Thank you so much for including hockey in this experiment - most of the other big multisport shows just ignore hockey. Really appreciate it. There definitely are die hard hockey card fans out here.
Thank you for doing this. As far as I know, you are one of very few RUclipsrs producing this kind of toughtful hobby content, as opposed to PSA reveals, or “look at the deal I got at a garage sale.” Not that I don’t also enjoy that other content, it’s just that what you produce is so rare. I do think that this was the only possible outcome because it is inevitable that not all prospects at any given moment in time will succeed. That’s why they are in the “prospect” group. If you do this experiment again next year, the “veterans” group could be exactly the same cards, but the prospects have to be entirely different, and that’s by definition. There never has and never will be a group of prospects from any given month who all make the Hall of Fame in their respective sports. That being said, I am a bit surprised the truth was revealed in only 3 months.
This is a really great video. Thank you for doing the research and putting it all together in a video for all of us to see. The results are what I would have expected, but there’s so many people who will still buy the new rookies and expect their prices to go up. It’s definitely best to just wait a few years and buy up their rookie cards once they’ve been in the league for 7-10 years.
Another great video, Chris. The biggest takeaway I'm getting right now across baseball card RUclips is if you buy what you like, you'll be ok. If you buy what the hobby says you should like, you're not gonna have a good time.
I think the big difference is that base cards have value in vintage but they don’t in modern. The base in established players are not going see the same price gain but key parallels or inserts could definitely outpace some vintage.
Amazing analysis. Would be interesting if you did this same analysis with a much bigger budget and picked only PSA 10s to control for price changes between lower grades and or values between grading companies. I noticed the vintage is lower grades (due to budget) and prospects were a lot of PSA 10s.
I suppose it depends on the cards but I don’t think doing a consistent PSA 10 is the way to go, particularly for vintage. You want a card that trades frequently and has a readily established market. Some vintage PSA 10s trade so infrequently it’s hard to establish a price.
@@indyshaq2345 For standardization you could probably pick the grade for each card with the highest population count. That would usually represent a strong, consistent liquidity.
Interesting experiment. Thanks for your detailed effort. I think the insane number of variations/prisms with the newer cards will ultimately hurt their value. Too much to keep track of.
One thing is certain, the pop counts for those cards in those grades went up most in group c. Every day they become less rare as people start to realize we are in a junkwax era once again only this time you're all paying $10 a pack instead of .65
Another stat you could add for the 2025 update… From Gemrate, find out how many of that card in that grade (or total graded) existed at the time of the video. For example, 7:49, Stroud’s Silver Prizm PSA 9 In total, PSA had graded 3,466 of them in mid July. Now ? 4,649. Stroud’s playing great but the supply onto market is creating downward pressure. So for Category C, it’s not just on-field form, but also the quick rise in available supply quelling Prospect card prices.
This is interesting, to say the least. I would’ve anticipated the C Group decreasing over time, but not that much so soon. Thanks for keeping us in the know Chris! Great video, as always!
100% did NOT surprised me, as a matter of fact, its exactly what I figured it would be. The new rookies/prospects are mostly overrated and overpriced. Investing in the GOATs is always the safer way to go.
Great video. During that same time frame silver is up 8% and the Dow Jones is up 9.5%. Interesting to see the vintage hanging with traditional investments.
This is a great project! Recommend adding 6 and 9 month data as well. That would help capture market movements for when baseball is starting back up, post super bowl market, and NBA/NHL playoffs.
No surprise. New hyped players fall in value while proven vintage HOFers rose in value. If you would have had Pete Rose alsobin the vintage lot, it likely would have been higher. Good job Chris
I missed the original video but these are the results I would have expected. These results will be even more pronounced come the 1 year mark. C will continue to drop as a percentage of the prospects fail to pan out. B may get on the A trajectory eventually when a bunch of those guys become HOFers. Great vid. Love this stuff.
This is truly a useful and fantastic study! You put the proper caveats in place. It is column C that is the trickiest and most problematic. If you would have happened to choose Caitlin Clark instead of Paul Skenes, that may have flipped the whole thing (And it isn't as if Skenes turned into a pumpkin)! But I think that is the whole point; prospects do blaze, but as often as not, they do fade.
I’d love to know the right time to buy group B to hold long term. 8-12-15 years into their career versus after they’ve retired. Then is it after retirement but before hof election or just wait until they’ve been in hof a while lol.
Great video as usual Chris. I was interested in this and it has come up very much as I expected. I would make 2 observations. First, it really does matter when you buy these cards, especially the newbies, in terms of their first season/call up hype. 2nd could you modify a little and revalue EVERY 3 months on a rolling basis, try to smooth out that impact? You may find less volatile price action that way, and find perhaps the group C will perform much better if you price buying them in offseason and repricing as the season kicks off. I’d be interested following all these categories into a 5 year span as B natures into A, and C matures into B.
