"Baseball Cards And The Current Economy"

[moxacaine]

Sorry if this was posted already but its a good read.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/28/baseba ... tamny.html

 

[bballcardkid]

Great article.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Thanks, good read. My favorite line: "the baseball-card industry reveals how difficult it is to predict the future of anything. "

 

[Jeff D]

This statement seems flawed:

"Inflation is the process by which monetary authorities devalue their currency...one way to devalue is to overissue the currency in question. When too much money is printed, it loses value...
Much the same has occurred with baseball cards. With a growing number of companies issuing baseball cards, there's nothing particularly unique or rare about them. Lacking the rarity that attached itself to Wagner's card in the '30s, and Griffey's rookie card today, their value has plummeted."

What exactly was rare about Griffey's 89 UD rookie, which he is here referring? First of all, there were tons of them printed. Secondly, there were no less than 6 companies issuing Griffey rookies...UD, Score, Topps, Fleer, Donruss and Bowman. And that doesn't include Star and other non-mainstream issues. And there are millions of these cards out there.

Griffey's 89 UD popularity has nothing to do with "rarity." Neither in actual quantity nor comparable choices.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I think the author was comparing them to the fourty something Pujols issues, so he was saying the number of sets have helped dilute the value of more recent cards.

This statement seems flawed:

"Inflation is the process by which monetary authorities devalue their currency...one way to devalue is to overissue the currency in question. When too much money is printed, it loses value...
Much the same has occurred with baseball cards. With a growing number of companies issuing baseball cards, there's nothing particularly unique or rare about them. Lacking the rarity that attached itself to Wagner's card in the '30s, and Griffey's rookie card today, their value has plummeted."

What exactly was rare about Griffey's 89 UD rookie, which he is here referring? First of all, there were tons of them printed. Secondly, there were no less than 6 companies issuing Griffey rookies...UD, Score, Topps, Fleer, Donruss and Bowman. And that doesn't include Star and other non-mainstream issues. And there are millions of these cards out there.

Griffey's 89 UD popularity has nothing to do with "rarity." Neither in actual quantity nor comparable choices.

 

[Jeff D]

I think the author was comparing them to the fourty something Pujols issues, so he was saying the number of sets have helped dilute the value of more recent cards.

Well doesn't almost any Pujols rookie outsell the Griffey 1989 UD? Still seems flawed. And that's saying nothing of the 2001 Pujols Chrome AU RC.

I've said this before, but people's nostalgia about card collecting and their absence from it now allows them to make some pretty inaccurate statements and generalities.

 

[brumbach]

Not that impressed, it really bugs me when people with little or limited knowledge of our hobby and industry write articles like this.

 

[card-treasury]

Baseball cards are collectibles for some, investments for others.

People buy more collectibles when they have more money to spend on leisure as opposed to necessity.

People invest more money when they have more left after their bills.

In a poor economy, both groups have less.

In a good economy, both groups have more.

Baseball card prices are reflected accordingly.

Elementary.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I happen to understand your point of view, but only because I can kind of keep up to speed on things. But the author is also saying the hobby has become way too complex, which will invariably decrease value; part of this complexity comes with having too many releases.

Even nostalgia is often associated with "simpler times."

I think the author was comparing them to the fourty something Pujols issues, so he was saying the number of sets have helped dilute the value of more recent cards.

Well doesn't almost any Pujols rookie outsell the Griffey 1989 UD? Still seems flawed. And that's saying nothing of the 2001 Pujols Chrome AU RC.

I've said this before, but people's nostalgia about card collecting and their absence from it now allows them to make some pretty inaccurate statements and generalities.

 

[Jeff D]

I happen to understand your point of view, but only because I can kind of keep up to speed on things. But the author is also saying the hobby has become way too complex, which will invariably decrease value; part of this complexity comes with having too many releases.

Even nostalgia is often associated with "simpler times."

I get this, but I also don't mistake confusion or complexity with ignorance.

I remember (not really) when you could just invest in US Steel and GM and watch your money grow. No one is claiming that the current stock market conditions are because of too many choices.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Yeah, but you're thinking of cards in pure investment terms all of a sudden and not in "nostalgia" terms - there's a big difference - the hobby requires nostalgia to grow while the stock market obviously does not. There are tons of advantages and protections when investing in a real stock market, the card market has zero regulation comparatively.

Besides, rational people ordinarily aren't going to put out lots of cash for little pictures of men, especially if there are zillions of different pictures to choose from that all seem alike. People are right in preferring to remain 'ignorant' about the hobby given the complexities of the hobby...hey, after all the people here prefer to call minor leaguers (and younger) "rookies"

People need to see there are collectors in an understandable hobby and not a bunch of people simply trying to make money off one another like in a pyramid scheme.

I happen to understand your point of view, but only because I can kind of keep up to speed on things. But the author is also saying the hobby has become way too complex, which will invariably decrease value; part of this complexity comes with having too many releases.

Even nostalgia is often associated with "simpler times."

I get this, but I also don't mistake confusion or complexity with ignorance.

I remember (not really) when you could just invest in US Steel and GM and watch your money grow. No one is claiming that the current stock market conditions are because of too many choices.

 

[Jeff D]

Yeah, but you're thinking of cards in pure investment terms all of a sudden and not in "nostalgia" terms...

Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to say I'm doing, but back to my point. He also says this:

"Returning to Ken Griffey Jr., it was mentioned earlier that his rookie card is the last one possessing any substantial value due to its relatively low level of issuance in 1989. Such a scenario hasn't revealed itself again, and with good reason. According to Sports Illustrated, when Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter turned pro in the '90s, no less than eight different cards bearing his likeness were issued. When Albert Pujols entered the major leagues in 2001, there were 43."

