Trout v. Legendary cards

[Delray Vintage]

Agree with you Tyruscobb and Tomi . There is a big difference in this created scarcity with the unintended scarcity by card companies. Yes by definition scarcity is real if it is 1 of 1 but that will not be the same as vintage scarcity over the long haul. Each collector is making their own determination but quality has a way of enduring. Trout refractor has little chance of meeting that enduring quality. Hey, it’s not my $4 mill so good luck to the buyer.

[insidethewrapper]

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[commishbob]

Buyer could be this guy: Apparently he's the seller

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/c...baseball-cards

LINK FIXED

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

I hope everyone has Vegas Dave’s attitude! Sure my collection’s value would significantly increase if new money flooded into vintage, but the flood would also probably price me out of the market. I’m not done collecting (not investing).

[Seven]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

If more people take that approach then we could see the vintage market go down, but it's unlikely. I feel the majority of the card collectors do it so they can connect with the history of the game. Because in the case of many of the players that are long dead, Cards are one of the last connections to them. As someone who (for the most part) collects strictly vintage, I feel the exact opposite way that this guy does.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

It could be, but he was the seller of the card. He has definitely come out good putting his money in Trout. The buyer of this card could also be someone that has Wagner, Ruth and Mantle and was looking to add one of the best modern cards to his collection. There are people in this hobby that are playing at a different level than most on here.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by rats60

It could be, but he was the seller of the card. He has definitely come out good putting his money in Trout. The buyer of this card could also be someone that has Wagner, Ruth and Mantle and was looking to add one of the best modern cards to his collection. There are people in this hobby that are playing at a different level than most on here.

He's not in our hobby, he's an investor, gambling on a (so far) solid bet.

(cough, Fiydrich, cough)

[CJinPA]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

He's not in our hobby, he's an investor, gambling on a (so far) solid bet.

(cough, Fiydrich, cough)

STOP - please! completely off topic but Trout is one of the best of all time. I'm a new vintage collector and love all the things that make vintage attractive.

But Trout plays baseball at a different level than his peers and has for the past 7 years. He is no Fydrich (I think you were just doing a tongue-in-cheeck there, btw). The guy has the single best mechanical swing in baseball - only Barry Bonds was as efficient in his mechanics.

Just for moment, imagine the greatest and our favorite heros of the past facing #2 and #3 starters who are sitting 97mph in the 4 and 5th innings. Not the ace of the staff, but your mid-level starters? It's crazy, and a conversation for another thread.

Sorry to get off-topic - I'm just a huge Trout fanboy. I don't own a single card of his and have no desire. But as a result of coaching and training high level high school players, there's just nobody better over the past several years and there looks to be at least another 5-7 years left - kids got it all!

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

The link is not working. I don’t know who this guy is, but I don’t really care, and I am happy I don’t compete against him in auctions (because I buy the guys who are so old their children are probably underground). But I respectfully disagree with his logic - by that token, an official White House document from Trump is better than something from George Washington’s hand; a modern artist is better than Monet, a Colin Kapernick BLM piece is a better investment than a letter by MLK; and a first print Harry Potter book is better than a first print edition of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities. I do not believe any of these and do not agree with the guy’s quote (although I do think a first print Harry Potter is probably a pretty good investment).

To me, being alive, let alone not being retired, presents only downside (e.g. OJ Simpson). And, as one moves further from their playing days, their relevance wanes and the public‘s interest tends to diminish- does anyone care about Rod Carew, Dave Winfield, or Steve Carlton the way people loved them in the 80’s and 90’s? Anyway, I just don’t agree with this guy, but I am a vintage guy and this is a vintage Board. All I know for sure is what is good for cards is good for cards, and it’s his money to spend how he chooses. And, he must be doing something right if he is spending 7 figures on cards each year.

Opinions are like assholes.... everyone has one

[commishbob]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

The link is not working.

I fixed it. I should never try this on my iPad

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

All I know for sure is what is good for cards is good for cards, and it’s his money to spend how he chooses. And, he must be doing something right if he is spending 7 figures on cards each year.

Opinions are like assholes.... everyone has one

exactly!