It would appear you can't go wrong with investing in rookie vintage goats unless your like me and invested in rookie vintage goats during the pandemic.... 😦🤪
While it is a small sample size, it does highlight the tendencies of the 3 groups. Group A has had most of the variables removed so it is the least volatile. Group B still has plenty of variables, but enough have been removed to mitigate most of the violent swings. Group C is all variables, so call Miss Cleo for advice. Group C is where all the short term money is though. So if you want to play that game you have to be on the ball. And often lucky.
This was my one year prediction, made at the time of the original video: "The group performance will be inversely correlated with the percentage pop increase. So, Vintage, then established, then prospects. My 1- year predictions - vintage +2%, established -6%, prospects - 35%." So far so good. To me it was a no-brainer that the prospects would get smoked. You have 2 things working against you: (1) the less tested a player is, the more the hype (of the hyped up prospects) and (2) newer cards are being printed to the moon.
Ironically I was eating vegetables watching this . Totally would have guessed vintage would win out . Definitely a little startling how the new stuff went down even if those players weren’t failing . Thanks as always Chris
I, too, expected B to be the biggest positive mover. It figures that A would act more like a Blue Chip stock portfolio with solid steady growth but I thought B had the chance to make high growth gains in the same period. Group C is not surprising for the reasons you stated that the price is too baked in with high end expectations.
Went exactly as I'd expect. Theres a couple awesome chicago guys on that prospect list but I'm waiting. Fall they will. The Jordan/iconic 90s cards, not so much.
Great analysis and nice example. THIS is why you don't keep the huge hits of current prospects. Collect the players you like, build your sets, or whatever. Rip some current products if you like doing that. But something I would have done on the prospect players is mix it up with a couple of the solid defenders (Will Anderson JR for example). You're also not going to be insulated from the seasonal market fluctuations driven by play and product releases, but this is a great example of how you're not going to make money with the current products. Personally I 1) collect my PC player 2) build sets (both past and present if I like the products) 3) Collect VALUE young players that are overlooked due to other hot stars (Nico Collins while attention was on Dell and Stroud for example) 4) Any big hits get SOLD to fund set completions or acquisition of established players, HoF inductees, or other STABLE cards for my PC. Personally I'm not a vintage guy, mainly because I'm not a fan of graded cards (especially CURRENT prospects). I view it as doubling down on a bet. Downtowns won't be the next PMGs. Refractors USED to be rare... downtowns are headed that way (maybe not to that extreme but almost).
re: Modern + MLB: Really curious how much of the dip is attributed to NOT getting into the playoffs (vs. them simply being modern). Either way, I love this experiment, Chris! Thanks for always bringing interesting, thought-provoking ideas to your channel! ♥
Thanks for your effort with this, Chris. I expected “A” to be the winner, but worried that “C” would be more surprising while watching this. Looking forward to see in the results at the one year point.
Prospect value is derived from current star’s value and current star’s value is derived from historical player’s value. Everyone is always comparing what something will be worth in the future and they usually do that by looking at historical data
Eagerly awaiting the 10 year result. My prediction: A 100% gain, B 60% loss, C 75% loss. Someone please bump this comment in the year 2034 (And look up all the cards and do the math for me!), thx.
In the history of cards, there has never been an era where the value you get from cards is more removed from the retail price than right now. This last few years long-term will be considered the worst time to have ever been buying modern cards.
Thats pretty much exactly what I expected. I was just yesterday telling a customer in my store that if he plans on buying as an investment he should stick to cards from the 70s and older. Group c is going to collapse hard after 1 year, group b will be slightly lower again. Group a will be 10% ish higher.
I guess not super surprising to me. Prospecting is tough. I thought the vintage stars would maybe be a bit flatter or lose just a little bit, but not really surprised that the other two lost money. I collect vintage and in reality I’m not too worried about their investment value. I just want to have the best deal possible when buying the cards. Thanks for the experiment. Looking forward to data.
That was what I had expected. The thing that surprised me more was that, you being the baseball card collector investor dealer, I feel should have been a little more on point, knowing that the vintage should do much better because the players were established as good players and they perform well throughout their careers. The one thing about this industry that I find it hurts the most is that people put way too much of a price tag on the new upcoming players when I haven’t done anything in their professional career yet?