So first of all that bolded statement is just flat out wrong, in the two ways I noted earlier. Secondly, Griffey had as many if not more issues than Jeter. And thirdly, his ridiculous bolded statement is made laughable when he tries to imply Pujols rookies are worthless, when they out sell Griffey and one of them is worth $2000-3000+ depending on the grade.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone about this. Just trying to point out how fundamentally wrong he is about some things he wrote.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Its helpful to have that SI article in hand, I understand what he's getting at even if he's a bit blurry. Also consider that Jeter technically has FYs *and* RCs - try typing in 'Jeter RC' in ebay to see the variety of results.

Yeah, but you're thinking of cards in pure investment terms all of a sudden and not in "nostalgia" terms...

Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to say I'm doing, but back to my point. He also says this:

"Returning to Ken Griffey Jr., it was mentioned earlier that his rookie card is the last one possessing any substantial value due to its relatively low level of issuance in 1989. Such a scenario hasn't revealed itself again, and with good reason. According to Sports Illustrated, when Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter turned pro in the '90s, no less than eight different cards bearing his likeness were issued."

So first of all that bolded statement is just flat out wrong, in the two ways I noted earlier. Secondly, Griffey had as many if not more issues as Jeter. And thirdly, his ridiculous bolded statement is made laughable when he tries to imply Pujols rookies are worthless, when they out sell Griffey and one of them is worth $2000-3000+ depending on the grade.

 

[Jeff D]

Its helpful to have that SI article in hand, I understand what he's getting at even if he's a bit blurry.

I read the SI article and had issues with it as well. Even posted a quick response to it on my blog.

 

[studioclint]

Yeah, but you're thinking of cards in pure investment terms all of a sudden and not in "nostalgia" terms...

Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to say I'm doing, but back to my point. He also says this:

"Returning to Ken Griffey Jr., it was mentioned earlier that his rookie card is the last one possessing any substantial value due to its relatively low level of issuance in 1989. Such a scenario hasn't revealed itself again, and with good reason. According to Sports Illustrated, when Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter turned pro in the '90s, no less than eight different cards bearing his likeness were issued. When Albert Pujols entered the major leagues in 2001, there were 43."

So first of all that bolded statement is just flat out wrong, in the two ways I noted earlier. Secondly, Griffey had as many if not more issues than Jeter. And thirdly, his ridiculous bolded statement is made laughable when he tries to imply Pujols rookies are worthless, when they out sell Griffey and one of them is worth $2000-3000+ depending on the grade.

Yeah Pujols Rookies currently sell for high prices. I will be curious to see what a base upper deck base pujols sells for when he gets to griffey's current point in his career. Remember Griffey'a 89 upper deck used to be a 100 dollar card. I do believe Pujols' chrome auto and other auto rookies will hold value when his career winds down, but I think is base issues will eventually fall in value the same as the griffey has. You have to keep in mind that a lot of the current Pujols value is based on investment. I would venture to say not many people are investing in griffey at this point.

 

[bballcardkid]

This statement seems flawed:

"Inflation is the process by which monetary authorities devalue their currency...one way to devalue is to overissue the currency in question. When too much money is printed, it loses value...
Much the same has occurred with baseball cards. With a growing number of companies issuing baseball cards, there's nothing particularly unique or rare about them. Lacking the rarity that attached itself to Wagner's card in the '30s, and Griffey's rookie card today, their value has plummeted."

What exactly was rare about Griffey's 89 UD rookie, which he is here referring? First of all, there were tons of them printed. Secondly, there were no less than 6 companies issuing Griffey rookies...UD, Score, Topps, Fleer, Donruss and Bowman. And that doesn't include Star and other non-mainstream issues. And there are millions of these cards out there.

Griffey's 89 UD popularity has nothing to do with "rarity." Neither in actual quantity nor comparable choices.

Perhaps if you could just exclude the Griffey from the paragraph, you will be happy. The article was also flawed in saying companies like Stadium Club were trying their hand in the market. We all know that Stadium Club is a product line of Topps, but we get the point that more product lines, products, inflated box prices, more jerseys, more autos, more numbered cards, more junk devalues the value of everything across the board. Yet, still some still people refuse to believe this simple economic concept.

 

[matfanofold]

Just wanted to add that soon after Griffey's 89' UD release, the demand far out wieghed the supply, so although they were mass produced, there were relatively few to be had on the open market for quite some time. I can remember going from show to show, and you would only see a few of them, but EVERY dealer had a sign asking for them and EVERYONE wanted one(or more)! It was the height of popularity for baseball cards, and despite the large volume we see today of this card, back then it was indeed elusive. I also attribute this to the ammount of unopened product that began to be busted years later, which oversaturated a dwindling market.

 

[Hwilensky]

Getting an oil change, that was truly a great read. Helped pass the time.

 

[011873]

Wow, what a total waste of time that was. Was I reading the SI article again with a few footnotes?

Again, someone with NO KNOWLEDGE of the Hobby should not write like he does.

He mentions that the 89 UD Griffey is rare and that todays cards are not. Do we need anymore proof this guy has no idea what he is talking about?

If the Griffey is so rare why does it book $40? It sould be as much as Pujols BC :lol:

All kidding aside, what does this article add compared to the SI? Nothing, it will just send another negative image to non collectors.

You cant compare, in any way, todays cards to cards of even a decade ago, let alone 20 years ago.

GARBAGE ARTICLE AT ITS FINEST