’s a huge difference.

Yes but on the other hand those dudes surely have their eyes wide open?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

This is well stated. Enos Goudey was attempting to get kids to spend extra pennies to try to complete a set. Topps’ primary objective is to get middle aged dudes to drop three and four figures on case breaks trying to win the lottery. There’s a huge difference.

You're right. MUCH better to SCAM kids out of their money seeking a card that fraudulently didn't exist than to sell to adults who know full well their odds.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Tabe

You're right. MUCH better to SCAM kids out of their money seeking a card that fraudulently didn't exist than to sell to adults who know full well their odds.

Out of 50 or so years worth of pre war cards, are we really going to focus on, and cherry-pick one shitty scam by one gum company and use it as justification for what’s going on with modern cards? Goudey was in the business of selling GUM. Kids bought packs of GUM and got the gum. They were not defrauded. Again, it was a shitty thing to do, but the kids got what they paid for. This comparison really needs to die.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by orly57

Out of 50 or so years worth of pre war cards, are we really going to focus on, and cherry-pick one shitty scam by one gum company and use it as justification for what’s going on with modern cards? This comparison really needs to die.

Or 1933 George C. Miller Andrews or 1933 Butter Cream Ruth or 1923 Maple Crispette Stengel or 1932 U.S. Caramel Lindstrom or 1948 Leaf Boxing Graziano, etc. etc.

The point is that the "manufactured scarcity" hand-wringing bandied about by so many vintage only collectors is a SIGNIFICANT part of hobby history, regardless of the contents of the final product.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Or 1933 George C. Miller Andrews or 1933 Butter Cream Ruth or 1923 Maple Crispette Stengel or 1932 U.S. Caramel Lindstrom or 1948 Leaf Boxing Graziano, etc. etc.

The point is that the "manufactured scarcity" hand-wringing bandied about by so many vintage only collectors is a SIGNIFICANT part of hobby history, regardless of the contents of the final product.

Yes, rarely does a fraudster invent the wheel. You give great examples of times when a company may have manufactured scarcity on a particular card. This was often done so kids would have a tough time completing a set. But the problem is that the ENTIRE HOBBY now revolves around the manufactured rarity. The only real valuable cards are the ones that are intentionally rare. You cite the 32 caramel Lindstrom, but I would prefer the “base” Ruth.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by orly57

Yes, rarely does a fraudster invent the wheel. You give great examples of times when a company may have manufactured scarcity on a particular card. This was often done so kids would have a tough time completing a set. But the problem is that the ENTIRE HOBBY now revolves around the manufactured rarity. The only real valuable cards are the ones that are intentionally rare. You cite the 32 caramel Lindstrom, but I would prefer the “base” Ruth.

I don't even disagree with your point about the modern hobby relying so heavily on manufactured scarcities as much as I disagree with what seems to be some posters looking down on what other people choose to collect.

I have written on here before that T206 Cobb cards or a 52T Mantle don't excite me at all because they can be purchased any day of the week on eBay, in various grades. But I understand why people choose to collect those cards. Some of the stuff that excites me might only be a $300 card, but only shows up once every 10 years or once in a lifetime. The Amelia Earhart card I use for my avatar right now was only a $300 card, but I love it because I have only ever seen one other Heinz Aviators Earhart at auction or for sale.

I love seeing some of the obscure cards Peter Spaeth posts on here that I have never seen before. I guess what I am really trying to say is that there is no wrong way to collect.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by orly57

Out of 50 or so years worth of pre war cards, are we really going to focus on, and cherry-pick one shitty scam by one gum company and use it as justification for what’s going on with modern cards? Goudey was in the business of selling GUM. Kids bought packs of GUM and got the gum. They were not defrauded. Again, it was a shitty thing to do, but the kids got what they paid for. This comparison really needs to die.

The whole point was vintage collectors, in this very thread, mocking the desirability of cards with manufactured scarcity. I was simply pointing out that the practice is not new, not uncommon but, hey, it was OK when it was done 80 years ago because reasons.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Well one difference is the modern manufacturer is creating scarcity to create a speculative secondary market in its product and to create the illusion it's a financially valuable commodity. Neither of which were the goals of the President of the Goudey card company. The old scarcities are rare today because they are scarce, not because someone set out to make them desirable on Ebay.