Current established stars and prospects will go up and down. Mantle will never go down. If you can afford it vintage is the way to go. Back in the mid 80's I bought a Yogi Berra rookie. It was $10 BV. It now is $1,000 BV
Oh wow. Portfolio C is down big. Just like AMC stock. Was once, $50 bucks. And, now, it's like less than 5. This was a fun experiment. In a year from now, I do expect there to be some changes, but portfolio A will still probably be, at the top.
What a great video. Thank you for the time it must have taken you to do this. Not surprised about the results. Prospecting is similar to playing roulette. You hope the ball lands on the number you wagered on. Same thing. You hope the athlete you invested in turns out to be a stud, and even if that happens, so many things can go wrong to trigger a depreciation in value. Proven all-time greats and hall of famers is the safest investment. Add the fact that modern players have such a high volume of cards, and there will naturally be pressure on the prices of their cards. There is only one true Kareem rookie, but hundreds of Luka rookie variations (even if Luka ultimately ends up with a phenomenal carrier). Also, contrary to popular belief, not all vintage/semi vintage cards of all-time greats are out of reach in terms of price. For example, look at all the 1970’s cards of all-time greats appreciating in value over the past several years. 70’s cards were, for a long while, the worst in terms of upside potential. Now, PSA 9/10 of players like Nolan Ryan are going through the roof (because his rookie and 2nd year cards are too expensive for most investors). Collectors have to look at alternative options so they look to 3-10th year cards of the same player. This had already happened with star players from the 50’s (Mantle, Mays, etc.), whose 1960’s cards in high grade went up significantly. Now we are seeing the 1970’s cards of players whose rookie season was in the 1960’s go up. I remember for a long time, the 1981 Magic and Bird Topps cards didn’t trigger too much interest. Now they are going up. There is still so many opportunities with those types of cards, so why risk your money on a baseball prospect who still has not done much in the majors but was impressive in the minor leagues. Too much risk there.
My only thought on doing it different would be to just do Gem Mint cards for modern/ultra as investors tend to stick to 9.5s or 10s for modern/ultra modern; not sure if would make any difference though. I’m primarily a hockey guy and you can guarantee that 99% of cards are going to drop after/during players first year as more and more product shows up - very dangerous to buy high value cards of projected stars early on.
Going to share thoughts and see if they match up with my predictions on the original video... Makes perfect sense that the prospects pool is a loser at 3 months: should expect a few(like 2 to 4) cards to skyrocket at the one year mark while the rest go closer to zero... The vintage stars performed about how I would have expected, but the established stars is perplexing... I would have expected that group to have some wilder swings in value... great vid idea and eager to see the anniversary vid next summer...
Just checked and I only offered a prediction for the one year mark where I agreed with above prediction that prospects head to zero in most cases, vintage has a slow, steady increase in value but that the current stars sees the biggest overall increase... doesn't look like that last one will necessarily pan out... still possible...
Just a short idea. Maybe for the comparison it would be better to included serial numbered cards in the portfolio of the proven vets and young stars. Mainly because the pop account of most of these unnumbered cards is still growing - leading to lower prices throughout the next few years just because of the growing numbers ( no matter how good the player will be on the field/ice).
I'm curious as the generational shift goes on, if old baseball, given that it's not the most popular sports product these days and hasn't been for decades, continues to hold it's value best. We're getting away from people having much attachment to the players of the 50's and 60's as time goes on. Will be an interesting sidebar to observe.
I agree with you to some degree that the eras are collected differentlyas time passes. Vintage isn't quite as popular as it was when the collectors that are 80 were 50, but those same old timers had kids like myself (43 and getting older) and many of us appreciate those all time greats. It helps that only a few players have been legitimately great since the beginning of the 1970's. Especially in baseball. I believe that the true investors will always want the tougher to find vintage cards. Average collectors will stick with their childhood favorites and new players (essentially short term holds) because most will be unable to pay premium prices for long term holds. If we look at the prices of cards from 1900-1940s, we can see that those players are still very collectible, even though they've all been dead for a long time. The collectors and investors with nearly unlimited money will always cherish the investment and returns that vintage commands. The question really comes down to how large the demographic of investors changes as they age.
I wonder if group C’s drastic loss has to do with pop counts and markets normalizing. I’d be curious to see how a “young stars” being Rookie Cards from like 4-7 years ago (Judge, Ohtani, Burrow etc) would do compared to the more recent prospect based portfolio put together for the video.
It's interesting that the vintage cards appreciated the way they did. The most common school of thought is that wins, losses, and performance are what drives current player price, but if a player is retired and their career is basically spoken for, what factors influence their card prices? Why would there be any reason for a card from 1960 to appreciate in value?
Small changes in supply (loss and damages), changes in demand (hobby grows/shrinks in popularity, human population totals expand), inflation (even if only 2% annually adds up).