[Directly]

These type of headlines mega sales and all the media hype are feeding the fire, we haven't seen anything yet - past buyers are returning plus thousands of new collectors, investors are jumping on the band wagon! (buying vintage and modern, especially basketball )

[GasHouseGang]

I think The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" may apply in this case. The hype surrounding this card sale may help raise the prices in the short term of other Mike Trout cards. Whether it can be sustained is the question.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Directly

These type of headlines mega sales and all the media hype are feeding the fire, we haven't seen anything yet - past buyers are returning plus thousands of new collectors, investors are jumping on the band wagon! (buying vintage and modern, especially basketball )

I agree. All large sales are good for the hobby, in general. Nothing goes up forever, but cards have been overlooked for some time now & the people that think that they're toys & not investments should reconsider.

[Shoeless Moe]

Arod
Bonds
Cabrera
Manny

all better hitters.........that "could" change in 10 years, but as of now.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

If he has an Picasso's, Davincis or Michaelangelos laying around I'll take those. I mean they are long dead why would anyone buy them?

[drcy]

The post arguing against the "invalidity" of artificially rare cards is correct. Rare is rare and a number is a number.

However, rarity should be looked more broad based and not myopocially. 1000 different one-of-ones is not the same as three one-of-100.

And sales prices is just sales price, and indicates only sales price. Quality cannot be quantified.

Also, the sales price at a particular moment is indicitive of the sales price at that particular moment. McGuire's 70th home run ball once sold for over $3million and a Tiger Woods SI rookie once for $100,000. Those "values" are nothing more that historical curiosities (and sometimes jokes) now.

Hobby fixation on financial financial value doesn't interest me.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by drcy

Also, the sales price at a particular moment is indicitive of the sales price at that particular moment. McGuire's 70th home run ball once sold for over $3million and a Tiger Woods SI rookie once for $100,000. Those "values" are nothing more that historical curiosities (and sometimes jokes) now.

I remember when the 1990 Score Eric Lindros "Future Superstar" card was the hottest thing in the hockey card world and was going for top dollar. A few years ago I found one in a screwdown holder with a $1.00 price sticker. Normally when I buy a card in this kind of a holder I would get rid of the screwdown and put it in a top loader, but I kept this one as is. The reason I bought it in the first place was as a tangible example of, as drcy describes it, a historical curiosity.

[mrmopar]

i have to believe that there are people out there that fit that description.
i don't follow the vintage market, but surely there are millionaires buying old baseball cards. If not mega millionaires, plain old regular millionaires are.

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[Republicaninmass]

The lower the pop, the easier it is to "set" a price

[Joshwesley]

The question begs to be asked:


Is there anyone on here that would take the Trout over a T206 Wagner (if given the chance)?

I think that number is gonna be low...

You don’t invest in players that are still active/still alive.

While very unlikely: What if Trout went
OJ Simpson or Joe Paterno later in life?

What if he shreds his knee chasing a fly ball later on this week and is never the same?

If you’ve got 4mm to put in a baseball card, I guess it doesn’t matter anyhow

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Joshwesley

The question begs to be asked:

You don’t invest in players that are still active/still alive.

I would disagree. The time to buy in is when the price is low. Disregard that the market is hot right now, I think many people are believing that Trout is the next Derek Jeter. Jeter is one of the few players I can remember that never saw his RC reduce in value. If that ends up being true about Trout, then buying now would be a good investment.

Personally, I don't chase scarcity - I buy the Cincinnati Reds! LOL

[highgradelegends]

I wonder if Vegas Dave pumped his own auction

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Joshwesley

The question begs to be asked:


Is there anyone on here that would take the Trout over a T206 Wagner (if given the chance)?

I think that number is gonna be low...

You don’t invest in players that are still active/still alive.

While very unlikely: What if Trout went
OJ Simpson or Joe Paterno later in life?

What if he shreds his knee chasing a fly ball later on this week and is never the same?

If you’ve got 4mm to put in a baseball card, I guess it doesn’t matter anyhow

Would I be paying for it or do you walk up to me with one card in each hand and tell me one but only one is free?

If I'm not paying, I take the Trout.
Then I can flip it and buy a couple Wagners. If I'm not fussy about condition, I might even be able to get all three backs.

[wdwfan]

I'm not sure it ever will. I think people buy what they see. They see Trout. They see/saw players from the last 2-3 decades. They never saw Babe, Cobb, etc. So they have no interest in them because they can't connect with them.

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

They never saw Babe, Cobb, etc.

Neither has anyone here.

I like collecting players I've never seen and I like collecting players I watch every day, both give me enjoyment.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

Agree with you. There is a big difference in this created scarcity with the unintended scarcity by card companies. Yes by definition scarcity is real if it is 1 of 1 but that will not be the same as vintage scarcity over the long haul. Each collector is making their own determination but quality has a way of enduring. Trout refractor has little chance of meeting that enduring quality. Hey, it’s not my $4 mill so good luck to the buyer.

