High end Heritage lots, which would you rather have?

[Scocs]

I want to know what moron dropped $50K on a mint 1971 Terry Bradshaw rookie card? Not to mention the fact that there are already twenty (20) OTHER PSA 9s out there!

I also want to know the other moron who shelled out over $33K on a gem mint 1979 Ozzie Smith rookie card when -- for the same price -- you could have acquied a 1938 Goudey high number Joe DiMaggio in NM-MT+!! Or would I rather have a gem mint Ozzie Smith rookie card or a brand new renovated kitchen (AND bathroom outside of NY)...? Are you kidding me?

Scott

[Scocs]

Oh, I forgot to add:

For the winner of the $50K Bradshaw card -- for an extra six thousand dollars, you could have won yourself one of the scarcest and most coveted pre-war cards in existence: a 1914 Cracker Jack Christy Mathewson in EXCELLENT (SGC 60) condition.

Maybe I can pick up a mint Joe Greene card for $40k to complete my million dollar 1971 Topps football set....

[ajquigs]

Originally Posted by Scocs

I want to know what moron dropped $50K on a mint 1971 Terry Bradshaw rookie card? Not to mention the fact that there are already twenty (20) OTHER PSA 9s out there!

I also want to know the other moron who shelled out over $33K on a gem mint 1979 Ozzie Smith rookie card when -- for the same price -- you could have acquied a 1938 Goudey high number Joe DiMaggio in NM-MT+!! Or would I rather have a gem mint Ozzie Smith rookie card or a brand new renovated kitchen (AND bathroom outside of NY)...? Are you kidding me?

For the winner of the $50K Bradshaw card -- for an extra six thousand dollars, you could have won yourself one of the scarcest and most coveted pre-war cards in existence: a 1914 Cracker Jack Christy Mathewson in EXCELLENT (SGC 60) condition.

Maybe I can pick up a mint Joe Greene card for $40k to complete my million dollar 1971 Topps football set....

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I think it would be pretty easy to find a huge Ozzie fan who would be baffled that anyone would care about what he views as some goofy cartoon card from the 1930s. Even easier to find a football card collector who doesn't care about baseball cards at all.
I think it's inevitable, and good for the collecting hobby, that individual interests cover such a wide spectrum.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank Robinson 9 around 50K. Gibson 9 around 45K. Seriously. And the 7 Mantle on Goodwin is over 200K on day one.

[MetsBaseball1973]

I think it's pretty poor form and really low sportsmanship to try and put down what some fellow collector spends his money on. Certainly doesn't create an inviting environment.

Perhaps a die hard Ozzie Smith fan could not care two licks about Mathewson. Yet we don't see the Smith fan railing against the Mathewson purchaser.

[Scocs]

Listen, I love Ozzie Smith and Terry Bradshaw. I love filet mignon too, but I wouldn't spend $33K on a piece of it.

Breaking price records is one thing but what was the price of the last one to sell? What is the SMR? How many 1979 Topps cards are out there? How many unopened packs still exist? I am just saying there is no logic behind a purchase like that.

You think a price like that will be sustained? A guy is now going to sell his PSA 9 Smith for ONLY $5k?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

I think it's pretty poor form and really low sportsmanship to try and put down what some fellow collector spends his money on. Certainly doesn't create an inviting environment.

Perhaps a die hard Ozzie Smith fan could not care two licks about Mathewson. Yet we don't see the Smith fan railing against the Mathewson purchaser.

I think you can say what you want to but if you are going to give an opinion of someone else's thought you need to have your full name in your post. Nothing personal...same rule for everyone and it's at the top of every page in bold print.

It's a chat board. If someone thinks someone else is acting crazily they can address it, with their name being next to their thoughts. No worries at all...

[ullmandds]

Personally I think a much more interesting "what if" would be the $20,000 plateau from REA .

[glynparson]

I have heard a lot crazier prices than either the bradshaw or the Ozzie. I could easily see the Ozzie selling for more. I would have guessed probably 25- 35 on the bradshaw but in this hot of a market 50 doesn't surprise me at all

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

I think it's pretty poor form and really low sportsmanship to try and put down what some fellow collector spends his money on. Certainly doesn't create an inviting environment.