You will need to account for inflatoin for accurate value, especially at 10 year mark. With inflation trends, the rate of infation would be a minimum of 5% a year. If you are not taking inflation into account, the value of vintage is acutally flat since July. And the official government CPI is a lie. You have to double it to get realistic inflatoin mark. This is a great idea, but really easy to predict.
Bryce Young had a such bad first year, it was amazing his card values held up through the off season. Unfortunate Puka got knocked out for the year already. Stroud is doing really well, but not MVP level. This 2024 NFL class is so stacked with QBs, both playing and on the bench, all the speculators are moving to them.
Prospecting should always make the most money in the short term. You just gotta pick the right players! Old time HOFs are no brainers because we already know who they are, but picking future stars isn’t that easy! B. Young was your major tanker that killed that portfolio, but what if you had C. Clark instead of him?! And why would you buy Young or Ridder or those like them anyway. . . They’ve never been good, unlike CJ Stroud or CC or Wemby, who’s always been good! Being a new player doesn’t automatically make you a prospect!
Not surprising at all. The one year marks should be even more telling. One category I would like to see is recently retired players who will make the HOF buy haven't yet. Think Brady, Roethlisberger, Carmelo, Datsuk, etc. I think once they leave the playing field, people forget about them a little and their cards are great values. And, their values will take a jump once they make the Hall.
Don't think Rose is getting in the Hall, and if he somehow did it wouldn't boost his card values much. My reasoning is that his card prices already reflect an A-list Hall of Famer. Of all the baseball guys with rookie cards in the 1960s, Rose and Ryan are the two most iconic, with probably Reggie in 3rd place.
@@rlsfrny I love Seaver, and as far as baseball greatness, he is #1 among the 1960s rookies. However I think his "cultural relevance" is behind the other 3.
whats up with the lighting? i see 3 random lights above your left (our right) and 1 on your right (our left), they arent pointing at anything so...... whats up wit that?
Kind of like Dividend Champion Stocks outperforming IPO upstarts over time. Too much hype baked into the upstart prices. You make your money on the BUY, not the SELL. Vintage card grading is so subjective, I always believed there was an opportunity in cracking and resubmitting vintage cards to PSA to try and get slightly higher grades.
Thank you so much for including hockey in this experiment - most of the other big multisport shows just ignore hockey. Really appreciate it. There definitely are die hard hockey card fans out here.
Agree! we need more hockey in the hobby
All the non-hockey fans are lost without the "glow puck".
Hockey is a hidden gem I hope the hobby one day embraces
To Americans, Hockey doesn't even register, to Canadians, it's the whole damn show.
More evidence that shows vintage value usually holds better than modern... Excellent work
Thank you for doing this. As far as I know, you are one of very few RUclipsrs producing this kind of toughtful hobby content, as opposed to PSA reveals, or “look at the deal I got at a garage sale.” Not that I don’t also enjoy that other content, it’s just that what you produce is so rare.
I do think that this was the only possible outcome because it is inevitable that not all prospects at any given moment in time will succeed. That’s why they are in the “prospect” group. If you do this experiment again next year, the “veterans” group could be exactly the same cards, but the prospects have to be entirely different, and that’s by definition. There never has and never will be a group of prospects from any given month who all make the Hall of Fame in their respective sports. That being said, I am a bit surprised the truth was revealed in only 3 months.
Great video, love the premise. Honestly, it's going exactly the way I'd have thought it would.
Great project , look forward to seeing the 1 year result .
Interesting study! I'll take vintage superstars all day long!
Awesome stuff as always, Chris! The important lesson here is…VINTAGE VINTAGE VINTAGE lol.
Great video I hope you do a yearly update
Super enjoyed this episode, Chris!
This is a really great video. Thank you for doing the research and putting it all together in a video for all of us to see. The results are what I would have expected, but there’s so many people who will still buy the new rookies and expect their prices to go up. It’s definitely best to just wait a few years and buy up their rookie cards once they’ve been in the league for 7-10 years.
awesome research, looking forward to future follow ups
hey, just wanted to thank you for this. I’ve been a long time collector and the stuff you put out is amongst the best. I appreciate it.
Another great video, Chris. The biggest takeaway I'm getting right now across baseball card RUclips is if you buy what you like, you'll be ok. If you buy what the hobby says you should like, you're not gonna have a good time.
Vintage Vintage VINTAGE! The crud today is the 80's Junkwax
Great idea! Looking forward to the follow up videos
I think the big difference is that base cards have value in vintage but they don’t in modern. The base in established players are not going see the same price gain but key parallels or inserts could definitely outpace some vintage.
