Thoughts on Leaf adding value with more autographs (long)

[Adamsince1981]

1box, pulled Bromberg...

 

[hail2thevictors]

While I understand what you are saying, I don't think there has to subsequent Valaint or Draft releases in order for the product to maintain value. Razor is the best example-it was a one year deal-yet the players who have produced have made the people who invested in them very happy. Eric Hosmer, Lawrie, etc. If we are talking value here, it is just like Bowman Chrome, Elite, and anything-the value lies in the player.

I'm not sure I follow? Bringing up less than a handful of players as an example only illustrates the point i'm making. If you are trying to compete in the market and everyone basically has the same players, the way to carve out your niche is to continue making product. 3 or 4 players means you barely hit the mark but longevitiy makes the whole set keep its value somewhat. Elite auto's compete with their chrome counterparts because the brand is legit now. If it was a one or two year thing and went away, the only value would be in the players only in the one set and i'm pretty sure BG wants a long term product that puts his brand in the mix.

I just simply can't agree with you here. I respect what you are saying, but value of Elite autos has nothing to do with previous and future Elite releases IMO-it has to do with the player. If Elite's value is because it is a legit brand, why are there so many autos that can't sell for $0.99? I think it has been proven over and over that the player is what determines the value of a card. Now I will grant you this-the buy in may be higher for an Elite auto, or for a Chrome auto-but what I'm talking about is value. Cards will increase in value based on the player, not the brand.

With regard to Razor, I gave 2 of the best examples. There are more, of course-it's not like Hosmer and Lawrie were the only 2 guys from that set to make people money. One thing with Razor: the 2008 class hasn't exactly panned out, so that doesn't help. The overall point I'm making is that when the company chooses the right player, there is plenty of value in that card-regardless of the brand name of the card.

 

[Topnotchsy]

The big thing for me is that with 10 autos, even if at lower value at the moment, gives you a much better chance to make $ in the long run, assuming you are breaking wax and not singles. With Chrome, if you break say a case, you will usually get 9 or 10 different chrome autos, and likely you will need 1 of those guys to really make a splash to see any significant value increase. With Valiant, you are getting 10x the autos, so while the price increase might be smaller if a guy does hit, you are much more likely to have multiple guys hit. Assuming the Leaf brand maintains it's stability and continues to produce baseball products, I think the multiple autographs/box is a better strategy for wax busters, similar to the EEE

I'm definitely with you on the value per pack/box. 10 autographs provides tremendous value at the moment. That said, I feel that it may prevent the brand from developing as it could and hurt the long term value potential.

I don't think you are using economics to form your opinion.

I think you are evaluating the manner in which these autographs are being introduced in to the marketplace.

1. The same number of autos released to fewer consumers = a positive for those consumers.
2. The supply of singles is unchanged.
3. An argument could be made that short term demand for prospect and Ichiro auto's is greater due to some collectors (not all who missed out are collectors) missing a chance to pull the players they were looking for.
4. The future supply was unchanged, while future demand is unknown.

I don't see where Leaf hurt their customers economically.

Basically, you are saying future demand could be harmed due to the product having a less than traditional method of release as far as the baseball card world is concerned. If so, I understand that point, but I don't think it's an economics issue. It's a simple brand image issue that Leaf will have to address and others have stated what it will take.

My point was that basic economic models do not tell the story in this case, because economics assumes that the utility of each unit is independent. If that was so, whether there are 10 auto's per box or 8, people would view each individual one the same way. In reality though, that is not always the case and I do not believe it is the case here.

I believe that with Variant people are going to give it a chance, but are also waiting to see how the market reacts to decide where how they view it. Having so many auto's per pack/box means that (certainly initially) the prices will be quite low, and there is a risk that people will look at the closing prices for listings and view it as a second class product because the cards sell for so low, despite them being quality cards and having low print runs. In the long run it is possible that these cards will offer fabulous ROI because of the low buy-in point, but there is also a chance that the time that the players get really hot, people will have already dismissed the product.

I think it is important to consider how factors like price psychology play a role and not underestimate how malleable are opinions are when it comes to a new product.

I wouldn't change a single thing about Valiant or Metal. If anything, just that the release dates were too close.

