As I See It...

[BobC]

With all this talk of fractional ownership of cards, here's a thought/question. What if the current owner of the Gretzky Wagner (is it still Kendrick?) decided to sell it and it ended up being purchased by a publicly traded company, for whatever reason. Would any of you ever consider then going out and buying some stock in that company, because doing so would then technically make you a partial owner of that Greztky Wagner (or whatever famous card it is that you'd like to own, but can't afford on your own)?

If you answer no, then you probably shouldn't ever consider something like is being suggested in regards to investing with others just so you can own a fractional share of a particular card. It is technically the same thing in both instances.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

With all this talk of fractional ownership of cards, here's a thought/question. What if the current owner of the Gretzky Wagner (is it still Kendrick?) decided to sell it and it ended up being purchased by a publicly traded company, for whatever reason. Would any of you ever consider then going out and buying some stock in that company, because doing so would then technically make you a partial owner of that Greztky Wagner (or whatever famous card it is that you'd like to own, but can't afford on your own)?

If you answer no, then you probably shouldn't ever consider something like is being suggested in regards to investing with others just so you can own a fractional share of a particular card. It is technically the same thing in both instances.

I don't want a fractional anything but it's not really the same, presumably the Gretzky Wagner would be a much more material part of a card syndicate's portfolio than it would be of a publicly traded corporation's assets, plus an individual is going to own a much larger share of the syndicate than the public corp, and therefore in the former you might expect to profit from it but not in the latter.

[Eric72]

I wonder if card doctors are going to start keeping the material they trim away...and then call it fractional ownership.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I wonder if card doctors are going to start keeping the material they trim away...and then call it fractional ownership.

On the other side of that, we all own the fractions they didn't trim.

[FrankWakefield]

I don't think we're near the middle of that spectrum at all. I think the older collectors, the guys who've been collecting since before 1990, I think those folks are skewed way to hell near the limits of the collector extreme. I think that newer collectors may well be bunched near the middle, but on the collectors' side of it. And the investor guys (notwithstanding the possibility that some of them may well think they're collecting somewhat because they've held a card 18 months or so), those guys are in the minority here, and they're huddled over at the investor edge of the spectrum.

Just by this thread being started, that seems not thoughts of some middle ground thinker; but rather someone who's a collector annoyed with reading stuff by the quick flipper folks.

To respond to the original post, it reminds me of telling some kids to stay on one side of a fence and other kids to stay on the other side. This place here didn't start because card dealers and card investors wanted a public forum to discuss old ballcards. It was started by collectors. If you started up an alternate site for the investors to use, they couldn't stay on their side of the fence, they'd wander back here. So I like the sentiment i perceive from the original poster, but two sites wouldn't work.

(One last thought... if anyone thinks most of us are bunched in the middle of the spectrum, how are you ascertaining what the folks who seldom if ever post have in mind? I don't think they sit slightly out of sight of those of us who closely circle the Net54 campfire... sitting back there and reading about old ballcards. Who knows what those folks are thinking? My guress is they're not in the middle, I think they're wanting to learn about old ballcards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I don't think we're near the middle of that spectrum at all. I think the older collectors, the guys who've been collecting since before 1990, I think those folks are skewed way to hell near the limits of the collector extreme. I think that newer collectors may well be bunched near the middle, but on the collectors' side of it. And the investor guys (notwithstanding the possibility that some of them may well think they're collecting somewhat because they've held a card 18 months or so), those guys are in the minority here, and they're huddled over at the investor edge of the spectrum.

Just by this thread being started, that seems not thoughts of some middle ground thinker; but rather someone who's a collector annoyed with reading stuff by the quick flipper folks.

To respond to the original post, it reminds me of telling some kids to stay on one side of a fence and other kids to stay on the other side. This place here didn't start because card dealers and card investors wanted a public forum to discuss old ballcards. It was started by collectors. If you started up an alternate site for the investors to use, they couldn't stay on their side of the fence, they'd wander back here. So I like the sentiment i perceive from the original poster, but two sites wouldn't work.

(One last thought... if anyone thinks most of us are bunched in the middle of the spectrum, how are you ascertaining what the folks who seldom if ever post have in mind? I don't think they sit slightly out of sight of those of us who closely circle the Net54 campfire... sitting back there and reading about old ballcards. Who knows what those folks are thinking? My guress is they're not in the middle, I think they're wanting to learn about old ballcards.

Well we could do a poll, but I think we'd need some clear definitions first.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I don't think we're near the middle of that spectrum at all. I think the older collectors, the guys who've been collecting since before 1990, I think those folks are skewed way to hell near the limits of the collector extreme. I think that newer collectors may well be bunched near the middle, but on the collectors' side of it. And the investor guys (notwithstanding the possibility that some of them may well think they're collecting somewhat because they've held a card 18 months or so), those guys are in the minority here, and they're huddled over at the investor edge of the spectrum.

Just by this thread being started, that seems not thoughts of some middle ground thinker; but rather someone who's a collector annoyed with reading stuff by the quick flipper folks.

To respond to the original post, it reminds me of telling some kids to stay on one side of a fence and other kids to stay on the other side. This place here didn't start because card dealers and card investors wanted a public forum to discuss old ballcards. It was started by collectors. If you started up an alternate site for the investors to use, they couldn't stay on their side of the fence, they'd wander back here. So I like the sentiment i perceive from the original poster, but two sites wouldn't work.