Amazing analysis. Would be interesting if you did this same analysis with a much bigger budget and picked only PSA 10s to control for price changes between lower grades and or values between grading companies. I noticed the vintage is lower grades (due to budget) and prospects were a lot of PSA 10s.
I suppose it depends on the cards but I don’t think doing a consistent PSA 10 is the way to go, particularly for vintage. You want a card that trades frequently and has a readily established market. Some vintage PSA 10s trade so infrequently it’s hard to establish a price.
@@indyshaq2345 For standardization you could probably pick the grade for each card with the highest population count. That would usually represent a strong, consistent liquidity.
@@ikhbjhbkm5 100% this. Absolutely yes!
@@indyshaq2345 good point! What about all PSA cards at least
Interesting experiment. Thanks for your detailed effort. I think the insane number of variations/prisms with the newer cards will ultimately hurt their value. Too much to keep track of.
Will always take more reasons to buy vintage! Thanks, Chris, and great to meet you at the Chantilly show last weekend (with my WJ alum dad!).
One thing is certain, the pop counts for those cards in those grades went up most in group c. Every day they become less rare as people start to realize we are in a junkwax era once again only this time you're all paying $10 a pack instead of .65
Great point
O Hail Vintage 👏🏻 Great video.
Cool that hockey was included.
Another stat you could add for the 2025 update…
From Gemrate, find out how many of that card in that grade (or total graded) existed at the time of the video.
For example, 7:49, Stroud’s Silver Prizm PSA 9
In total, PSA had graded 3,466 of them in mid July. Now ? 4,649. Stroud’s playing great but the supply onto market is creating downward pressure.
So for Category C, it’s not just on-field form, but also the quick rise in available supply quelling Prospect card prices.
This is interesting, to say the least. I would’ve anticipated the C Group decreasing over time, but not that much so soon. Thanks for keeping us in the know Chris! Great video, as always!
Thanks for sharing. Really cool thought experiment
No surprises for me. Well done Chris.
100% did NOT surprised me, as a matter of fact, its exactly what I figured it would be. The new rookies/prospects are mostly overrated and overpriced. Investing in the GOATs is always the safer way to go.
I totally agree with this. But, it’s good to have some more data to back this up. Can’t wait for the rest of this series!
100% agree Goats are definitely a safe bet.
@@honson7some definite data would be the massive overprinting since 2019-20. Good example was that Kenny Pickett rookie parallel lineup 😮😬
Nice vidéo thanks Chris
Good stuff Chris!
Great video. During that same time frame silver is up 8% and the Dow Jones is up 9.5%.
Interesting to see the vintage hanging with traditional investments.
Great job, Chris.
This is a great project! Recommend adding 6 and 9 month data as well. That would help capture market movements for when baseball is starting back up, post super bowl market, and NBA/NHL playoffs.
Great video again Chris...Invest in Goats...You can't go wrong
Really informative and helpful. Thanks for sharing, Chris.
No surprise. New hyped players fall in value while proven vintage HOFers rose in value. If you would have had Pete Rose alsobin the vintage lot, it likely would have been higher. Good job Chris
I missed the original video but these are the results I would have expected. These results will be even more pronounced come the 1 year mark.
C will continue to drop as a percentage of the prospects fail to pan out.
B may get on the A trajectory eventually when a bunch of those guys become HOFers.
Great vid. Love this stuff.
Vary interesting, thanks for putting this together.
This is truly a useful and fantastic study! You put the proper caveats in place. It is column C that is the trickiest and most problematic. If you would have happened to choose Caitlin Clark instead of Paul Skenes, that may have flipped the whole thing (And it isn't as if Skenes turned into a pumpkin)! But I think that is the whole point; prospects do blaze, but as often as not, they do fade.
Very well researched. If jasson is down you may want to buy just to try since he plays for the yanks and has a massive upside.
I’d love to know the right time to buy group B to hold long term. 8-12-15 years into their career versus after they’ve retired. Then is it after retirement but before hof election or just wait until they’ve been in hof a while lol.
Outstanding and interesting analysis as always. Surprised that the current big names (and future HOF'ers) didn't go up in value.
Great video as usual Chris. I was interested in this and it has come up very much as I expected. I would make 2 observations. First, it really does matter when you buy these cards, especially the newbies, in terms of their first season/call up hype. 2nd could you modify a little and revalue EVERY 3 months on a rolling basis, try to smooth out that impact? You may find less volatile price action that way, and find perhaps the group C will perform much better if you price buying them in offseason and repricing as the season kicks off. I’d be interested following all these categories into a 5 year span as B natures into A, and C matures into B.
