Money in the hobby

[bbcard1]

I don't know about the term "investment" being used more. Honestly the whole overprinting thing was created by speculators. I remember "investing" in a lot of 800 Tommy Gregg rookies in 1988 and tons of others. I was fortunate to have also been picking up vintage. I don't think the bubble will burst on the cards most folks are investing in like they did on the cards of the 80s and 90s because the supply really isn't there. Of course virtually everyone isn't collecting any more.

I think there are some cards that sell for big dollars that have thin markets...I remember someone saying years ago that the market for cards from the late 1800s was very profitable but only a few people were playing. It may be more so now.

[T206Collector]

Third party authenticating is a fluid concept. You now see people talking about old vs. new PSA slabs, REA had multiple autograph authenticators, with Steve Grad now at Beckett, and James Spence on his own, and SGC it's own brand. I don't know off the top of my head who is at PSA/DNA anymore. To think in 10 years that all of this will be status quo is obviously not a bet anyone would make. So if you are "investing" in a baseball card with the expectation of that status quo, you should just be eyes wide open about this stuff:

Your goods are only as valuable as the market credibility of the authenticator at the time of sale.

I do think this is one reason why REA double-certified a lot of its autographs. Take this signed T206 Marquard, which was encapsulated as authentic by SGC.

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...e?itemid=44742

Note how they didn't just rely on SGC's word. They also provided an Auction LOA from James Spence/JSA, and pre-certification by Steve Grad and Brian Sobrero/Beckett Authentication.
.
.
.
.

[GasHouseGang]

I was thinking the same thing Todd. Everyone was "investing" in the 1980's. It was kind of like the housing bubble, everyone thought things would just keep going up forever. The card market seems to ebb and flow over the years, and some cards are up while others are down, so it makes it a very difficult market to invest in unless you really know what you are doing.

[rainier2004]

Alright, I see the 80s thing. Buying 500 Bo Jackson rookies, yeah, I could have worded that differently. So my post would be in strict regards to pre war cards.

[58pinson]

I am not financially equipped to chase pricey vintage cards but also shake my head at some of the prices these auctions realize. Then again when I tool up and down the Garden State Parkway in my Ford and get passed by literally hundreds of automobiles priced at $100k or so I say different people like to do different things with their cash - so be it.

My worry on the whole vintage card front is the increasing sophistication level of technology. I really believe that the day is not far off when a counterfeit of - name your iconic card - will be produced and be undetectable even by the most "trusted" authorities at grading companies. What happens if that scenario eventuates?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 58pinson

I am not financially equipped to chase pricey vintage cards but also shake my head at some of the prices these auctions realize. Then again when I tool up and down the Garden State Parkway in my Ford and get passed by literally hundreds of automobiles priced at $100k or so I say different people like to do different things with their cash - so be it.

My worry on the whole vintage card front is the increasing sophistication level of technology. I really believe that the day is not far off when a counterfeit of - name your iconic card - will be produced and be undetectable even by the most "trusted" authorities at grading companies. What happens if that scenario eventuates?

What happens when they counterfeit money as well. The one thing going on cards from 100+ years ago is the paper stock i assume will be tough but I am not a professional so who knows..

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

What happens when they counterfeit money as well. The one thing going on cards from 100+ years ago is the paper stock i assume will be tough but I am not a professional so who knows..

That's what I thought too, but it is far from the truth. Restorers can take fibers, analyze them and get the identical compounds that were originally used in the card stock and just make "new" stock and do whatever they want to with it. Micro-weave of these "parts" are also possible so creating a new card would seem kinda easy...

[drcy]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

That's what I thought too, but it is far from the truth. Restorers can take fibers, analyze them and get the identical compounds that were originally used in the card stock and just make "new" stock and do whatever they want to with it. Micro-weave of these "parts" are also possible so creating a new card would seem kinda easy...

No.

