26-year-old collector buys 1952 Hank Aaron Indy Clowns postcard for $275,000

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by jd9cards

i would pose this question for the group, would you rather own a 1954 topps hank aaron in a psa 9 for ~$400k+ or the postcard i bought?

Psa 9 (considering it's not trimmed!)

[gonefishin]

Jonah, a very big congratulations to you! I'm glad to read that it is something you covet.

Please don't let some of the negative comments some are making about a specific generation bother you or categorize you in any way. Hell, I bet 99% envy your purchase!

Sounds like you have made some very sound decisions in the past and the experiences you've had will guide you in the future.

Keep on collecting!

[bk400]

Originally Posted by jd9cards

Hi, I am the owner of the 1952 Hank Aaron Indianapolis Clowns Postcard being discussed in this thread.

I think it is one of the best cards in the hobby. There has been a lot of conversation about the 'young' collectors interest in vintage. As I said in the video, I don't see vintage ever dying. The legends of the game will alway be the legends of the game, and we buy cardboard to connect ourselves to the history of the person and the history of baseball.

I collected vintage from a young age. I was 10-12 buying 1958 Topps All Stars on eBay for $20 a piece years ago. Hank Aaron has always been my #1 player to collect. My first 'big' purchase was of a 1955 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6 for $400. I used a whole paycheck from a high school job to buy that one.

After college, I sold off every card I owned to buy just one. A 1954 Topps Hank Aaron rookie PSA 6 for $17k.

It seems to be only fitting that I did the same thing for the best Hank Aaron card in the world outside of the 2 PSA 10 rookies, albeit for a lot more than $17k.

I would pose this question for the group, would you rather own a 1954 Topps Hank Aaron in a PSA 9 for ~$400k+ or the Postcard I bought?

Obviously I chose the postcard, but to get into my reasons: There are currently 25 PSA 9 Hank Aaron Topps rookies. They sell around one time every 1-2 years. The difficult part is not finding one for sale, it is having $400k to spend on a baseball card.

I prefer buying cards which are most importantly hard to find. Someone can have all the money in the world, but if the 2 people who own this postcard aren't selling then they can never buy it.

For me, the postcard, without a doubt. The historical significance of it being Aaron's earliest "card" (broadly defined) and the provenance of having been owned for a lifetime by the man who discovered him. Even if other copies are discovered, the one you have is unique. Hard to say the same thing about a 1954 PSA 9, noting the strong arguments made by others about condition scarcity and real scarcity.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have a 27-year-old child so i have hope for the future. Her friends are more mature, more realistic, and more concerned with the healing of the world than my generation ever was at their age.

But I digress...

Jonah, nice of you to drop in and comment. I wholeheartedly agree with your approach. I've written a pile on absolute rarity versus condition rarity, manufactured rarity, etc. I also gravitate towards having something that very few others have. I'd rather be a gatekeeper than a pit stop. Here's a tough 1982 Aaron card from Korea, since you are an Aaron collector; thought you might enjoy it:

Kick ass card. I've been looking for this card for a long time. I found one of his other relatively obscure ones -- the 1977 Calbee with Sadaharu Oh -- but this 1982 remains very elusive.

[jd9cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have a 27-year-old child so i have hope for the future. Her friends are more mature, more realistic, and more concerned with the healing of the world than my generation ever was at their age.

But I digress...

Jonah, nice of you to drop in and comment. I wholeheartedly agree with your approach. I've written a pile on absolute rarity versus condition rarity, manufactured rarity, etc. I also gravitate towards having something that very few others have. I'd rather be a gatekeeper than a pit stop. Here's a tough 1982 Aaron card from Korea, since you are an Aaron collector; thought you might enjoy it:

Great card, I have definitely never seen this before!

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Wow, who's a pompous self-worshiper? That condescending piece of garbage above would indicate it's not who you think it is.

Your anecdote still ignores that those kids who are collecting modern cards now, a large percentage will one day collect vintage. The fact that you are hung up on what they collect now shows you just aren't getting it. Sport.

Do you even know what you're arguing, Counselor? I STARTED this thread about YOUNG PEOPLE COLLECTING VINTAGE, saying, "There will ALWAYS be people who love and value the history," celebrating Jonah's incredible purchase.

You came in to be Mr. Contrarian, actually arguing against things NO ONE was saying. NO ONE was attacking younger generations or saying they'd never buy vintage. Do better discovery.

[jd9cards]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

To the question at hand, choice between a 1:2 ’52 IC Aaron pre-rookie, or a 1:25 PSA 9 ’54 Topps Aaron rookie…there are a couple of ways to look it: Long-term investment or PC, positives and negatives.