It would appear you can't go wrong with investing in rookie vintage goats unless your like me and invested in rookie vintage goats during the pandemic.... 😦🤪
While it is a small sample size, it does highlight the tendencies of the 3 groups.
Group A has had most of the variables removed so it is the least volatile.
Group B still has plenty of variables, but enough have been removed to mitigate most of the violent swings.
Group C is all variables, so call Miss Cleo for advice.
Group C is where all the short term money is though. So if you want to play that game you have to be on the ball. And often lucky.
This was my one year prediction, made at the time of the original video: "The group performance will be inversely correlated with the percentage pop increase. So, Vintage, then established, then prospects. My 1- year predictions - vintage +2%, established -6%, prospects - 35%."
So far so good. To me it was a no-brainer that the prospects would get smoked. You have 2 things working against you: (1) the less tested a player is, the more the hype (of the hyped up prospects) and (2) newer cards are being printed to the moon.
Ironically I was eating vegetables watching this . Totally would have guessed vintage would win out . Definitely a little startling how the new stuff went down even if those players weren’t failing . Thanks as always Chris
I think you should add 6m so that take some of the seasonality out of it
I, too, expected B to be the biggest positive mover. It figures that A would act more like a Blue Chip stock portfolio with solid steady growth but I thought B had the chance to make high growth gains in the same period. Group C is not surprising for the reasons you stated that the price is too baked in with high end expectations.
Love it!
Went exactly as I'd expect. Theres a couple awesome chicago guys on that prospect list but I'm waiting. Fall they will. The Jordan/iconic 90s cards, not so much.
I can't wait to see the data in July 2025. Thanks for putting the data together. Very interesting.
Great info.
Great analysis and nice example. THIS is why you don't keep the huge hits of current prospects. Collect the players you like, build your sets, or whatever. Rip some current products if you like doing that. But something I would have done on the prospect players is mix it up with a couple of the solid defenders (Will Anderson JR for example). You're also not going to be insulated from the seasonal market fluctuations driven by play and product releases, but this is a great example of how you're not going to make money with the current products.
Personally I
1) collect my PC player
2) build sets (both past and present if I like the products)
3) Collect VALUE young players that are overlooked due to other hot stars (Nico Collins while attention was on Dell and Stroud for example)
4) Any big hits get SOLD to fund set completions or acquisition of established players, HoF inductees, or other STABLE cards for my PC.
Personally I'm not a vintage guy, mainly because I'm not a fan of graded cards (especially CURRENT prospects). I view it as doubling down on a bet. Downtowns won't be the next PMGs. Refractors USED to be rare... downtowns are headed that way (maybe not to that extreme but almost).
re: Modern + MLB: Really curious how much of the dip is attributed to NOT getting into the playoffs (vs. them simply being modern). Either way, I love this experiment, Chris! Thanks for always bringing interesting, thought-provoking ideas to your channel! ♥
Thanks for your effort with this, Chris. I expected “A” to be the winner, but worried that “C” would be more surprising while watching this. Looking forward to see in the results at the one year point.
You would make a great prosecutor
Portfolio C held up better than I expected it too. Expect it to be down way more at the 1year mark
Prospect value is derived from current star’s value and current star’s value is derived from historical player’s value. Everyone is always comparing what something will be worth in the future and they usually do that by looking at historical data
I would've guessed B as well, but the one year mark is the better litmus test, too much seasonality in only 3 months.
Great videos. Will you be attending the Toronto Sportscard Expo November 7-10? Thanks.
I will not make it to Toronto this month but maybe the next one
gj chris, glad your not a card villian
I think once the hype wears off for young players like Wemby and CJ, prices have to go down. They can't possibly keep going up all the time.
Eagerly awaiting the 10 year result. My prediction: A 100% gain, B 60% loss, C 75% loss. Someone please bump this comment in the year 2034 (And look up all the cards and do the math for me!), thx.
I screen shot it and put your comment in my "2034 video follow-up" folder :)
This graph also shows the mass overprinting in the last few years versus even 2005-2016 era
In the history of cards, there has never been an era where the value you get from cards is more removed from the retail price than right now. This last few years long-term will be considered the worst time to have ever been buying modern cards.
@@ryanfitzgerald2816 thats facts 💯
Completely predictable results. Just reconfirms my collecting strategy. Thanks, Chris!
Thats pretty much exactly what I expected. I was just yesterday telling a customer in my store that if he plans on buying as an investment he should stick to cards from the 70s and older. Group c is going to collapse hard after 1 year, group b will be slightly lower again. Group a will be 10% ish higher.
I guess not super surprising to me. Prospecting is tough. I thought the vintage stars would maybe be a bit flatter or lose just a little bit, but not really surprised that the other two lost money. I collect vintage and in reality I’m not too worried about their investment value. I just want to have the best deal possible when buying the cards. Thanks for the experiment. Looking forward to data.
