Calling ticket experts! - holy grail find?

David Atkatz · #1 10-23-2017, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forever Young

That said, I would rather have a game used ticket stub than a full or a proof for the money any day. I am in the minority most likely.

Me, too. Proof tickets, as far as I'm concerned, have nothing at all to do with the game in question. And full tickets weren't there...
But a stub... Ahhhh, a stub...
It was there, in someone's pocket the whole time.
A piece of the event.

vintagebaseballcardguy · #2 10-23-2017, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Me, too. Proof tickets, as far as I'm concerned, have nothing at all to do with the game in question. And full tickets weren't there...
But a stub... Ahhhh, a stub...
It was there, in someone's pocket the whole time.
A piece of the event.

+1

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

T_Hamilton · #3 10-23-2017, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

+1

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

as someone who owns a ticket tub from Ruth's called shot, I have to agree... stub over proof 8 days a week!

conor912 · #4 10-24-2017, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Me, too. Proof tickets, as far as I'm concerned, have nothing at all to do with the game in question. And full tickets weren't there...
But a stub... Ahhhh, a stub...
It was there, in someone's pocket the whole time.
A piece of the event.

Tickets have got to be the only collectible in the world worth more to collectors torn in half than whole.

Scott Garner · #5 10-24-2017, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

Tickets have got to be the only collectible in the world worth more to collectors torn in half than whole.

Conor,
Although I can definitely see the argument for both sets of reasoning, full tickets to historic events typically do bring much higher sale prices due to their relative scarcity.

It stands to reason that fewer full tickets exist to vintage events since most tickets were used to gain entrance and thus were ripped.
As a collector, I always look to find the full ticket to the event because I find that a full ticket has the complete graphic content that is otherwise lost to time.
That being said, I will also collect the stub since, as David A. previously mentioned, it was in attendance of the actual game.
There are great arguments for both and this is what's great about collecting. Not everyone collects the same thing...

Dave Grob · #6 10-24-2017, 07:13 AM

Some thoughts on general pricing data, and these tickets in particular� and this is NOT directed at anyone in particular.

In instances when you have small populations or sample sizes, the relevance of each individual data point (ticket, jersey, card, bat) becomes less relevant/more sensitive. This is not an opinion, but a core component of statistical analysis. With small populations and sample sizes, it is also essential to know these samples in detail; specifically it is even a true sample size, or have some of these items been offered more than once within the same sample. This is key since if collectors are actually seeing the same item often offered more than once, this creates a false read on true rarity. This can lead to lower prices realized since the collector might assume, �Well, if I miss it here, I�ll just get the next one that comes along.� I alluded to this in a previous post on Brooklyn Dodger �Welcome Banners.�

As for the specific data on these proofs as previously offered by Stephen:

GAME 3
October 12 2016 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $3350.05
April 22 2015 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $2250
March 05 2015 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $5000
December 4 2014 - Mile High Game 3 Proof PSA - $1,535.76
December 31 2013 - Game 3 Proof - $5750
GAME 4
December 18 2013 - Game 4 Proof PSA - $801
August 22 2013 - Game 4 Proof PSA - $4000
GAME 5
This game does not trade often, but when it does, it commonly sells in the $150-$300 range as it is a mere novelty.

General Observations
- The highest prices paid/realized are from the oldest examples, not the most recent.

- There is a huge difference in prices between the games, with Game 3 obviously commanding the most money.

- Full sheets are not candidates for grading/encapsulation.

Why these factors may not automatically translate into a much higher price for the sheet as being offered and priced today.

1. The highest prices are oldest. This could suggest that the strongest buyers have already obtained what they were looking for and are likely not interested at all, regardless of price. Use of even the low average of $3,577 for Game 3 as a pricing metric fails to acknowledge that this figure is in fact higher than the price on the two most recent sales.

2. When collecting tickets, there appear to be fairly strong differences and preferences for stubs, full tickets and proofs. It could be that the proof is seen as the least desirable of the three. Here you have to be careful in applying an otherwise macro trend (ticket prices are going up), to a subset of the larger group that may not have same macro-level appeal.

3. The collector interested in a proof, may not be interested in one from Game 4 and or Game 5, and as such, is not willing to pay a premium for what he wants, while absorbing the acquisition of items he does not want.

All of this creates a couple of courses of action.

1. If the goal is strictly to provide the maximum return on investment, separate the tickets and have them graded/encapsulated and then sold individually. This maximizes the possibly demand for the Game 3 ticket and works to satisfy what may be the collector�s preference for graded/encapsulated product.

2. Keep the sheet as is and hold onto it until a buyer is found at a more palatable sales price.

Dave Grob

EYECOLLECTVINTAGE · #7 10-24-2017, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Some thoughts on general pricing data, and these tickets in particular� and this is NOT directed at anyone in particular.