Let's get real for a second, if "hard to pull" equaled $$$, then these cards would be worth nothing, and by the same token a Dave Bromberg 2011 BC Auto would easily be a $15 to $20 card because to pull any 1 chrome auto you'd need to open more than 3 cases of BC.

That's just not how this works. Dave Bromberg is worth .99 and the difficulty in hitting one isn't helping the price.

There are lots of things that go into value: Brand Name, History, Demand, Player Selection, Rarity, Availability, Quality.

Let's look at Leaf. We've got decent Brand recognition, no history for Metal or Valiant, modest but somewhat surprising demand, great player selection, extremely nice rarity, plenty of short-term availability, unbelievably excellent quality.

Let's look at Bowman. Brand Recognition is Topps (pun intended), Over a decade of history (depending upon how you look at it), huge demand, iffy player selection, abundantly available, not rare, plenty of short-term availability, excellent quality.

Now look at it. Which one of those 2 has a better long term possibility for investment? Personally, I think it's Leaf. Here's why: the combination of rarity and short-term high availability is pushing prices down. To me, just wait out the wave and you're going to see prices rise and not just based upon player performance, but let's just say that Manny Banuelos for example is a solid player and he'll be in the minors for a while (probably not). During his journey to the majors people looking for his cards will have a plethora of BC autos to pick up, but ultimately over time, the true rarity of Metal and Valiant will come out and they will be harder to find and therefore likely more valuable.

Long post, but that's my take. In fairness I feel burnt by Topps/Bowman right now and Leaf has done nothing but treat me right. Maybe I'm missing something, but if I were a singles buyer, I'd be buying Metal and Valiant while I had the chance due to this temporary flooding of the market.

I definitely hear your perspective, and for a buyer of singles it may be a great opportunity, but I think that if those who rip wax are disappointed it could develop into a negative perspective on the product, which could wind up being adopted by the market. Obviously Leaf has work to do before it will be competing with Bowman Chrome head to head, but I think it might be a consideration.

Just to make sure it is absolutely clear, I truly hope that the product is a success and I have purchased two boxes (the only product I have bought in a long time.) I just think the ideas are worth considering.

 

[Adamsince1981]

As I stated earlier, you could actually make an argument that demand for singles is higher due to some "missing out on busting" the product.

Basically, I think it would be tough to prove that closing prices have been effected by a move that didn't change the print run.

 

[Wes]

Bowman Sterling is a much better comp for Leaf Valiant and Metal.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

While I understand what you are saying, I don't think there has to subsequent Valaint or Draft releases in order for the product to maintain value. Razor is the best example...

Another great example is...1998 Crusades, the very product/set Valiant is modeled after. Crusades have generally maintained value without having subsequent releases.

However Crusades prices are generally maintained by both player and set collectors and not investors per se, so any future "brand loyalty" dynamic may be different with Valiant than with Crusades as investors are generally more fickle over time with their holdings than collectors.

 

[Wes]

While I understand what you are saying, I don't think there has to subsequent Valaint or Draft releases in order for the product to maintain value. Razor is the best example...

Another great example is...1998 Crusades, the very product/set Valiant is modeled after. Crusades have generally maintained value without having subsequent releases.

However Crusades prices are generally maintained by both player and set collectors and not investors per se, so any future "brand loyalty" dynamic may be different with Valiant than with Crusades as investors are generally more fickle over time with their holdings than collectors.

Subsequent releases will be huge for this brand.

 

[bballcardkid]

Bowman Sterling is a much better comp for Leaf Valiant and Metal.

That's the first thing that came to mind for me, and I think this might be where the OP is going with this thread, but I still think that Sterling is a terrible example to use because of the drastic difference in supply of autographs. It's almost as if the OP is saying that if a product is bogged down at release (by a huge influx of autographs for example) that it will be doomed forever, at least that's how I interpret it and I disagree.

I completely agree with James54211. Over the long run, people will forget how many autographs were offered per box "X" years ago. The only thing that will matter will be the quantity of autographs available of that particular player at that corresponding time point. The 2 reasons why Bowman Sterling is subordinate to BC is because of history, and two, on card autographs.