That was what I had expected. The thing that surprised me more was that, you being the baseball card collector investor dealer, I feel should have been a little more on point, knowing that the vintage should do much better because the players were established as good players and they perform well throughout their careers. The one thing about this industry that I find it hurts the most is that people put way too much of a price tag on the new upcoming players when I haven’t done anything in their professional career yet?
Current established stars and prospects will go up and down. Mantle will never go down. If you can afford it vintage is the way to go. Back in the mid 80's I bought a Yogi Berra rookie. It was $10 BV. It now is $1,000 BV
Oh wow. Portfolio C is down big. Just like AMC stock. Was once, $50 bucks. And, now, it's like less than 5. This was a fun experiment. In a year from now, I do expect there to be some changes, but portfolio A will still probably be, at the top.
What a great video. Thank you for the time it must have taken you to do this. Not surprised about the results. Prospecting is similar to playing roulette. You hope the ball lands on the number you wagered on. Same thing. You hope the athlete you invested in turns out to be a stud, and even if that happens, so many things can go wrong to trigger a depreciation in value. Proven all-time greats and hall of famers is the safest investment. Add the fact that modern players have such a high volume of cards, and there will naturally be pressure on the prices of their cards. There is only one true Kareem rookie, but hundreds of Luka rookie variations (even if Luka ultimately ends up with a phenomenal carrier). Also, contrary to popular belief, not all vintage/semi vintage cards of all-time greats are out of reach in terms of price. For example, look at all the 1970’s cards of all-time greats appreciating in value over the past several years. 70’s cards were, for a long while, the worst in terms of upside potential. Now, PSA 9/10 of players like Nolan Ryan are going through the roof (because his rookie and 2nd year cards are too expensive for most investors). Collectors have to look at alternative options so they look to 3-10th year cards of the same player. This had already happened with star players from the 50’s (Mantle, Mays, etc.), whose 1960’s cards in high grade went up significantly. Now we are seeing the 1970’s cards of players whose rookie season was in the 1960’s go up. I remember for a long time, the 1981 Magic and Bird Topps cards didn’t trigger too much interest. Now they are going up. There is still so many opportunities with those types of cards, so why risk your money on a baseball prospect who still has not done much in the majors but was impressive in the minor leagues. Too much risk there.
My only thought on doing it different would be to just do Gem Mint cards for modern/ultra as investors tend to stick to 9.5s or 10s for modern/ultra modern; not sure if would make any difference though. I’m primarily a hockey guy and you can guarantee that 99% of cards are going to drop after/during players first year as more and more product shows up - very dangerous to buy high value cards of projected stars early on.
Going to share thoughts and see if they match up with my predictions on the original video... Makes perfect sense that the prospects pool is a loser at 3 months: should expect a few(like 2 to 4) cards to skyrocket at the one year mark while the rest go closer to zero... The vintage stars performed about how I would have expected, but the established stars is perplexing... I would have expected that group to have some wilder swings in value... great vid idea and eager to see the anniversary vid next summer...
Just checked and I only offered a prediction for the one year mark where I agreed with above prediction that prospects head to zero in most cases, vintage has a slow, steady increase in value but that the current stars sees the biggest overall increase... doesn't look like that last one will necessarily pan out... still possible...
You should do a deep dive 9n Trevor Bauer cards.. they held value beyond the mlb
Thanks for sharing
Another wonderful topic, Thank you Chris.
so weird to see Kobe in a "vintage" group, but I guess the numbers check out :)
Just a short idea. Maybe for the comparison it would be better to included serial numbered cards in the portfolio of the proven vets and young stars. Mainly because the pop account of most of these unnumbered cards is still growing - leading to lower prices throughout the next few years just because of the growing numbers ( no matter how good the player will be on the field/ice).
Ya I would have thought B would do best also. New prospects almost always seem
overpriced. They are the hottest and coldest potato’s.
Vintage
That Bryce Young drop by 75%. As a Panther's fan, my only question is, how did it ONLY drop by 75%?
What’s most surprising to me is that the vintage lot gained value. In my experience, it seems like prices have been softening overall but who knows.
Maybe over the short term, but long term as in years vintage will always be the safe option. The rest is scams and outright gambling.
@@PaulsChannel779 oh I agree. I thought everything would be down with vintage down the least.
@@PaulsChannel779 oh I agree. I thought everything would be down with vintage down the least.
I'm curious as the generational shift goes on, if old baseball, given that it's not the most popular sports product these days and hasn't been for decades, continues to hold it's value best. We're getting away from people having much attachment to the players of the 50's and 60's as time goes on. Will be an interesting sidebar to observe.