What about older cards that have intended rarity because trading in a complete set got the winner a prize?

[Delray Vintage]

All vintage cards were collected as a hobby, no one got a baseball card as an investment. No card company even thought of their cards or premiums as valuable things. Yes, when I was a kid we were unlikely to put a Mantle on our bicycle spokes or intentionally mishandle it. That was because he was valuable as a trade for many cards not because we expected it to be worth a lot years later. There is no comparison to what any card company did through the 1970’s to what is being done today creating scarce cards.

[rdwyer]

Even rarer. Mike Trout Debut & 1st hit panel tickets. Most season ticket holders tore each ticket out and took to the game. Then they would take the ticket back home. Most likely, the person who had these for some reason didn't go to either game. Only one other in PSA pop report and it's not signed. (Graded a 9 for the ticket). I searched PSA pop report from 2011-2020 and found only 4 panels. Two for BB, and 2 for Hockey.

Mine are both signed & inscripted. MLB cert. Gonna send to PSA and get auto grades.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

Even rarer. Mike Trout Debut & 1st hit panel tickets. Most season ticket holders tore each ticket out and took to the game. Then they would take the ticket back home. Most likely, the person who had these for some reason didn't go to either game. Only one other in PSA pop report and it's not signed. (Graded a 9 for the ticket). I searched PSA pop report from 2011-2020 and found only 4 panels. Two for BB, and 2 for Hockey.

Mine are both signed & inscripted. MLB cert. Gonna send to PSA and get auto grades.

Those are amazing. Exemplifies exactly what I’ve said throughout this post. Sure there were 45,050 (stadium’s capacity) printed, but those are scarce from non-attendance and survival; not due to a one of one printing.

They survived the trash can (discarding non-used tickets) and from being ripped by not attending the game. Even if most stadiums don’t rip anymore, because they use scanners, it’s still hard to preserve pristine tickets when you go to the game. They are usually bent.

It’s a different market, but, at least to me, those are cooler than that $4M card. Congratulations. Now, you just have to hope that there aren’t many others that survived and, if there are, the owners don’t get them signed.

[samosa4u]

Number of championships: Zero

Number of postseason appearances: One

$4 million? Really?

[chriskim]

It is so funny that I have been searching who is VegasDave but I have no idea and no intention to find out who Mike Trout is.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Number of championships: Zero

Number of postseason appearances: One

Same as Ted Williams. And Trout has roughly 10 more years to play.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Same as Ted Williams. And Trout has roughly 10 more years to play.

If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

[Goldin Auctions]

Here is. Great read. Everyone trying to understand what is going on in the business , and any vintage collector should read
And look at quote about Wagner and what it would sell for today....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...dg7DX-0L68fCr0

[Dpeck100]

The 1993 SP Derek Jeter PSA 10 was under a pop 10 and $6,500 when I got serious about buying cards in 2009. Considered the most over valued card in the hobby on every message board. At $15,000 it was insane and there was no where to go but down.

There is one of these and only one person can say they own the Super Refractor.

In 1986 the Donruss Jose Canseco was the card. Peaked at $120 in the Beckett. Anyone with enough money could get one. No matter how deep your pockets are only one person can say they own this card.

I don’t pretend to know if this is a good buy or a bad one but the price is a function of our current reality. How much would a Jordan rookie 1/1 be? There are 313 PSA 10’s at an average of $75,000 so it has a market cap of nearly 23.5 million just in that grade from PSA alone.

The closest substitute is a numbered to five card. The artificial scarcity has worked year after year with sports cards and this guy just happens to be the best player in the league at the moment.

If someone put a gun to my head and said you have to pick a direction my bet would be up.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

Not comparing them. Just pointing that they have the same amount of playoff experience. Judging players by postseason appearances is silly, is Ernie Banks not a great player?

[sbfinley]

It's funny to me the disdain and annoyance that some vintage collectors (my primary focus) have towards modern cards and to some extent the prices they command. One is old, one is new. At the end of the day it's all pictures of dudes from a sport we love or like, and to 99.99% of the world spending even $500 on a baseball card is absurd. The current excitement in modern collecting world is great for the hobby because A) it cements the next generation of hobby members and B) the majority of "vintage" collectors start with current issues and begin working backwards.

