Money in the Hobby

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

People aren't buying nice Ruth cards and Type 1 photos because it reminds them of being a kid. They are buying because they see the appreciation over time, have a lot of money to invest, and think why not plow a small amount into something cool like sports memorabilia.

Exactly. I also want to add something to this: look at the folks who spend crazy amounts of money on paintings - did they even care about art when they were younger? Did they go to museums? Take art courses while in school? No, no and no. As they got older, and their disposable income increased, they decided to just put that money into awesome things, like art.

[packs]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Exactly. I also want to add something to this: look at the folks who spend crazy amounts of money on paintings - did they even care about art when they were younger? Did they go to museums? Take art courses while in school? No, no and no. As they got older, and their disposable income increased, they decided to just put that money into awesome things, like art.

Many people go to museums. In fact, I would bet it would be pretty difficult for you to find a single person who hasn't been to one. You can show almost anyone in the country a photo of the Mona Lisa and they'll know what it is. That could not be said for any baseball card. I also doubt anyone buys art just to spend money on something. It is true that people will invest in artwork, but at it's base level art has a utilitarian purpose that baseball cards never will.

[MR RAREBACK]

the collecting gene, either you have it or you dont

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by packs

Many people go to museums. In fact, I would bet it would be pretty difficult for you to find a single person who hasn't been to one. You can show almost anyone in the country a photo of the Mona Lisa and they'll know what it is. That could not be said for any baseball card. I also doubt anyone buys art just to spend money on something. It is true that people will invest in artwork, but at it's base level art has a utilitarian purpose that baseball cards never will.

I disagree with your opinion on the utility of cards. As stated earlier, the TPGs and online venues have increased the utility of the cards. For art, its a 1 of 1 market (sans the giglees, lithos, and other crap out there). For cards, there is more than one and a standardized grading system, so you have a baseline of what the market is. That baseline is accretive to the utility and thus value of the asset.

But hell, as others say, who cares, we are all dead eventually (and what else am I going to do in the meantime).

[packs]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

I disagree with your opinion on the utility of cards. As stated earlier, the TPGs and online venues have increased the utility of the cards. For art, its a 1 of 1 market (sans the giglees, lithos, and other crap out there). For cards, there is more than one and a standardized grading system, so you have a baseline of what the market is. That baseline is accretive to the utility and thus value of the asset.

But hell, as others say, who cares, we are all dead eventually (and what else am I going to do in the meantime).

By utilitarian I meant that artwork serves a purpose beyond being valuable. We all have homes, I assume we all have something on the wall too. And that doesn't take into account other forms of artwork, like furniture, lawn ornaments, comic books, comic strips, cartoons, posters, t-shirts, shoes, logos, etc.

[buymycards]

I'm still waiting for Beanie Baby prices to rebound.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I'm still waiting for Beanie Baby prices to rebound.

Was an article last year about the absolute worst things to have collected in the last 50 years. Had to send a copy to my parents as they touched most of the bases. Hummels. Yadro. Norman Rockwell plates. Check check check.

Beanie babies were there of course. But the biggest disaster was Thomas Kinkaid paintings. What a debacle that turned into. People were paying big bucks for those and the market just got saturated. Every shopping mall in America was selling them. Poor guy died before it all collapsed. Probably for the better.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Was an article last year about the absolute worst things to have collected in the last 50 years. Had to send a copy to my parents as they touched most of the bases. Hummels. Yadro. Norman Rockwell plates. Check check check.

Beanie babies were there of course. But the biggest disaster was Thomas Kinkaid paintings. What a debacle that turned into. People were paying big bucks for those and the market just got saturated. Every shopping mall in America was selling them. Poor guy died before it all collapsed. Probably for the better.

The king of kitsch! I was only a kid during the Kinkade craze and had no insights to what passed for good art (still probably don't) but I still remember thinking how cheesy the one my great aunt had in her living room looked.

[Huck]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I'm still waiting for Beanie Baby prices to rebound.

That comment made me laugh out loud.

Everything is cyclical and don't forget it is just cardboard. Would the bottom falling out of the card market even make the front page of the local paper or a leading story on a 24 hour news channel? I think not. Card collecting is a niche thing. Yes, there are deep pocket types who want to own the best card, nicest car, biggest house etc. It remains to be seen if there are enough newbies to the hobby to sustain current price levels. Fact is, like Bill Murray said in "Meatballs" - "It just doesn't matter. I just doesn't matter."

I am enjoying the discourse. One thing missing from the discussion (or I missed it) is having enjoyed playing the game. Soccer, lacrosse, cup stacking, hockey (ice time was scarce in Hawaii) were not options during my childhood. But baseball was a constant. Around 9-10 years of age trading cards at school was popular.

