Vintage Undervalued Roookies

[skelly423]

I've operated on this theory for a while, but the only players who really move the needle are all-time stars. Eventually everyone else fades into obscurity.
If you're not dealing with the players who were regarded as the top 1-2 players in the world during their career, their cards don't (and shouldn't) appreciate at the same rate as the all time greats.

There's no disrespect intended for these remarkable careers, but I don't look at these secondary stars as underpriced. I think their value reflects the fact that they aren't going to be the first names mentioned in a discussion of baseball history (Cobb, Ruth, Robinson, Mays, Aaron, etc.)

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by skelly423

I've operated on this theory for a while, but the only players who really move the needle are all-time stars. Eventually everyone else fades into obscurity.
If you're not dealing with the players who were regarded as the top 1-2 players in the world during their career, their cards don't (and shouldn't) appreciate at the same rate as the all time greats.

There's no disrespect intended for these remarkable careers, but I don't look at these secondary stars as underpriced. I think their value reflects the fact that they aren't going to be the first names mentioned in a discussion of baseball history (Cobb, Ruth, Robinson, Mays, Aaron, etc.)

This seems right to me - it's not about all-time stats. The players whose cards skyrocket are the ones who transcend the baseball fan/hobby demographic and have some level of broader pop cultural significance. Which makes perfect sense, in that having, say, a Warren Spahn rookie card doesn't allow you to show off, because you first have to educate 99% of people on who Warren Spahn was. Then maybe they'll be a little bit impressed. Whereas a lot more people will be instantly impressed by your Mickey or Jackie.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by ASF123

This seems right to me - it's not about all-time stats. The players whose cards skyrocket are the ones who transcend the baseball fan/hobby demographic and have some level of broader pop cultural significance. Which makes perfect sense, in that having, say, a Warren Spahn rookie card doesn't allow you to show off, because you first have to educate 99% of people on who Warren Spahn was. Then maybe they'll be a little bit impressed. Whereas a lot more people will be instantly impressed by your Mickey or Jackie.

You said that better than I did. I will add that I think there may be some extra boost that comes when a player starred for a behemoth like the Yankees rather than a smaller market like Milwaukee. The Yankees bring an automatic boost to pop cultural appeal (my wife knows the Yankees, she's go no idea where the Braves play/played). It's not fair, but I do think that if Stan Musial played in NYC, he would be mentioned in the same echelon as Willie Mays. Likewise, Mickey Mantle as a St. Louis Brown becomes just another name.

[packs]

Originally Posted by skelly423

You said that better than I did. I will add that I think there may be some extra boost that comes when a player starred for a behemoth like the Yankees rather than a smaller market like Milwaukee. The Yankees bring an automatic boost to pop cultural appeal (my wife knows the Yankees, she's go no idea where the Braves play/played). It's not fair, but I do think that if Stan Musial played in NYC, he would be mentioned in the same echelon as Willie Mays. Likewise, Mickey Mantle as a St. Louis Brown becomes just another name.

That's been a prevalent theory in the hobby for a long time but interestingly enough it doesn't apply to modern cards in the least. Trout's cards can't be touched by anyone and he plays for a perennial loser and always will.