I agree with you to some degree that the eras are collected differentlyas time passes. Vintage isn't quite as popular as it was when the collectors that are 80 were 50, but those same old timers had kids like myself (43 and getting older) and many of us appreciate those all time greats. It helps that only a few players have been legitimately great since the beginning of the 1970's. Especially in baseball. I believe that the true investors will always want the tougher to find vintage cards. Average collectors will stick with their childhood favorites and new players (essentially short term holds) because most will be unable to pay premium prices for long term holds. If we look at the prices of cards from 1900-1940s, we can see that those players are still very collectible, even though they've all been dead for a long time. The collectors and investors with nearly unlimited money will always cherish the investment and returns that vintage commands. The question really comes down to how large the demographic of investors changes as they age.
@@joedill4311 good points here, thanks
I wonder if group C’s drastic loss has to do with pop counts and markets normalizing. I’d be curious to see how a “young stars” being Rookie Cards from like 4-7 years ago (Judge, Ohtani, Burrow etc) would do compared to the more recent prospect based portfolio put together for the video.
it did surprise me, I actually thought C was going to be the best 1 in 3 months and B long term.
It was what I expected. I think 9 months it will be the same . But a good experiment ! Mhmmm broccoli.
It's interesting that the vintage cards appreciated the way they did. The most common school of thought is that wins, losses, and performance are what drives current player price, but if a player is retired and their career is basically spoken for, what factors influence their card prices? Why would there be any reason for a card from 1960 to appreciate in value?
Small changes in supply (loss and damages), changes in demand (hobby grows/shrinks in popularity, human population totals expand), inflation (even if only 2% annually adds up).
Pop count my brother. Will be the death of modern. Junk pop count era! And may the force be with you!
Over printing will kill any value the modern cards have. There is literally like 200k Wemby rookie cards.
You will need to account for inflatoin for accurate value, especially at 10 year mark. With inflation trends, the rate of infation would be a minimum of 5% a year. If you are not taking inflation into account, the value of vintage is acutally flat since July. And the official government CPI is a lie. You have to double it to get realistic inflatoin mark. This is a great idea, but really easy to predict.
Surprised that the c group went down that much
Me too!
Bryce Young had a such bad first year, it was amazing his card values held up through the off season. Unfortunate Puka got knocked out for the year already. Stroud is doing really well, but not MVP level. This 2024 NFL class is so stacked with QBs, both playing and on the bench, all the speculators are moving to them.
Prospecting should always make the most money in the short term. You just gotta pick the right players! Old time HOFs are no brainers because we already know who they are, but picking future stars isn’t that easy! B. Young was your major tanker that killed that portfolio, but what if you had C. Clark instead of him?! And why would you buy Young or Ridder or those like them anyway. . . They’ve never been good, unlike CJ Stroud or CC or Wemby, who’s always been good! Being a new player doesn’t automatically make you a prospect!
Not surprising at all. The one year marks should be even more telling.
One category I would like to see is recently retired players who will make the HOF buy haven't yet. Think Brady, Roethlisberger, Carmelo, Datsuk, etc. I think once they leave the playing field, people forget about them a little and their cards are great values. And, their values will take a jump once they make the Hall.
Thats an interesting idea
Old is gold..I only buy vintage.
The rest is gambling or scams!
Just curious if you noticed a rise in Pete Rose cards, since his passing. Or if "they" dicide to put him in the hof would that boost his value?
Don't think Rose is getting in the Hall, and if he somehow did it wouldn't boost his card values much. My reasoning is that his card prices already reflect an A-list Hall of Famer. Of all the baseball guys with rookie cards in the 1960s, Rose and Ryan are the two most iconic, with probably Reggie in 3rd place.
@@blueodum makes sense.
@@blueodum Seaver may be in that group.
@@rlsfrny I love Seaver, and as far as baseball greatness, he is #1 among the 1960s rookies. However I think his "cultural relevance" is behind the other 3.
I did see a jump in Rose cards right after he passed
I tried emailing the address but it keeps saying invalid lol
My email is sewallsportscards@gmail.com
whats up with the lighting? i see 3 random lights above your left (our right) and 1 on your right (our left), they arent pointing at anything so...... whats up wit that?
Kind of like Dividend Champion Stocks outperforming IPO upstarts over time. Too much hype baked into the upstart prices. You make your money on the BUY, not the SELL. Vintage card grading is so subjective, I always believed there was an opportunity in cracking and resubmitting vintage cards to PSA to try and get slightly higher grades.
Makes me feel a little sad for some reason that Kobe is in the vintage category 😢