(One last thought... if anyone thinks most of us are bunched in the middle of the spectrum, how are you ascertaining what the folks who seldom if ever post have in mind? I don't think they sit slightly out of sight of those of us who closely circle the Net54 campfire... sitting back there and reading about old ballcards. Who knows what those folks are thinking? My guress is they're not in the middle, I think they're wanting to learn about old ballcards.

Hi Frank,

If you're referring to my post where I said I think many on here are somewhere in the middle of that collector-investor spectrum, you are taking my use of the word "middle" in my phrasing, too literally. That is exactly why I preceded that by also using the word "somewhere" in my phrasing. I actually agree with you in that the collectors are likely closer to the collector side of the spectrum, and the investors closer to the investor side, which is what I thought was coming across when I said most people were likely "somewhere in the middle of the collector-investor spectrum", meaning they were somewhere on that spectrum between just a collector, or just an investor, In other words, somewhere in the middle between the two extremes, but it doesn't mean they're all exactly halfway between the two sides and at the literal midpoint of the spectrum or arc.

It's another way of saying that in today's environment, it's going to be tough to find a collector on here that maybe doesn't also have at least a little bit of investor, or at least investor influence, affecting them, and ditto for investors. However, I would think you're more likely to find investors who care absolutely nothing for collecting, than you are to find collectors who care absolutely nothing for the investment aspect. Trust this clarifies things for you.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't want a fractional anything but it's not really the same, presumably the Gretzky Wagner would be a much more material part of a card syndicate's portfolio than it would be of a publicly traded corporation's assets, and therefore in the former you might expect to profit from it but not in the latter.

Aaahhhh, Peter, now that is one difference I was trying to keep out of it, the investment side. If someone just truly wanted to own a piece of the Wagner, either way, the person buying into a corporate owner or a card syndicate owner would end up with what they wanted, an ownership piece of the Wagner card, right? Now if they wanted a bigger piece of it, they could always buy more stock in the corporation, or more units in the card syndicate. But I don't think there'd be much difference in such an owner's eyes between owning say .000001 or .00001 of something. At that level I think such a person would/should be happy to own any nominal interest in a card such as the Wagner, no matter how small.

But if you're talking about buying in as an investment and to make money, that was not the ownership aspect I was referring to. So hopefully then you'll agree that I'm right with my original statement if you take the investor from the conversation. But if you are looking at it from purely the investment side, I agree with you, you're probably better off if you can buy in through a card syndicate.

(And I also wouldn't want to own a fractional interest either way like that in any card, just like you.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Aaahhhh, Peter, now that is one difference I was trying to keep out of it, the investment side. If someone just truly wanted to own a piece of the Wagner, either way, the person buying into a corporate owner or a card syndicate owner would end up with what they wanted, an ownership piece of the Wagner card, right? Now if they wanted a bigger piece of it, they could always buy more stock in the corporation, or more units in the card syndicate. But I don't think there'd be much difference in such an owner's eyes between owning say .000001 or .00001 of something. At that level I think such a person would/should be happy to own any nominal interest in a card such as the Wagner, no matter how small.

But if you're talking about buying in as an investment and to make money, that was not the ownership aspect I was referring to. So hopefully then you'll agree that I'm right with my original statement if you take the investor from the conversation. But if you are looking at it from purely the investment side, I agree with you, you're probably better off if you can buy in through a card syndicate.

(And I also wouldn't want to own a fractional interest either way like that in any card, just like you.)

Why would any COLLECTOR want to own a fraction of a card?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why would any COLLECTOR want to own a fraction of a card?

LOL

So are you also asking me why would any collector want to own a fractional piece of a player's game used bat or jersey?

Heck, we've got people that collect infield dirt from ballpark's for cripessake. Some people will collect anything, even if you and I won't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

So are you also asking me why would any collector want to own a fractional piece of a player's game used bat or jersey?

Heck, we've got people that collect infield dirt from ballpark's for cripessake. Some people will collect anything, even if you and I won't.

Well at least there you can possess the stupid thing and look at it, not own it in some abstract vehicle like a whatever the acronym here is. BIg difference between here son, look at this piece of Mickey Mantle's bat and here son look at my token reflecting I own a fractional share of a Mantle rookie.

[Exhibitman]

Well I know where my heart is:



but dropping 4 or 5 figures on a card is a decision that has a definite financial component for me, so I also know where my head has to be:



My wife thinks it is all



Or to paraphrase Sam Kinison: there's women and money and cards...and religion if you can fit it in.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well at least there you can possess the stupid thing and look at it, not own it in some abstract vehicle like a whatever the acronym here is. BIg difference between here son, look at this piece of Mickey Mantle's bat and here son look at my token reflecting I own a fractional share of a Mantle rookie.

Peter,

I'm with you, but you know there will always be some people that will just want to be able to say they owned at least a piece of this card or that card at one time. Look how people on this forum often say they once owned this or that card or item that is being shown or talked about. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it does show those people most likely had some pride or satisfaction in once owning a particular card or item, and can still derive some pleasure or satisfaction, and even a connection, in being able to share that ownership experience with others.

Now are the majority of people doing something like this probably out there for the money, heck yeah! But it doesn't necessarily mean they all are, is all I'm thinking.