’52 IC Aaron pre-rookie:
Positive: Negotiating power-With the owner effectively controlling 50% of the market and retaining approximately 50% of the market cap, they can set future auction reserve and move the market inorganically to the desired minimum exit price. Thus, the sky’s the limit…$400K(ish) is possible to match the established market of the PSA 9 ’54 Topps Aaron rookie. If current buyer paid up about 40% in 1 year ($199K to $275K), perhaps another buyer would pay up 40% next to $385K? However, given current buyer is specifically an Aaron collector and lives in Atlanta, there’s a specific xfactor of nostalgic and regional connection that could be driving individual demand. There’s significant upside from an investment standpoint, given possible ROI.
Negative: Price volatility-The case study of the Baltimore News Ruth pre-rookie proved just because one person pays up for a super scarce card, doesn’t guarantee the next won’t actually pay less. This effectively created a ‘down round’ as it were. However, that may have been a function of timing, marketing opportunity, and/or pricing strategy. There’s a significant upside from a PC perspective, given ROI wouldn’t matter if the card’s held in perpetuity.

’54 Topps Aaron rookie:
Positive: Mature market-There’s a well established market for the PSA 9, created by hundreds of transactions over many decades, moving the price organically up to $400K. Additionally, there are an unknown number of PSA 8 owners whom could be high potential bidders and acquirers of the PSA 9 as an upgrade of the PSA 8 version they already have invested in and committed to. However, 1:25 is less appealing than 1:2. There’s significant upside from an investment standpoint, given the protective moat created by a well established market.
Negative: Alternative investment-The elephant in the room is that a $400K price point can buy a collector pretty much any card they want. So at this level, it’s not ’54 Topps Aaron vs. ’52 IC Aaron, but Aaron’s vs. ’50 Toleteros Gibson vs. ’52 Topps Mantle vs. ’14 CJ Joe Jackson, and on and on. I’m a fractional CFO and financial modeling consultant, and advise companies through raising millions in investment capital, reminding CEO’s that VCs and PE firms don’t have a choice between equity in their company vs. sitting on their capital, but rather their company vs. hundreds of other investment options (including pretty much a satisfaction guarantee in vintage baseball cards!). There’s a significant upside from a PC perspective, given this card is the rookie of one of the game’s most influential and transcending players.

So the answer, classically is, it depends…

This is a very 'consultant' answer. I am also in consulting lol. But you didn't answer the question. Which would you prefer?

I appreciate the points you raised about the strengths and weaknesses of each option. The Baltimore News Ruth is actually a fascinating comparison to the Aaron. Both pieces fall outside the strict definition of a “card,” and both are scarce pre-rookies. But one thing that still stands out to me is the population and valuation gap: Aaron sits at 2 known copies versus roughly 10 for the Ruth, and a ~$275K valuation versus a ~$4M card even after shedding $3M on its most recent sale.

That puts the implied market cap for the Ruth around $40M and the Aaron around $500K. To me, that discrepancy feels difficult to justify. Should Ruth really trade at an 80x multiplier? I’m not arguing the Aaron should be worth anywhere near half of Ruth’s market cap, but I do believe there’s meaningful room for growth. And yes—I fully admit my bias.

A similar comparison can be done with the 1952 Indianapolis Clowns Aaron and the 1954 Topps Aaron PSA 9 from a market cap and relative value perspective. I think at minimum the PSA 9 Aaron and the Postcard should be worth the same amount

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'd much rather own the postcard. Not a fan of flip driven values, sustainable or not. Actually I'd rather own the Gibson, the stupidest thing I ever did in the hobby was not buy one when I could have back in the day.

[Al C.risafulli]

The postcard is a monster card. Congrats to anyone fortunate enough to latch onto one.

I prefer rarity over anything else, but that's just me. Nothing at all wrong with a PSA 9 Aaron rookie. Nothing at all wrong with a PSA 2 Aaron rookie. Nothing at all wrong with a PSA 2 1975 Topps Aaron. Collect what you like, and what your budget will allow. Yes, there's an investment component to this, but it's a hobby, and you can be in it - and passionate about it - with any level of budget.

I also agree with Scott that there are tons of new vintage collectors. We get deluged with new bidder registrations every auction, new names buying prewar cards at every level of scarcity and value, each and every auction. I've met a lot of these folks at the National and there are a lot of people I'd call "young."

Then again, every year more and more people are younger than me.

-Al