Most over-valued card

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Yes I am biased as I own one, and my collection is focused on Mantle cards. But I believe if you polled knowledgeable collectors which one card has the most long term investment potential the 52 Mantle would win by a landslide.

If I'm not mistaken you just insinuated we're not knowledgeable collectors. Is that correct?

[darwinbulldog]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Player: Mickey Mantle
Elo Rank: #16
WAR Rank: #21
JAWS: #4 (CF)
Card: 1952 Topps
Rookie: No
Age of card: 64
PSA Population: 1358
Last auction price: $17,100

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-M...p2047675.l2557

Player: Eddie Collins
Elo Rank: #8
WAR Rank: #13
JAWS: #2 (2B)
Card: W600
Rookie: Yes
Age of card: 110
PSA Population: 0
Last auction price: $531

http://www.goodwinandco.com/1902-11-...-lot28084.aspx

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Player: Mickey Mantle
Elo Rank: #16
WAR Rank: #21
JAWS: #4 (CF)
Card: 1952 Topps
Rookie: No
Age of card: 64
PSA Population: 1358
Last auction price: $17,100

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-M...p2047675.l2557

Player: Eddie Collins
Elo Rank: #8
WAR Rank: #13
JAWS: #2 (2B)
Card: W600
Rookie: Yes
Age of card: 110
PSA Population: 0
Last auction price: $531

http://www.goodwinandco.com/1902-11-...-lot28084.aspx

OPS+ Collins 142 Mantle 172
Championships Collins 4 Mantle 7

[packs]

Chick Gandil Obak
Chick Gandil C46
Roger Peckinpaugh D311


Pretty expensive key cards of guys who weren't very good from sets full of guys who weren't very good.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by rats60

OPS+ Collins 142 Mantle 172
Championships Collins 4 Mantle 7

Championships:
Frank Crosetti 8
Ty Cobb 0

[glynparson]

People have been saying 1952 mantle since I started collecting in 1980 they were wrong then and wrong now. There is far to much demand for that card from even people that don't own any baseball cards for it to be that one just like it's not the Honus. I'd honestly go with Psa 9. 1968 topps Nolan Ryan right now. Or possibly rose or even my favorite player Stargell. The leaps they have taken in the last month are unprecedented and don't look sustainable.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by glynparson

People have been saying 1952 mantle since I started collecting in 1980 they were wrong then and wrong now. There is far to much demand for that card from even people that don't own any baseball cards for it to be that one just like it's not the Honus. ....

I'm not saying that this card value is going to drop anytime soon. It is, without a doubt, one of THE iconic cards in the hobby. However, saying that, I still have trouble with the thinking that this card (or cards like this), will always continue to go up in value.

First, people also once upon a time thought that real estate could never drop in value because people had to live somewhere. However, that has now been thoroughly disproven even with the rebound in housing prices. I know this isn't the best analogy, but more aimed at the thinking that card prices for these iconic cards will never drop.

Also, demand for these cards has to come from somewhere. I could have missed them, but I still haven't seen many articles saying there is a rebound in kids collecting baseball cards. I have two boys, ages 5 & 7 (almost). Even though I am an avid collector, they have ZERO interest in cards. I've never seen anyone in their school collect cards. At Target, I see ZERO kids in the baseball card aisle (and in some ways, shocked they still sell them there). Joe Orlando's column in the latest SMR magazine notwithstanding, I've never seen or heard anyone in "real" life randomly talking about cards since I was in middle school nearly 30 years ago. (not including these boards, ebay, or card conventions)

I know there are a lot of folks from my generation who collected cards as a kid, who now have disposable income, who are now spending it on cards to buy a lot of cards they couldn't even think of affording as kids and expanding into other areas. However, it also makes me think that a lot of the folks buying cards these days are purely investors and not even collector/investor. And for investors, if they think the value of a stock has peaked out, they'll drop it like yesterday's Yahoo stock.

[glchen]

I think the Pete Rose rookie card in 8 or above is overvalued. Just too much supply. I like Pete Rose, and believe he should be in the HOF, but you can't tell me that he's even in the Top 20 of best baseball players ever. That floating head 4-1 rookie card isn't even a nice image of him on a card either.

I can understand why some vintage postwar RC's have a greater "multiplier effect" than many prewar greats like Ruth or Cobb. Then reason is that many collectors stick with only Topps cards. For others, it can be very difficult to determine what the correct rookie card is for a prewar player. For Ruth, there different back variations for the M101-5 and M101-4. And some publications (Beckett, I believe) don't even consider that his rookie card but say something like the 1933 Goudey is Ruth's rookie card due to national distribution. That can confuse many collectors. For Cobb, it's even harder to pin down what his "best" rookie card could be.

[SMPEP]

Every PSA 7, 8, 9 and 10 card.

I have no idea why buyers have allowed themselves to be duped by the sellers/dealers (who have a vested interest) into believing pristine looking cards are worth more money.

Either you have a 52 Mantle or you don't. It's a binary event. Having the "best looking 52 Mantle" (whatever that means to 2,000 different people) shouldn't command a premium of many multiples - if the market behaved rationally.