If you wanted, you could radiometric date a baseball card. The most commonly known form of radiometric dating is carbon dating, but they test different chemicals to detect items from different time periods. For example, they do lead dating for paintings. They have confirmed the date of famous paintings (Vermeers, Rembrandts, etc) and identified forgeries by lead dating the paint. Radiometric dating is based on the known half-life of chemicals and is explained in the following article: (The Science of Forgery Detection).

But, it's all much easier than that. At the printing level, it's virtually impossible to counterfeit a known baseball card that both looks good at the naked eye level and at the microscopic level. And, further, there are microscopy tests that identify when cards were made from the same printing plate-- so a card that wasn't made from the original printing plate would be easily identified.

I think many of those who are worried about future undetectable counterfeits are applying Doctor Who theories to the real world.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by drcy

No.

If you wanted, you could radiometric date a baseball card. The most commonly known form of radiometric dating is carbon dating, but they test different chemicals to detect items from different time periods. For example, they do lead dating for paintings. They have confirmed the date of famous paintings (Vermeers, Rembrandts, etc) and identified forgeries by lead dating the paint. Radiometric dating is based on the known half-life of chemicals and is explained in the following article: (The Science of Forgery Detection).

But, it's all much easier than that. It's virtually impossible to counterfeit a known baseball card that looks good at the naked eye level and at the microscopic level. And, further, there are microscopy tests that identify when cards were made from the same printing plate-- so a card that wasn't made from the original printing plate would be easily identified.

Ok,, maybe I got a little a head of myself as reproducing those micro printing marks would be pretty tough and art restorers wouldn't be able to replicate that as part of their job description. But the same compounds are available today as were 100 years ago, they would still be able to reproduce the stock.

Where is the printing plate material located?

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by 58pinson

My worry on the whole vintage card front is the increasing sophistication level of technology. I really believe that the day is not far off when a counterfeit of - name your iconic card - will be produced and be undetectable even by the most "trusted" authorities at grading companies. What happens if that scenario eventuates?

I believe that the technology is already available and has probably been used already. You have guys that can rebuild cards and make it seamless. Guys that can doctor colors and have them be flawless also. So what is stopping them from creating one? Could easily do a common in high grade since the big guys would be scrutinized.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by 58pinson

My worry on the whole vintage card front is the increasing sophistication level of technology. I really believe that the day is not far off when a counterfeit of - name your iconic card - will be produced and be undetectable even by the most "trusted" authorities at grading companies. What happens if that scenario eventuates?

I addressed that concern in a SABR post:

My guess is a lot of entombed high grade cards have been altered, or 'prepped,' but that's a different issue.

[58pinson]

Originally Posted by drcy

I addressed that concern in a SABR post:

My guess is a lot of entombed high grade cards have been altered, or 'prepped,' but that's a different issue.

Hopefully my first use of the quote function is correct.

I linked into your SABR article. Fascinating and obviously very informed. Light years ahead of my own level of expertise. I have no quibble with any of the points you made. I was, however, drawn to your use of the non-linear concept in your opening. That is where my concern lies in the future regarding counterfeiting, in this case specifically sports cards, but in other areas as well.

While I don't refer to the current technological advances as exponential they are not linear. I don't think it's an unrealistic stretch to visualize a time in the near future when the WTF moment hits and the cat is out of the bag as far as the sudden ineffectiveness of traditional counter fraud measures.

Pleasure to read your article.

[barrysloate]

Here is something I simply do not understand regarding the large sums spent on baseball cards. Let's take two lots in the recent REA Auction: Lot 12, a PSA 9 Hank Aaron rookie which sold for 216K; and lot 13, a PSA 9 Sandy Koufax rookie which sold for 156K. We all know those are both very common cards, and only attained those lofty bids because they were graded Mint 9. For someone willing to pay such an extraordinary amount of money for them, there had to be a strong belief that what they were buying is exactly what it says on the label. But here is what we also know:

1) A card submitted for grading that comes back "Evidence of Trimming" can be resubmitted a month later and come back NR MT 7.

