Question a non-collector friend asked me that I've been wondering

[VandyDan]

Why is the price difference between auto and non-auto'd superfractors so significant? I've seen it be anywhere between 2-4x the selling price. Now, I get why they'd be more desirable than red-border 1/1s, for example.

But is it just that the card is signed? And that can mean a difference in value of hundreds of dollars? I had no good answer for him besides "its the best card, so folks just pay more". But he was ultimately unsatisfied with the notion that a super auto can go for $600, a non auto super for $250 and a base auto of the same card be $5, and the autograph itself being why the auto super goes for so much more.

 

[Ghumbs]

It's market driven, and your answer is correct. Look at graded vintage cards and you'll run into the same thing. Basically, to have the best carries a huge premium.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Why it is it seemingly so out of proportion? Its the biggest reason is the same as anything else - *investors* want it to be that way.

When you think about it, someone could generally always get the non-auto'd card autographed at a later time.

 

[Ghumbs]

Why it is it seemingly so out of proportion? Its the biggest reason is the same as anything else - *investors* want it to be that way.

This idea only stands up if collectors are willing to pay it.

 

[rum151man]

because the non auto super is 2nd best, and the superfractor auto is #1 and the guy with the money to spend wants to be #1

 

[Logan2500]

because the non auto super is 2nd best, and the superfractor auto is #1 and the guy with the money to spend wants to be #1

Agreed, all about bragging rights and being able to say I have the autographed super refractor.

 

[D-Lite]

Wouldn't anything autographed be more expensive? Base auto vs base non-auto, autographed picture vs non-auto, etc. Not to sound like an ass, but it's pretty obvious that something the famous guy touched and signed is going to be worth more than the same thing that wasn't.

 

[predatorkj]

Wouldn't anything autographed be more expensive? Base auto vs base non-auto, autographed picture vs non-auto, etc. Not to sound like an ass, but it's pretty obvious that something the famous guy touched and signed is going to be worth more than the same thing that wasn't.

It seems there is sort of a shaky formula for what an auto adds to a card. From base non-auto'd to base auto, from base auto to parallel auto and so forth. Where it goes to hell is on cards numbered 5 or less. It seems to be all over the board. I believe it really is about spearing that "big fish" and having bragging rights.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

This idea only stands up if collectors are willing to pay it.

Yes, this is very true, but only after all the investors have left.

 

[Krom]

Why it is it seemingly so out of proportion? Its the biggest reason is the same as anything else - *investors* want it to be that way.

When you think about it, someone could generally always get the non-auto'd card autographed at a later time.

Of course they could, but in this instance no they can't. You can not get the un autoed signed and have "the" signed super. The auto will take away from the card and it will never be a pack pulled autograph.

You seem SO anti investor while at the same time having 1/1s in yur sig. Why not good old base cards?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Why do we pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for kids who have never played A ball, yet spend a fraction of that on hall of famers?

There are a lot of crazy aspects to this hobby that make no sense.

 

[Ghumbs]

Yes, this is very true, but only after all the investors have left.

Then I say good for the investor.

 

[Pinbreaker]

I have sold to a collector down in San Francisco who likes to get both versions of a Superfractor if possible..

From time to time I will look to see who he is buying as I know if I pull him, I can sell it to him very easily..

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Of course they could, but in this instance no they can't. You can not get the un autoed signed and have "the" signed super. The auto will take away from the card and it will never be a pack pulled autograph.

You seem SO anti investor while at the same time having 1/1s in yur sig. Why not good old base cards?

Stating things the way they are isn't pro or anti either stance... its not anti-investor to say that investors artificially prop up the value of items for a period of time. We all know cost naturally decreases when investors leave of course.

In many cases people can certainly add an auto to a super. But its pro-investor to think that there'd be a big difference between an auto 1/1 pulled out of the pack and a non auto 1/1 pulled out of a pack that has an IP auto added later on. Frankly for the majority of true collectors condition doesn't matter on 1/1 cards - however this is an investor hang-up.

How often do people have cards in their sigs that *everyone* (er, should I say collectors) already possesses?

 

[hive17]

Stating things the way they are isn't pro or anti either stance... its not anti-investor to say that investors artificially prop up the value of items for a period of time. We all know cost naturally decreases when investors leave of course.

In many cases people can certainly add an auto to a super. But its pro-investor to think that there'd be a big difference between an auto 1/1 pulled out of the pack and a non auto 1/1 pulled out of a pack that has an IP auto added later on. Frankly for the majority of true collectors condition doesn't matter on 1/1 cards - however this is an investor hang-up.

How often do people have cards in their sigs that *everyone* (er, should I say collectors) already possesses?

Your obvious distatse for anything prospect-related makes anything you have to say on the topic seem either jaded or spiteful. You may not even mean it that way, but it still comes off that way every time you weigh in on the topic.