No one here would pay $10,000 for a "better" sandwich than the one that cost $15. Yet folks willingly over pay this for cardboard every single day.

But I'm glad all these people buy all these overpriced cards - because if they didn't, I wouldn't be able to have a collection in the first place.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

Every PSA 7, 8, 9 and 10 card.

I have no idea why buyers have allowed themselves to be duped by the sellers/dealers (who have a vested interest) into believing pristine looking cards are worth more money.

Either you have a 52 Mantle or you don't. It's a binary event. Having the "best looking 52 Mantle" (whatever that means to 2,000 different people) shouldn't command a premium of many multiples - if the market behaved rationally.

No one here would pay $10,000 for a "better" sandwich than the one that cost $15. Yet folks willingly over pay this for cardboard every single day.

But I'm glad all these people buy all these overpriced cards - because if they didn't, I wouldn't be able to have a collection in the first place.

Not to be a jerk, but a sandwich isn't a collectible. Condition has ALWAYS mattered in EVERY collectible market, coins, antiques, stamps, Tonka Trucks, whatever. While you may have a point to make about infinitesimal differences between 9's and 10's, calling 1952 Mantle ownership a binary event is a little out of touch with, well, the entire rest of the world.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

Every PSA 7, 8, 9 and 10 card.

I have no idea why buyers have allowed themselves to be duped by the sellers/dealers (who have a vested interest) into believing pristine looking cards are worth more money.

Either you have a 52 Mantle or you don't. It's a binary event. Having the "best looking 52 Mantle" (whatever that means to 2,000 different people) shouldn't command a premium of many multiples - if the market behaved rationally.

No one here would pay $10,000 for a "better" sandwich than the one that cost $15. Yet folks willingly over pay this for cardboard every single day.

But I'm glad all these people buy all these overpriced cards - because if they didn't, I wouldn't be able to have a collection in the first place.

This post boggles my mind.


Why are there different prices for similar models of cars? Is every Porsche created equal?

Condition has mattered in card collecting since I got started in 1985. It will never change.

Would you be more comfortable owning a painting that was ripped and stained then one that is in pristine condition and you can clearly see the image without any distractions to the eye?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If I'm not mistaken you just insinuated we're not knowledgeable collectors. Is that correct?

Actually that's not correct. I am amazed at the knowledge many members possess on this site, and have learned a lot since I joined reading various threads and having discussions with several of these members.

I simply stated that I believe if one were able to poll a large group of knowledgeable collectors the 52 Mantle would come out on top as the card with the most long term investment potential. It sounds like this is a debate that has been going on for years. As another member pointed out people were saying the card was over valued 30 years ago. It has appreciated quite a bit since then, and I believe it will do so again over the next 30 years.

The T206 Wagner is not his rookie, not the rarest prewar card, and it's not even the rarest Wagner card. Here's a link to a Wagner RC for sale on ebay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/JOHN-HANS-HO...QAAMXQL99ScwiB

Total PSA population of 9. I have never seen a thread or post arguing that this card should sell for more than the t206 because it's his true RC, or because it's more rare.

[sportscardpete]

anything with a ghost image/printers scrap

[irv]

Originally Posted by zachclose21

I would have to say the 1952 topps #1 Andy pafko. I know it's the #1 card in the set and hard to find in nice shape but $5000 for an ok player.

You stated exactly why it is priced the way it is. It isn't because of who he is, but because of where this card belongs, the #1 card in the set of the most iconic set in the world.
Personally, I am surprised higher graded copies don't sell for more, and no, I do not own one.
http://www.ebay.com/gds/1952-Topps-B...2638733/g.html

Originally Posted by stargell1

Some good answers.

I agree with the 52 topps Mantle because its not a rookie card. The 51 Bowman should be worth more.

Someone mentioned the Jordan rookie but that is a basketball card lol.. I disagree if you mean the 84 star because that's his rookie and Jordan has worldwide popularity. The 86 Fleer is way overvalued in my opinion because its not a rookie card.

My vote goes to the 71 topps Munson. I understand the guy was popular among Yankee fans and Yankee fans are everywhere, but non-rookie/non hall of fame card makes this the most over valued post war card in my opinion.

I was also going to mention that one. Referring to the one I posted that sold for over $30,000 but thought mentioning the current, Rose RC was enough.

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

You should make that picture your new avatar.

Great idea!

Thanks

[darwinbulldog]

My other nominee:
http://smalltraditions.com/1986-topp...r-lot2473.aspx

[darwinbulldog]

Sooooooooooooooooo much nicer than this card:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/3835-1986-Topps-690-RYNE-SANDBERG-Cubs-/371490523749?hash=item567e8f8a65:gAgAAOSwlV9WTrz v

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

My other nominee:
http://smalltraditions.com/1986-topp...r-lot2473.aspx

Holy crap that is the funniest thing I've ever seen. You'd think by 2013 people would understand lo pops because nobody has bothered to grade the damn things lol.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Pop on Sandberg is now up to 6, but there's only 4 Andre Dawson in PSA 10, must be worth a grand right?

[glynparson]

People have been grading 1986 topps stars for about 10 years now because 10scarevrelatively difficult. I agree the price is absurd but you are wrong if you think nobody was submitting them.