I want to believe that the majority of collector's out there enjoyed playing the game or have some emotional tie (went to games with a family member etc.) to the game. How many of you out there never played the game, woke up one day and said "I am going to start collecting baseball cards"? Quite a few folks on the board have lamented the fact that their offspring have zero interest in maintaining the collection. My two boys enjoy attending card shows, but it isn't a given that they will continue the collection I have amassed.

I have never looked at the hobby as an investment. I just enjoy collecting. I have the collecting bug.

(The Graduate - Updated)

Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Bitcoin.

Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?

Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in bitcoin. Think about it. Will you think about it?

[barrysloate]

Charlie Chaplin cards may not have much value, but an original movie poster from one of his silents is worth a bundle. So he certainly is not forgotten.

And a few posters have cited the weakness in stamp and coin collecting, and as at one time a collector of both, they are at least partially correct. Those coins and stamps that are somewhat esoteric, that need to be studied, and are raw, are suffering. There is simply a smaller number of serious collectors these days. And the ones who still do collect them have a lot of gray hair. That collecting pool isn't getting any younger.

But as far as slabbed coins and stamps, ones of great rarity or top-notch condition, there is a ton of new money coming in. But these people aren't collectors in the same way. Many treat their purchases as portfolio assets. They don't study that much and probably don't have the time or inclination.

It's just a shift in what's popular and how people collect. There's an incredible amount of money among the top 1%, and they are only interested in world class pieces. A lower grade coin or stamp, regardless of its history, doesn't have much appeal. To them the most important thing is the number on the slab.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

By utilitarian I meant that artwork serves a purpose beyond being valuable. We all have homes, I assume we all have something on the wall too. And that doesn't take into account other forms of artwork, like furniture, lawn ornaments, comic books, comic strips, cartoons, posters, t-shirts, shoes, logos, etc.

I have baseball paintings, baseball pictures, baseball posters, uncut sheets of baseball cards, baseball autographs and other baseball display items. Most of what you listed, I would consider worthless. I would agree that baseball cards printed in larger numbers, most postwar, will probably see lower values in the future. Top names in higher grades will continue to increase in my opinion.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

I have baseball paintings, baseball pictures, baseball posters, uncut sheets of baseball cards, baseball autographs and other baseball display items. Most of what you listed, I would consider worthless. I would agree that baseball cards printed in larger numbers, most postwar, will probably see lower values in the future. Top names in higher grades will continue to increase in my opinion.

Worthless in what way? What does that mean? How are shoes worthless? How is a house worthless? Do you not consider architecture to be art? Advertisements are worthless? Do you wear clothes? Do you have furniture? Do you watch television?
Go to the movies? Art affects your life every day.

[KMayUSA6060]

Seeing as though our economy has been stagnant at best for the past 2 decades, with the recession in the middle, and card prices have still increased, I'm going to say I'm bullish on the sustainability of the card market. I think as our economy grows (which is should) over the foreseeable future, these cards will just continue to increase. Maybe not your commons, but HoFers and rarities? Heck yeah. I'm 23 and know and handful of people my age that are collecting Pre-War. The hobby isn't going anywhere but up in my opinion, as long as the economy is solid.

Enjoy the present, hope the best for the future, and Make the Hobby Great Again.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

Worthless in what way? What does that mean? How are shoes worthless? How is a house worthless? Do you not consider architecture to be art? Advertisements are worthless? Do you wear clothes? Do you have furniture? Do you watch television?
Go to the movies? Art affects your life every day.

Lawn ornaments, comic books, comic strips, cartoons, posters, logos. I wouldn't pay a penny for any of that stuff. I would throw away advertisements unless they had a famous baseball player on it. The idea that everyone has the same collecting interests is silly. There will always be people collecting baseball and sports items and who have no interest in items like you listed. Shoes and t- shirts are meant to wear, not collect. I throw them out when I am done using them. I watch sports on TV. I rarely go to the movies, I consider them a waste of money. Art affects your life, not mine.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

I disagree with your opinion on the utility of cards. As stated earlier, the TPGs and online venues have increased the utility of the cards. For art, its a 1 of 1 market (sans the giglees, lithos, and other crap out there). For cards, there is more than one and a standardized grading system, so you have a baseline of what the market is. That baseline is accretive to the utility and thus value of the asset.

But hell, as others say, who cares, we are all dead eventually (and what else am I going to do in the meantime).

This is actually a myth.

There are 5 versions of Rodin's "The Thinker" all in bronze which were created under his supervision. There is also the original production plasters of the statue.

Jacques-Louis David painted 5 versions of "Napoleon at Saint-Bernard Pass" also known as "Napoleon Crossing the Alps" between 1801 and 1805. They are all about the same size at 2.6 x 2.2m. The differences are in the color of the cape and the background. All are considered originals. I saw the 1803 version at The Belvedere in Vienna, Austria in September.

There are exceptions to every rule, but people state the mantra that art is 1 of 1 when there are many cases when it is just not true.