Perhaps a die hard Ozzie Smith fan could not care two licks about Mathewson. Yet we don't see the Smith fan railing against the Mathewson purchaser.

Trolling isn't allowed. You registered with the wrong info and wrong name ..... I don't understand it, as I think I know who you are, but it is what it is. Buh bye.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Leon

Trolling isn't allowed. You registered with the wrong info and wrong name ..... I don't understand it, as I think I know who you are, but it is what it is. Buh bye.

Not sure who he is but thank you. Overly annoying.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by botn

Not sure who he is but thank you. Overly annoying.

Being annoying isn't against the rules or I would frequently have to ban myself. However, posing as someone you aren't is against the rules. I hope I keep getting good, anonymous tips too. I appreciate them.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Scocs

I want to know what moron dropped $50K on a mint 1971 Terry Bradshaw rookie card? Not to mention the fact that there are already twenty (20) OTHER PSA 9s out there!

I also want to know the other moron who shelled out over $33K on a gem mint 1979 Ozzie Smith rookie card when -- for the same price -- you could have acquied a 1938 Goudey high number Joe DiMaggio in NM-MT+!! Or would I rather have a gem mint Ozzie Smith rookie card or a brand new renovated kitchen (AND bathroom outside of NY)...? Are you kidding me?

Scott

Buyer is far from a moron. He just increased the value of his Bradshaw and Smith rookies that he is sitting on so when he dumps them onto the market he will have a nice pay day.

[Republicaninmass]

. Buyer is far from a moron. He just increased the value of his Bradshaw and Smith rookies that he is sitting on so when he dumps them onto the market he will have a nice pay day.


Provided there is a great fool.

The t206 set is far from complete, in fact it is missing the toughest and most expensive cards. Why is that aspect so difficult for people to grasp. No other set would be considered complete missing cards, but it's fine in the t206 case. I never understood it, and it's deterred me from collecting the set

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

. Buyer is far from a moron. He just increased the value of his Bradshaw and Smith rookies that he is sitting on so when he dumps them onto the market he will have a nice pay day.


Provided there is a great fool.

The t206 set is far from complete, in fact it is missing the toughest and most expensive cards. Why is that aspect so difficult for people to grasp. No other set would be considered complete missing cards, but it's fine in the t206 case. I never understood it, and it's deterred me from collecting the set

If the collector says it is complete at 518 or 520, who is to say he is wrong? Do you have to have every error and variation to have a complete Topps set? Do you have to have both #66 Williams and Piersall to have a complete 54 Bowman set? The great thing about t206 is that it can be collected any way you want. We can argue about what makes it complete, but unlike a modern set where one of each number is needed, there is no right answer.

I know in the 80's when the hobby took off, the Big 3 (4) were not considered to be part of the set. Beckett listed a complete set price as 520 cards with sperate prices for the others. So, saying it is a complete set of 520 is a valid opinion, everyone knows what you are talking about.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by botn

Buyer is far from a moron. He just increased the value of his Bradshaw and Smith rookies that he is sitting on so when he dumps them onto the market he will have a nice pay day.

I just looked up the population for PSA 10 Ozzies. Total pop is 4. Do you honestly believe the guy who won this card owns the other 3 and was trying to run the price of this card up to increase their value? That seems very unlikely.

I have heard the rumors of this pump and dump strategy. The cards this might make this strategy pay off are cards like the 86 Jordan, 55 Clemente, and 52 Mantle that have a high enough population and still hold some value at lower grades. Not 70s rookies with single digit PSA 10 populations.

[botn]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I just looked up the population for PSA 10 Ozzies. Total pop is 4. Do you honestly believe the guy who won this card owns the other 3 and was trying to run the price of this card up to increase their value? That seems very unlikely.

I have heard the rumors of this pump and dump strategy. The cards this might make this strategy pay off are cards like the 86 Jordan, 55 Clemente, and 52 Mantle that have a high enough population and still hold some value at lower grades. Not 70s rookies with single digit PSA 10 populations.