2) The same card can be submitted three times and come back with three different grades.

3) Countless trimmed and altered cards make it into holders with numerical grades with alarming frequency.

So can somebody tell me why there is such a blind faith in that little white label? To me there is a disconnect here that makes no sense. Why is something so subjective and so inconsistent treated with such absolute trust? You don't spend a quarter of a million dollars on something if you are not completely confident you are getting what you are paying for.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Here is something I simply do not understand regarding the large sums spent on baseball cards. Let's take two lots in the recent REA Auction: Lot 12, a PSA 9 Hank Aaron rookie which sold for 216K; and lot 13, a PSA 9 Sandy Koufax rookie which sold for 156K. We all know those are both very common cards, and only attained those lofty bids because they were graded Mint 9. For someone willing to pay such an extraordinary amount of money for them, there had to be a strong belief that what they were buying is exactly what it says on the label. But here is what we also know:

1) A card submitted for grading that comes back "Evidence of Trimming" can be resubmitted a month later and come back NR MT 7.

2) The same card can be submitted three times and come back with three different grades.

3) Countless trimmed and altered cards make it into holders with numerical grades with alarming frequency.

So can somebody tell me why there is such a blind faith in that little white label? To me there is a disconnect here that makes no sense. Why is something so subjective and so inconsistent treated with such absolute trust? You don't spend a quarter of a million dollars on something if you are not completely confident you are getting what you are paying for.

Because the flip is the commodity, not the card. Flips sell, and nobody scrutinizes what's in the holder very much, at certain strata anyhow. I've seen cards posted here that I would bet my life are altered, but many just see the flip and ooh and aah.

"What we said of it, became a part of what it is." -- Wallace Stevens.

[ngnichols]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Here is something I simply do not understand regarding the large sums spent on baseball cards. Let's take two lots in the recent REA Auction: Lot 12, a PSA 9 Hank Aaron rookie which sold for 216K; and lot 13, a PSA 9 Sandy Koufax rookie which sold for 156K. We all know those are both very common cards, and only attained those lofty bids because they were graded Mint 9. For someone willing to pay such an extraordinary amount of money for them, there had to be a strong belief that what they were buying is exactly what it says on the label. But here is what we also know:

1) A card submitted for grading that comes back "Evidence of Trimming" can be resubmitted a month later and come back NR MT 7.

2) The same card can be submitted three times and come back with three different grades.

3) Countless trimmed and altered cards make it into holders with numerical grades with alarming frequency.

So can somebody tell me why there is such a blind faith in that little white label? To me there is a disconnect here that makes no sense. Why is something so subjective and so inconsistent treated with such absolute trust? You don't spend a quarter of a million dollars on something if you are not completely confident you are getting what you are paying for.

All of the things you talk about involve human decisions/opinions. Take the human out of the equation and you won't have those issues. It's coming.........

[glchen]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

...
So can somebody tell me why there is such a blind faith in that little white label? To me there is a disconnect here that makes no sense. Why is something so subjective and so inconsistent treated with such absolute trust? You don't spend a quarter of a million dollars on something if you are not completely confident you are getting what you are paying for.

Barry, I completely see what you are saying here, and I agree with a lot of it. However, there are a lot of different ways that I could answer this question. However, to focus on the cards that are going for 6 figures, I'll put it this way. The people who are buying these cards go to shows or events like the PSA luncheons and see other collectors like them, and they trust that other rich people like them (e.g., Ken Kendrick, etc) are buying cards, so they know that it's not just them in this market. When they sell their cards, they get paid real cash, real money with no restrictions like you can't sell for 2 years. They see the card prices going up based upon VCP, past auction sales, or other ways that are easily accessible. And which cards are going up the fastest? The ones with the highest number on the flips, which makes perfect sense to them because rich people collect the highest quality collectibles.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Here is something I simply do not understand regarding the large sums spent on baseball cards. Let's take two lots in the recent REA Auction: Lot 12, a PSA 9 Hank Aaron rookie which sold for 216K; and lot 13, a PSA 9 Sandy Koufax rookie which sold for 156K. We all know those are both very common cards, and only attained those lofty bids because they were graded Mint 9. For someone willing to pay such an extraordinary amount of money for them, there had to be a strong belief that what they were buying is exactly what it says on the label. But here is what we also know:

1) A card submitted for grading that comes back "Evidence of Trimming" can be resubmitted a month later and come back NR MT 7.