I also don't see how Leaf would be able to claim differentiation if they offered a measily 2-3 autographs per box at a triple figure price point. That's insane. I know the OP didn't want this to get twisted that way, but you can't ignore it. To my knowledge, no prospect product has ever remained viable with that type of model. If you revise that down to a guaranteed 4 autographs per box priced equivalently to to Elite, I might buy that argument, but I think Leaf would make a lot more enemies offering 3 potential no name autographs for a benjamin than doing what they are doing right now, which seems to work.

 

[BowmanChromeAddict]

Bowman Sterling is a much better comp for Leaf Valiant and Metal.

Sorry Wes, but I don't see that comp at all. The PR of Sterling is still WAY higher than Valiant and Metal combined. On Card v. Sticker. Unlicensed v. Licensed. No base cards v. Base cards. The only part of the comp that makes sense is just that each box yields a lot of autos.

 

[James52411]

The proper comparison is USA baseball which has a similar price point and number of autographs.

 

[hail2thevictors]

The proper comparison is USA baseball which has a similar price point and number of autographs.

The closest is Elite IMO. Airbrushed unis, not licensed, etc-fair amount of autos.

However, I don't feel like there is a close comparison, being that Valiant has 10 autos per box and no base.

 

[masonphillip]

The proper comparison is USA baseball which has a similar price point and number of autographs.

and some of the ugliest trapped autos in history...yeaaaa, no.

While I think Top raises some valid points economics always functions on supply and demand. In this case, there is relatively low supply and what's really being debated is the demand curve and the psychological affect on that particular demand curve.

 

[Wes]

Bowman Sterling is a much better comp for Leaf Valiant and Metal.

Sorry Wes, but I don't see that comp at all. The PR of Sterling is still WAY higher than Valiant and Metal combined. On Card v. Sticker. Unlicensed v. Licensed. No base cards v. Base cards. The only part of the comp that makes sense is just that each box yields a lot of autos.

If you look at consumer reception, I'd say the comp is valid. Base autos from those sets are going to end up selling comparably. I've seen the 60% of BC cost for base autos as a floated number, and that seems about right to me. I think it's close. Blue /99's in Valiant and /99 Prismatics in Metal are comparable to Sterling Refs as well.

 

[James52411]

Bowman Sterling is a much better comp for Leaf Valiant and Metal.

Sorry Wes, but I don't see that comp at all. The PR of Sterling is still WAY higher than Valiant and Metal combined. On Card v. Sticker. Unlicensed v. Licensed. No base cards v. Base cards. The only part of the comp that makes sense is just that each box yields a lot of autos.

If you look at consumer reception, I'd say the comp is valid. Base autos from those sets are going to end up selling comparably. I've seen the 60% of BC cost for base autos as a floated number, and that seems about right to me. I think it's close. Blue /99's in Valiant and /99 Prismatics in Metal are comparable to Sterling Refs as well.

I agree that Elite is really the proper comparison for the singles. The players are not in MLB uniforms, there is overlap between the subjects autographing for Bowman Chrome in a given year, and there are some players who don't appear in Chrome the same year. I think USA is comparable as a pack-buying experience. You basically drop $80-$100 for a stack of autographs of prospects.

I've been very curious about whether the Valiant cards are as nice as the old crusades, which I think will have a bearing on future demand and ultimately value. It is both design and quality that makes Crusades so popular. The card stock is thick but not too thick. The refractor effect and surface are very nice. The clarity of the printing is excellent. The etching nicely augments the card. For better or worse, when you copy that design you invite comparisons. If Valiant is just as nice in all these regards, I think it will help these cards a bit in the future. Quality is going to be all the more important given that this is an unlicensed product. Right off the bat, Valiant will be viewed as a second tier product for that reason, similar to Elite. If the Valiant cards fall short when compared to the old Crusades this problem will be exacerbated, as the person who is not a "prospector" will just view them as an inferior copy of an iconic set and will only buy them if they want all that player's first autograph issues.

One last point is that for the last few years, we've had two sets for non-Chrome prospect "rookie" autographs: USA and Elite. Now we have four, with two having the same checklist. I cannot help but think that this additional supply is going to harm value with regard to players who appear in multiple sets.