Most over-valued card

[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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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.

I am about to go collect either some hot wings or Chinese food. I won't collect it for long most likely ....(that made me laugh)

[begsu1013]

.

[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?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

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?

Agreed. ...It's almost exactly opposite of what is stated . And as for condition, it has always been something collectors have focused on since at least the 1930s. Better looking specimens are more desirable and therefore more valuable. It seems like common sense to me.

.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

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?

This is true sure, but lately the difference between super excellent and super duper excellent has gone off the reservation. There once was more of a graduated price ramp from "poor" all the way to "mint" and you could see a logical path along the way. Now, you see some cards are "poor" at $500 and "mint" at $500,000 and that doesn't seem to follow any path of logic at all. I mean people spend what they want and buy what they want, and that's their bidness (the high end market doesn't impact me much) but eventually, this is all going to crash and burn as the prices don't seem to reflect any sort of rational decision making but rather a falsely manufactured profit chase. People buying $90,000 Rose PSA 9's then flipping em for $150k to another who buys hoping to flip for $200k....etc eventually, someone is gonna lose their shirt and the resulting domino effect could bring the entire high end market crashing down (thus impacting the lower markets along the way)


edited to add: paintings aren't really applicable because fine art is "one off" creations whereas cards are a manufactured commodity. There aren't 50,000 "Starry Night" original paintings floating around out there in various states of condition.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

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?

Same artist or different?
There are quite a few artists whose work I like enough that I'd take a damaged painting - Or for many of them a print if they made them- than a nice example of a painting by an artist I don't like.

Of course, that's from an enjoyment perspective.

So, a really bad anything by da Vinci over a nice Picasso.
Or maybe even a genuine Escher print over a nice Picasso.

Now of course, if I'm not actually paying the "real" price for it I'll go with whatever is likely to sell for more


And I've never been all that picky about condition with cards, If I buy a boxful, and some are nicer than the ones I already have I'll upgrade, but I rarely go out of my way to upgrade.

Steve B