Money in the Hobby

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

Fair enough, but here is an interesting card that always gives me pause for thought about how much the market is dependent on the slightest and most irrational of whims.

As an icon of 1920s culture, Charlie Chaplin is probably about as recognizable and popular as Babe Ruth in America (and considerably more well known internationally). He is huge. This card is from the 1926 Player's Straight Line Caricatures set. Its a really striking card that captures his image perfectly and with an artistic style that is totally suitable to the era. While Ruth cards generally start in the thousands of dollars, you can find this card on Ebay usually for under $10 (in fact you can probably get the whole set it came in for under $20).

The discrepancy doesn't make much sense, the Chaplin card wasn't produced in greater numbers than most Ruth cards and he is culturally about equal. The only reason I can think of for the Chaplin card being so cheap relative to Ruth stuff is that American kids in the 50s were accustomed to seeing baseball players on cards but not movie stars (well, movie star cards existed but weren't as popular). So that association in their minds grew into the modern hobby, while movie cards never took off the same way.

But that association no longer really exists in kid's minds today. While there is a lot of path dependence at work which props up the baseball card hobby, there are so many things like this Chaplin card that are equally interesting out there (at a fraction of the price) which can compete for the attention of younger people with an interest in history. Thus my pessemistic forecast about the future of baseball card prices!

#this

The irrationality of pursuing Baseball images over Chaplin images should concern us all. Stamps, art, and coins are internationally regarded. Baseball is primarily American, and it’s card values are driven by something in our culture which is probably fixed in time.

Stated another way, the reason why people don’t collect Chaplin cards today is likely to be the reason why people tomorrow would not collect Baseball cards — if we can identify the reason and stop it from happening we stand a chance!

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

#this

The irrationality of pursuing Baseball images over Chaplin images should concern us all. Stamps, art, and coins are internationally regarded. Baseball is primarily American, and it’s card values are driven by something in our culture which is probably fixed in time.

Stated another way, the reason why people don’t collect Chaplin cards today is likely to be the reason why people tomorrow would not collect Baseball cards — if we can identify the reason and stop it from happening we stand a chance!

Wow. . . I think you guys are making this a lot more complicated than it has to be.

Charlie Chaplain's last great movie was 1940. 78 years ago.


I was in Port St. Lucie last week for the very first day of the Mets Spring training. The parking lot was crowded by 9 am. By 10 am all of the fences were lined with people including many many young kids holding cards, caps, and other stuff screaming for autographs. Young kids running in jerseys from field to field trying to see the top stars. All holding something to be signed.

I didn't think to ask any of them if they knew who Charlie Chaplain was.

[ullmandds]

the chaplain card is also a british card...and they are never that popular here...even when baseball players are on them!

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

the chaplain card is also a british card...and they are never that popular here...even when baseball players are on them!

Hi Pete, isn’t there a couple babe Ruth cards on actor type cards, they command a few hundred dollars. Wait you’re right they command a few hundred dollars.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

Hi Pete, isn’t there a couple babe Ruth cards on actor type cards, they command a few hundred dollars. Wait you’re right they command a few hundred dollars.

exactly! and I second Scotts herd mentality comment.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Wow. . . I think you guys are making this a lot more complicated than it has to be.

Charlie Chaplain's last great movie was 1940. 78 years ago.


I was in Port St. Lucie last week for the very first day of the Mets Spring training. The parking lot was crowded by 9 am. By 10 am all of the fences were lined with people including many many young kids holding cards, caps, and other stuff screaming for autographs. Young kids running in jerseys from field to field trying to see the top stars. All holding something to be signed.

I didn't think to ask any of them if they knew who Charlie Chaplain was.

Er...Babe Ruth hit his last home run 83 years ago and most little kids don't know who he is either. They also line up for movies today and ask movie stars for autographs. Not sure how this is relevant.

My point was simply that Ruth and Chaplin as cultural figures are about equalyy recognizable to the general public today. Most people have probably never seen a Chaplin film (or a Ruth home run of course) but could tell you who he is if you showed them a picture. So its odd that cards of one are worth a ton while those of the other aren't. There are a lot of reasons which we all know why that is the case of course, but they all really boil down to the simple fact that American kids grew accustomed to trading baseball cards rather than movie cards. As American kids (and future adults) no longer have that association, this distinction will likely be less and less important. 200 years from now somebody interested in 20th century antiques probably isn't going to value baseball cards per se as highly as we do above other stuff.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

Er...Babe Ruth hit his last home run 83 years ago and most little kids don't know who he is either. They also line up for movies today and ask movie stars for autographs. Not sure how this is relevant.

My point was simply that Ruth and Chaplin as cultural figures are about equalyy recognizable to the general public today. Most people have probably never seen a Chaplin film (or a Ruth home run of course) but could tell you who he is if you showed them a picture. So its odd that cards of one are worth a ton while those of the other aren't. There are a lot of reasons which we all know why that is the case of course, but they all really boil down to the simple fact that American kids grew accustomed to trading baseball cards rather than movie cards. As American kids (and future adults) no longer have that association, this distinction will likely be less and less important. 200 years from now somebody interested in 20th century antiques probably isn't going to value baseball cards per se as highly as we do above other stuff.

So you think the average kid today who is a baseball fan has never heard of Babe Ruth? Seriously?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...13-column.html

I'd feel a bit more comfortable saying that the kids lining up for the next Justin Bieber movie have never heard of Charlie Chaplin. Or even Clint Eastwood for that matter.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

Er...Babe Ruth hit his last home run 83 years ago and most little kids don't know who he is either. They also line up for movies today and ask movie stars for autographs. Not sure how this is relevant.

My point was simply that Ruth and Chaplin as cultural figures are about equalyy recognizable to the general public today. Most people have probably never seen a Chaplin film (or a Ruth home run of course) but could tell you who he is if you showed them a picture. So its odd that cards of one are worth a ton while those of the other aren't. There are a lot of reasons which we all know why that is the case of course, but they all really boil down to the simple fact that American kids grew accustomed to trading baseball cards rather than movie cards. As American kids (and future adults) no longer have that association, this distinction will likely be less and less important. 200 years from now somebody interested in 20th century antiques probably isn't going to value baseball cards per se as highly as we do above other stuff.

I disagree. Don’t know Babe Ruth? Maybe in Tibet. Maybe in Japan, wait they have Sudaroo to compare to Babe Ruth. OK just Tibet.

My wife knows who Babe Ruth is. Why? For the same reason why my son will know who Babe Ruth is because I will tell him.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

I disagree. Don’t know Babe Ruth? Maybe in Tibet. Maybe in Japan, wait they have Sudaroo to compare to Babe Ruth. OK just Tibet.

My wife knows who Babe Ruth is. Why? For the same reason why my son will know who Babe Ruth is because I will tell him.

For the same reason my son has heard of Marilyn Monroe but not Jayne Mansfield.

[seanofjapan]

I don't know, I was really into baseball and cards when I was a kid but it wasn't until I was probably 9 or 10 years old that I came to know who Ruth was. Don Mattingly I knew way before I knew who Ruth was. Maybe kids today learn about history earlier? I had no idea. That is great to learn.

[joshuanip]

Chaplin was a silent movie actor. There was never a following of actor cards and they never really had value to begin with so it’s not a strong link.

I’m not saying it’s all rosy but I would put Chaplin more in the spoon collecting camp than sports cards. And yes cards don’t produce cash flow, but there is a personal connection and historical relevance which adds value to it. Art is no different, so as many other precious assets.

Want proof, people still collect hockey and boxing cards...