2) The same card can be submitted three times and come back with three different grades.

3) Countless trimmed and altered cards make it into holders with numerical grades with alarming frequency.

So can somebody tell me why there is such a blind faith in that little white label? To me there is a disconnect here that makes no sense. Why is something so subjective and so inconsistent treated with such absolute trust? You don't spend a quarter of a million dollars on something if you are not completely confident you are getting what you are paying for.

IMHO, Barry (and good to hear from you, by the way), a lot of these guys paying huge, enormous premiums for "9's" vs "8's" and "10's" vs "9's" are quite literally paying for the holder/flip inside. There simply is no way that the difference in the quality of the card can match the price differential, so what are they getting for their money? A holder with a piece of paper in it, for which they have paid tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they would have for a beautiful card graded just one level lower. Far better to invest in something like the 1907 Seamless Steel Ty Cobb rookie Orlando Rodriguez of this board won in the REA auction ($24,000?), where both grading services have slabbed a total of four examples, and both Orly and I believe that that number is not going to increase much at all over the next few decades. Same with cards like the 1914 Baltimore News Ruth (11 total graded?), the Dietsche Fielding Pose and Wolverine News Cobb rookies, etc., etc.

I have studied the coin hobby extensively, as it has followed essentially the same path as that of cards, only with a 120 year head start. In that context, where there is a vast difference in the price of a coin, for example, in Mint State 67 vs Mint State 64 or 63, but little substantive difference of any real note between the quality of the two, and the item at issue is not all that rare, the values of the higher numerically graded items have tended to be cyclical, ebbing and flowing with the ingress and egress of investor types. On the other hand, truly rare and significant items tend to keep appreciating in virtually linear fashion (although those gaining the most in value over time among that group are those in better condition). And while on the subject, coins have also been the target of many counterfeiting attempts, with very little real success over the years. Items made through different methods always tend to leave different footprints, so I don't think we will be seeing a few hundred undetectable, newly manufactured Baltimore News Ruths in the next decade, century or even millenium! Same case scenario with Orly's Seamless Steel Cobb rookie (and presumably my own Wolverine Portrait and Dietsche Fielding Pose Cobbs).

Regards,

Larry

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Here is something I simply do not understand regarding the large sums spent on baseball cards. Let's take two lots in the recent REA Auction: Lot 12, a PSA 9 Hank Aaron rookie which sold for 216K; and lot 13, a PSA 9 Sandy Koufax rookie which sold for 156K. We all know those are both very common cards, and only attained those lofty bids because they were graded Mint 9. For someone willing to pay such an extraordinary amount of money for them, there had to be a strong belief that what they were buying is exactly what it says on the label. But here is what we also know:

1) A card submitted for grading that comes back "Evidence of Trimming" can be resubmitted a month later and come back NR MT 7.

2) The same card can be submitted three times and come back with three different grades.

3) Countless trimmed and altered cards make it into holders with numerical grades with alarming frequency.

So can somebody tell me why there is such a blind faith in that little white label? To me there is a disconnect here that makes no sense. Why is something so subjective and so inconsistent treated with such absolute trust? You don't spend a quarter of a million dollars on something if you are not completely confident you are getting what you are paying for.

I believe many people do put their faith in the holder. Of course most of these people are not hard core collectors that know better (and know the market better), but apparently there are some/many? with deep pockets. Doing this a long time and also stunned at some of the numbers.