You are being a bit too literal. Was applying a widely known concept to the two rookie card examples. I did not look up pops. You and i are in different realities when it comes to the current move of the market. You feel it is entirely spirited bidding. I know it is not.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by botn

You are being a bit too literal. Was applying a widely known concept to the two rookie card examples. I did not look up pops. You and i are in different realities when it comes to the current move of the market. You feel it is entirely spirited bidding. I know it is not.

Fair enough. That would have to be a pretty elaborate plan to lift the entire market up artificially but if whoever is responsible has enough money I suppose it's possible. I just think that Smith with such a low population could be a legitimate sale.

[botn]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Fair enough. That would have to be a pretty elaborate plan to lift the entire market up artificially but if whoever is responsible has enough money I suppose it's possible. I just think that Smith with such a low population could be a legitimate sale.

Oy...As I have stated here and privately to you, there are guys who are legitimately bidding too who do not know or care that there is artificial bidding taking place. And no it is not that elaborate or hard to do.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by botn

Oy...As I have stated here and privately to you, there are guys who are legitimately bidding too who do not know or care that there is artificial bidding taking place. And no it is not that elaborate or hard to do.

I get what you're saying. I think where we disagree is exactly how much influence this group is having on the hobby as a whole. Time will tell if these new prices are sustainable or will continue to rise even more, or if they will come crashing back down to the level of a couple of years ago.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I just looked up the population for PSA 10 Ozzies. Total pop is 4. Do you honestly believe the guy who won this card owns the other 3 and was trying to run the price of this card up to increase their value? That seems very unlikely.

I have heard the rumors of this pump and dump strategy. The cards this might make this strategy pay off are cards like the 86 Jordan, 55 Clemente, and 52 Mantle that have a high enough population and still hold some value at lower grades. Not 70s rookies with single digit PSA 10 populations.

The sale is probably not someone pumping up prices, but could be. And yes, that sort of ploy works better when you can gather up a lot of whatever you're boosting.

It's really easy with collectibles where the "value" is driven more by emotion than anything else. An almost purely demand driven market.

So having a 10 Ozzie Smith rookie sell for 33K puts it out of reach for many collectors, and they have to "settle" for a 9....Checking Ebay sold listings shows they're currently under 1000. With a sale of a 10 for 33, how long before they're higher?

Of course, while looking I found an article from 2012 about a 10 sold for 17,523 making it just over 20 with the bp. And then the 9s were only about 3-400. So both have just about doubled since then. I don't have access to price records between then and now, but I'd bet the jump for the 9s came fairly soon after the 20K sale. There'd be a bit of a delay for the bins at the old prices to sell, then there'd be a rise for a few months while dealers pushed the new inventory to a plateau which would stabilize.

The current price for a 9 is actually somewhat more expensive compared to a 10 than it was in 2012. If I had the money, I'd pick up a couple 9s soon.

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

With only 4 10s not sure the 10 will push up the 9s of which there are well over 200.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-87-Flee...p2047675.l2557

AND

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-FLEER-S...p2047675.l2557

2.5x on a common as dirt card in 2 months????

[steve B]

And If I had them raw I doubt I'd send them in figuring the centering was too far off to get a really high grade.

Agreed about the 4 vs 200+ that should keep the pricing separated. The amount the 9s have closed the gap is fairly small, 1/50th of a 10 then and 1/39th now unless the 33K doesn't include the bp. I'll have to remember to check again in a month or two to see if 9s have come up any.

I wrote a paper in college about something similar, back then coin pricing for gold coins that weren't special was done by the spot price, which many dealers got from a hobby paper. Laziness being what it is, most wouldn't reprice their inventory for a while. The paper proposed profiting off the lag time in pricing, when things went up there was at least a week or two of lag before the dealers raised the price, and when it went down there was the same lag. Potentially like having a crystal ball for someone focused and active with some bankroll. The prof didn't understand it, but gave me a B based on the length of the paper. "It could be genius, or it could be the worst idea ever. But I can't understand it well enough to tell. so you get a B because it's about as long as a B paper." Nice having an economics prof who had a degree from behind the iron curtain.

Steve B