Investors cannot "prop up" the price of a card any more than what the highest bidder was ever going to pay. You seem to forget (or refuse to acknowledge) that when prices sky-rocket, it's not the investors/prospectors who pay, it's the fanbase surfing eBay while watching Sports Center or BBTN.

 

[predatorkj]

Your obvious distatse for anything prospect-related makes anything you have to say on the topic seem either jaded or spiteful. You may not even mean it that way, but it still comes off that way every time you weigh in on the topic.

Investors cannot "prop up" the price of a card any more than what the highest bidder was ever going to pay. You seem to forget (or refuse to acknowledge) that when prices sky-rocket, it's not the investors/prospectors who pay, it's the fanbase surfing eBay while watching Sports Center or BBTN.

So if you pull low numbered auto parallels of a new prospect from a freshly released bowman product, who is setting the price really? It's not the buyers. You'll stick them up on eBay with an insane BIN and just let them sit until someone stupidly hits the BIN or you decide to really try to move it.

A lot of this hobby does seem investment related. But investors usually tend to stick to volatile stuff and not the run of the mill stuff. Just like you guys sell when a guy is hot, I buy when they cool down. The people buying when a player is hot unless they get a great deal, are usually uneducated.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Your obvious distatse for anything prospect-related makes anything you have to say on the topic seem either jaded or spiteful. You may not even mean it that way, but it still comes off that way every time you weigh in on the topic.

Investors cannot "prop up" the price of a card any more than what the highest bidder was ever going to pay. You seem to forget (or refuse to acknowledge) that when prices sky-rocket, it's not the investors/prospectors who pay, it's the fanbase surfing eBay while watching Sports Center or BBTN.

No, not all auto'd 1/1s are of prospects... you're wearing blinders here.

Further selling isn't a big part of the hobby for me as it is for you, so I don't have the selling/investor bias.

With that said, you really don't understand what it means for investors to prop up a market, do you?

 

[hive17]

No, not all auto'd 1/1s are of prospects... you're wearing blinders here.

Further selling isn't a big part of the hobby for me as it is for you, so I don't have the selling/investor bias.

With that said, you really don't understand what it means for investors to prop up a market, do you?

I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to a Bowman-type situation. So you have your caveat, but it doesn't really apply here (unless the OP wants to correct me).

But to your last assertion: are you saying investors keep buying while the price is high so they can get out when the price it high? You're right, I'm not following your point. The point is that a superfractor (auto'd or not) will be worth more than all the other versions of said card (and the auto is worth more than the non, since auto'd cards a premium in this hobby when all other things are equal). I guess I fail to see the point you're trying to make. It seems to me like you are simply saying that superfractors are worth more because *investors* want it that way. But all things again being equal, the rarest card will be the least supplied and the most demanded, thus increasing price. Right? There isn't some "investor/prospector" collusion that goes on. It's just the way supply and demand works.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to a Bowman-type situation. So you have your caveat, but it doesn't really apply here (unless the OP wants to correct me).

But to your last assertion: are you saying investors keep buying while the price is high so they can get out when the price it high? You're right, I'm not following your point. The point is that a superfractor (auto'd or not) will be worth more than all the other versions of said card (and the auto is worth more than the non, since auto'd cards a premium in this hobby when all other things are equal). I guess I fail to see the point you're trying to make. It seems to me like you are simply saying that superfractors are worth more because *investors* want it that way. But all things again being equal, the rarest card will be the least supplied and the most demanded, thus increasing price. Right? There isn't some "investor/prospector" collusion that goes on. It's just the way supply and demand works.

So you're applying this to a strictly Bowman prospect situation (presumably because this is your focus), where I'm looking at all 1/1s super autos. OP doesn't say but it only seems to matter to you.

Investors prop the price on many things, not just baseball cards. If you'd like to find more information about it or about a related topic "investment bubbles" LOL, there's plenty info to find through google.

 

[predatorkj]

I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to a Bowman-type situation. So you have your caveat, but it doesn't really apply here (unless the OP wants to correct me).

But to your last assertion: are you saying investors keep buying while the price is high so they can get out when the price it high? You're right, I'm not following your point. The point is that a superfractor (auto'd or not) will be worth more than all the other versions of said card (and the auto is worth more than the non, since auto'd cards a premium in this hobby when all other things are equal). I guess I fail to see the point you're trying to make. It seems to me like you are simply saying that superfractors are worth more because *investors* want it that way. But all things again being equal, the rarest card will be the least supplied and the most demanded, thus increasing price. Right? There isn't some "investor/prospector" collusion that goes on. It's just the way supply and demand works.

Supply and demand work a lot better on things of mass production as far as determining a price. When there is only a small number of something and most people who own said item(s) are selling...who's really setting the market? The investors or the buyers?