Is collecting modern cards a sickness?

[WillBBC]

Topps Opening Day is one, and Topps Series 1 isn't that much more expensive. 55-60 bucks per box isn't exactly cheap but you get a nice box of cards (350+) for a not a whole lot of money plus a bunch of interesting inserts/parallels/you name it.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Neal

Why is it that players from the 50s on down are considered the "true icons" of the sport? The game was much different then, and many greats have played since they hung up their cleats. How would a hitter like George Brett do back in the days before Jackie? How would Ruth do today? Would the Mick have been on TMZ?

Thus goes the great sports debate .....

I am not taking anything away from Ruth, Aaron or Mantle btw. These guys were dominant, dynamic ball players. A long time ago ....

Neal, some would say that since MLB now draws its athletes from a significantly larger total population, the standard deviation reflecting talent has grown much smaller--i.e., the median player has so much talent that it is very hard for anyone to dominate the way that those discussed above did. I personally do not subscribe to this theory for the reason that other major sports have grown in popularity exponentially--football, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer--and have consequently drawn a lot of talent away from baseball. I wouldn't blame you, however, for taking the opposite approach. Under it, Mike Trout might well actually be as good as Mantle was (having seen him play in his later prime in the early '60's, however, my own opinion is to the contrary), but won't be able to demonstrate it if that theory is true--he'd have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER to even dominate to the same degree. And domination is where iconic status comes from.

Best regards,

Larry

[Neal]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Neal, some would say that since MLB now draws its athletes from a significantly larger total population, the standard deviation reflecting talent has grown much smaller--i.e., the median player has so much talent that it is very hard for anyone to dominate the way that those discussed above did. I personally do not subscribe to this theory for the reason that other major sports have grown in popularity exponentially--football, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer--and have consequently drawn a lot of talent away from baseball. I wouldn't blame you, however, for taking the opposite approach. Under it, Mike Trout might well actually be as good as Mantle was (having seen him play in his later prime in the early '60's, however, my own opinion is to the contrary), but won't be able to demonstrate it if that theory is true--he'd have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER to even dominate to the same degree. And domination is where iconic status comes from.

Best regards,

Larry

Nice post, Larry. I agree with some of it. A few things .... first, yes, MLB draws from a larger pop. Included in that larger pool are nations and races that MLB never considered. Mantle had some nice seasons, but never dominated. Ruth DOMINATED. He was the only baseball player who has, imo. Mantle had a few powerhouse years, and a fantastic HOF career. Ruth was the only one. Not taking anything away from Mantle btw


Bottom line is that as much as Mantle and Ruth, among others, are considered "iconic" (and I would agree with that), there are a few others like Griffey, Pujols, and quite possible, Mike Trout, who should be considered "worthy" of being considered when the same ole list of icons is repeated over and over.

Good stuff

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are millions of Trout cards. Ben is right, even if he lives up to his potential which is far from certain, the massive supply is going to keep prices down. Any individual issue that doesn't have a lot of copies is just manufactured scarcity which is never a recipe for value. Keep your eye on the big picture.

I was down in South Jersey a few months ago and decided to look up and see if there was a card store in the area. Yep, found one. Nothing vintage but they had at least three showcases, multi level, full of nothing but shiny Trout cards. And then boxes of Trout cards. Of course he comes from down there. But it was absurd how many variations of shiny cards there actually was. I'll go out on a limb and say (guess) that they may already be more Mike Trout cards than any player who has ever lived.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I was down in South Jersey a few months ago and decided to look up and see if there was a card store in the area. Yep, found one. Nothing vintage but they had at least three showcases, multi level, full of nothing but shiny Trout cards. And then boxes of Trout cards. Of course he comes from down there. But it was absurd how many variations of shiny cards there actually was. I'll go out on a limb and say (guess) that they may already be more Mike Trout cards than any player who has ever lived.

LOL, but I would guess Jeter and Griffey have him beat .... for now

I would never want to collect every Mike Trout card. There are, however, 5 or 6 cards from 2009-2011 that I would like to own and I believe have room to grow. The 2009 Bowman Sterling is one of them. Limited run, expensive pack, and autographed. The 2011 Finest X-Fractor is another. The 2011 Bowman Chrome Refractor w/auto has hit the ceiling, imo. Plus, I really could never spend 2-4K on a Mike Trout card.

[VoodooChild]

I have limited experience with modern, but from what I've noticed, sticker autographs like the 2009 Sterling are not in as high of demand and may not be the best long term investment.

[KMayUSA6060]

No way in Hell will Trout cards EVER hold the long term investment value that Aaron/Mantle/Ruth/Cobb/etc., have.

I have a crap-ton of modern cards, probably peanuts compared to many, but still thousands of modern cards. I enjoy collecting them because it's what I grew up doing. I'll go back through every once in a while and reminisce. It's fun and nostalgic for me. My favorite player of all time is Jim Thome. I have hundreds of his cards. I would love to collect as many Thome cards as possible, but get discouraged when I remember that there are around 9000 different Jim Thome cards. 9000! The guy is #7 on the HR list, and top 5 if you take out Bonds and ARoid for juicing. He's a 1st ballot HoFer next year, and his cards will continue to go up in value for the time being. How is anyone supposed to put together a master Thome set with over 9000 possible cards that include 1/1s and crap like that?

Part of why vintage cards hold their value is the ability to collect the sets. 1952 Topps, while aesthetically pleasing, holds its value because you can put together the set (might have to sell a kidney for the Mantle, though), but know that it's still a rarer feat to put together the set or own the cards due to their lower print run. Today's sets are a joke. The value of the sets is manufactured with a false bottom.

I am a big proponent of collecting what you love. But at some point you also have to remember there is monetary value here. That monetary value is a bonus as to why I collect more vintage/pre-war now. Aside from the historical significance, I know that if an emergency situation were to occur and I were to need money, I could flip my collection very quickly for cold hard cash. It's very liquid, and will always be in demand. I'm not saying collect strictly based on value, but if you already have some of the cornerstone pieces of the hobby, don't flip them for potential fools gold. Find a different way to fund your Trout collection.