This sums up my feelings. When vintage cards were printed some hundred years ago, there was not one iota of thought by the manufacturer that one day these cards would be valuable. They were printed for one reason only: to help sell a product associated with it. It would take generations for collectors to discover that some were genuinely rare and worth a premium. It would take generations to determine that some were hard to find and in great demand, and that somebody would be willing to pay a lot of money to purchase them.

Modern cards are different. In the case of this Jordan, a bunch of guys in suits sat in a boardroom and came up with a strategy to manufacture a rarity that current collectors would pay a huge premium for. You can collect whatever you want and pay whatever you want, but a vintage card that became rare and expensive over time is a completely different animal than a modern card that was planned from the outset to be a chase card for collectors.

I don't acknowledge the latter, but apparently there are collectors who do. Chances are in the long run they will lose money on most of these manufactured rarities, but that is their choice and it is their money

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

This sums up my feelings. When vintage cards were printed some hundred years ago, there was not one iota of thought by the manufacturer that one day these cards would be valuable. They were printed for one reason only: to help sell a product associated with it. It would take generations for collectors to discover that some were genuinely rare and worth a premium. It would take generations to determine that some were hard to find and in great demand, and that somebody would be willing to pay a lot of money to purchase them.

Modern cards are different. In the case of this Jordan, a bunch of guys in suits sat in a boardroom and came up with a strategy to manufacture a rarity that current collectors would pay a huge premium for. You can collect whatever you want and pay whatever you want, but a vintage card that became rare and expensive over time is a completely different animal than a modern card that was planned from the outset to be a chase card for collectors.

I don't acknowledge the latter, but apparently there are collectors who do. Chances are in the long run they will lose money on most of these manufactured rarities, but that is their choice and it is their money

well stated Barry!

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

This sums up my feelings. When vintage cards were printed some hundred years ago, there was not one iota of thought by the manufacturer that one day these cards would be valuable. They were printed for one reason only: to help sell a product associated with it. It would take generations for collectors to discover that some were genuinely rare and worth a premium. It would take generations to determine that some were hard to find and in great demand, and that somebody would be willing to pay a lot of money to purchase them.

Modern cards are different. In the case of this Jordan, a bunch of guys in suits sat in a boardroom and came up with a strategy to manufacture a rarity that current collectors would pay a huge premium for. You can collect whatever you want and pay whatever you want, but a vintage card that became rare and expensive over time is a completely different animal than a modern card that was planned from the outset to be a chase card for collectors.

I don't acknowledge the latter, but apparently there are collectors who do. Chances are in the long run they will lose money on most of these manufactured rarities, but that is their choice and it is their money

+2

[ALR-bishop]

5 cents in 1933 is worth what today ? $1 or 95 cents ? $100 then is worth what?
$2667 or so ?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It may be a cult set, and that's cool for people who enjoy it, but to me it's just a base card painted green.

[frankbmd]

Modern, Vintage, Prewar and Pop Goes the Weasel

A modern card in an 8 or 9 holder is virtually the same as the same card in a 10 holder.

Similarly a prewar tobacco card in a 6 holder, is also quite similar to its higher graded brethren occupying 7 or 8 holders.

However Pop reports in all eras suggest that there is rarity at the extreme upper end of the grading scale regardless of the era or issue.

So what difference does it make anyway, suits in the Topps board room manufacture rarity, card doctors restore tobacco cards and by doing so "manufacture" rarity, or graders by their pyramid of grading "manufacture" rarity at the upper end of the scale. All are weasels.

Card grading enhances the ability of collectors to deal via the internet, but
card grading and Pop reports a secondary effect, to facilitate "cashing" in on that rarity whichever factor was involved in creating it. Different weasels to be sure, but the same results when viewed broadly.

Exponential cost differential relative to linear grading increments seems irrational.
Should a card absent one microscopic imperfection be worth 10, 20 or 30 times the card with that imperfection. Probably not, but it is. The necessary catalyst for this construct to flourish is the buyer's ego without which pricing would lose much of its ever increasing exponential steps and return to a more linear scale.

Nothing earth shattering hear but to try to explain the difference between a high grade tobacco card that spent 90 years in a book as a forgotten bookmark, a mint 52 Mantle rookie card of which a small finite number exist, and a Michael Jordan green metallic refractor numbered 1/2 seems like a fruitless exercise. All are rare. Their rarity was created by different circumstances, but each will attract a collector with a wallet compatible with his ego, for a place atop a Registry, bragging rights or perhaps only to profit from a resale knowing that with our current system there will always be a greater fool who will pay more for that special card than he did. Or will there?

[ullmandds]

Auction ended...again???