In instances when you have small populations or sample sizes, the relevance of each individual data point (ticket, jersey, card, bat) becomes less relevant/more sensitive. This is not an opinion, but a core component of statistical analysis. With small populations and sample sizes, it is also essential to know these samples in detail; specifically it is even a true sample size, or have some of these items been offered more than once within the same sample. This is key since if collectors are actually seeing the same item often offered more than once, this creates a false read on true rarity. This can lead to lower prices realized since the collector might assume, �Well, if I miss it here, I�ll just get the next one that comes along.� I alluded to this in a previous post on Brooklyn Dodger �Welcome Banners.�

As for the specific data on these proofs as previously offered by Stephen:

GAME 3
October 12 2016 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $3350.05
April 22 2015 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $2250
March 05 2015 - Game 3 Proof PSA - $5000
December 4 2014 - Mile High Game 3 Proof PSA - $1,535.76
December 31 2013 - Game 3 Proof - $5750
GAME 4
December 18 2013 - Game 4 Proof PSA - $801
August 22 2013 - Game 4 Proof PSA - $4000
GAME 5
This game does not trade often, but when it does, it commonly sells in the $150-$300 range as it is a mere novelty.

General Observations
- The highest prices paid/realized are from the oldest examples, not the most recent.

- There is a huge difference in prices between the games, with Game 3 obviously commanding the most money.

- Full sheets are not candidates for grading/encapsulation.

Why these factors may not automatically translate into a much higher price for the sheet as being offered and priced today.

1. The highest prices are oldest. This could suggest that the strongest buyers have already obtained what they were looking for and are likely not interested at all, regardless of price. Use of even the low average of $3,577 for Game 3 as a pricing metric fails to acknowledge that this figure is in fact higher than the price on the two most recent sales.

2. When collecting tickets, there appear to be fairly strong differences and preferences for stubs, full tickets and proofs. It could be that the proof is seen as the least desirable of the three. Here you have to be careful in applying an otherwise macro trend (ticket prices are going up), to a subset of the larger group that may not have same macro-level appeal.

3. The collector interested in a proof, may not be interested in one from Game 4 and or Game 5, and as such, is not willing to pay a premium for what he wants, while absorbing the acquisition of items he does not want.

All of this creates a couple of courses of action.

1. If the goal is strictly to provide the maximum return on investment, separate the tickets and have them graded/encapsulated and then sold individually. This maximizes the possibly demand for the Game 3 ticket and works to satisfy what may be the collector�s preference for graded/encapsulated product.

2. Keep the sheet as is and hold onto it until a buyer is found at a more palatable sales price.

Dave Grob

Dave,

THANK YOU! now that is informative and very very helpful. It's good when you take into account things as such and yes you make great points. I agree with a lot of what you are saying if not all of it.

My only thing is, I do not think these pop up often. Aside from your Heritage example which was included in a lot, were you able to find any other sheets offered for sale from this series?

Thanks again for this post. It opens up a real discussion.

packs · #8 10-24-2017, 08:20 AM

What would the ticket grail be? I've got to think Lou Gehrig's debut would be a grail.

Dave Grob · #9 10-24-2017, 08:38 AM

Stephen,

Please don�t take this as a poke in the eye, but I think you are missing the point of what I took the time to lay out. My apologies if I was confusing. Assuming for the sake of argument, the only two examples out there are yours and the Heritage example. If this were a fact (which I am not saying it is), it does not change or effect the likely perceived market value or likely demand for the item in question as suggested above. Rarity, whether it be numeric or condition based, does not always translate into enhanced value over comparative items for any number of reasons. That is what I had hope was the �take away� from my previous post.

Is there a way to change this dynamic? There could be, but this requires that demand be created for the artifact/item in question. This can come though educational efforts (convincing collectors/the industry that the item is undervalued in a way that makes objective sense to them). In short, growing the number of collectors who would want what you are selling. In this case, numeric or condition based rarity might not be enough.

Offering comparative pricing data may not be enough since it appears (only an observation), that demand for the whole sheet may not be as strong as for the eaches. The dynamic might also change though the application of industry wide pressure. By this I mean the demand for grading/encapsulation of odd size product like this. I don�t think this will likely happen since this would require a market strong enough to justify the additional cost of creating new holders. For the most part, grading/encapsulation is based a volume business model. As such, there is little incentive to invest money in developing a supporting infrastructure for low density items.

I really don�t have anyone more thoughts or information on this particular topic. Maybe others do.

Dave Grob

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Holy Grail(s)	MVSNYC	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	19	12-08-2016 09:55 PM
The Holy Grail:	clydepepper	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	12-07-2014 05:23 PM
Holy Grail ?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	26	12-30-2006 10:55 AM
The Holy Grail	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	06-01-2005 06:58 PM
Holy Grail?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	70	03-04-2005 01:24 PM