Personally, I have no shock this card reached this value. If you even minimally follow the game on a daily basis it's clear he the best all-around player in the game and a multi-generational talent. Other members have mentioned names like Fidrych and Lindros and questioned his hobby future should he be injured tomorrow. It makes me wonder if they even currently follow the game. He's not a hyped prospect or the latest sensation. He is universally recognized as the best player in the game without question. In 8 full seasons (on primarily a losing team) he has finished 2,2,1,2,1,4,2,1 in MVP voting. He will be top 50 in career WAR for position players after 8.5 seasons following the abbreviated 2020 year. That stated, this is his singular most important card and given the current state of economic investments this price doesn't shock me. It might not be your cup of tea but be happy the hobby is rolling forward.

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

As someone who taught history (including the story of Ted Williams and his service during both WW2 and Korea) I completely understand both his importance to game and his contributions to our nation. But the comparison provided between Trout and Williams is about as relative as it gets in the context this of this entire thread and the comment the reply was referencing. The entire context of the comparison was their seminal greatness in the game of baseball and the comparative lack of team success. We can praise and celebrate Ted Williams' service to his country without belittling someone who lived in an entirely different time and circumstances. Also.... "Puckett" is a terrible analogy because A) he won 2 World Series Rings in 12 years and B) Trout is much much better statistically speaking.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Jim65

What about older cards that have intended rarity because trading in a complete set got the winner a prize?

You answered your own question... the point was to limit the amount of prizes obtained, hence, there was NEVER monetary value associated with these cards, so it is completely different.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

You answered your own question... the point was to limit the amount of prizes obtained, hence, there was NEVER monetary value associated with these cards, so it is completely different.

The point is one card is just as rare as the other and both have intended rarity, the reason is irrelevant. Rarity is rarity.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The point is one card is just as rare as the other and both have intended rarity, the reason is irrelevant. Rarity is rarity.

The reasons are never irrelevant. Cards of the past never had original monetary value, while modern cards have inflated monetary value. This isn't rocket science... there is a HUGE difference.

[benjulmag]

While the card may have been hammered down at $3.2M, we have no idea how deep the market is, or even if there was more than one bidder above $1M. Here is how the auction rules read:

Minimum Bids and Reserves: Every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published, except that two days prior to the auction close, any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with “Reserve Not Met” in the online bidding. Reserve bids are available to the House and the House may, at its discretion, confidentially place reserve bids and set "up to" bids where the next bid in succession would hit the reserve price. No reserve price bids placed by the House will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "pass" in the online catalog.[/B][/B]

For all we know the reserve was the next bid above $3M and the auction house put in the $3M bid.

The card is a 1/1 based on a contrived scarcity. The next version of this card, which has twenty-five known copies, is identical in all material respects except for the color/type of border. So that adds over $3M in value?

Let's just say I'm a bit skeptical about what is going on here.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

While the card may have been hammered down at $3.2M, we have no idea how deep the market is, or even if there was more than one bidder above $1M. Here is how the auction rules read:

Minimum Bids and Reserves: Every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published, except that two days prior to the auction close, any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with “Reserve Not Met” in the online bidding. Reserve bids are available to the House and the House may, at its discretion, confidentially place reserve bids and set "up to" bids where the next bid in succession would hit the reserve price. No reserve price bids placed by the House will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "pass" in the online catalog.[/B][/B]

For all we know the reserve was the next bid above $3M and the auction house put in the $3M bid.

The card is a 1/1 based on a contrived scarcity. The next version of this card, which has twenty-five known copies, is identical in all material respects except for the color/type of border. So that adds over $3M in value?

Let's just say I'm a bit skeptical about what is going on here.

Whats the difference in price between a T206 Magie and a Magee? Its just one letter.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Whats the difference in price between a T206 Magie and a Magee? Its just one letter.

The Magie is a genuine error card not created for the purpose of creating value by intentionally misspelling the player's name. With the Trout card, it is akin to the beanie baby phenomena of created scarcity. More and more "scarcities" were created, which had the effect of devaluing the scarcity they were creating. So instead of being looked at as 1/1s, collectors began to lump all such prototypes into the same category.

With regard to the Trout card, what the card companies might take from this is from this point on, for each new player that enters the league, to create for him the same thing as was done for Trout. Some of those players will pan out, some spectacularly so, and in time there will be a whole new class of 1/1 cards of this category. If that were to happen, then maybe the Trout card might be viewed as a something less than a true 1/1.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

.