Why does the hobby value cards they way that it does

[detroitbball]

Just looking to spark some fun and hopefully mature and respectful conversation here regarding what seem to me as "curiosities" in how the hobby values certain cards.
1. Why are rookie cards so highly sought after even though in most cases they are not rare? Why are cards of the year that a player was an all star, an MVP, or won a title not sought after?
2. Why are insert cards of a player often less valued than the base card, even though the insert is typically more rare?
3. Why does Prizm command a premium over most other retail-oriented sets, even though anymore now it is not rare.
4. Why are cards of older players who have well established careers with multiple all-star appearances often valued less than newer players with much less track record?
5. Why are base cards of some "hobby-only" sets, such as Certified or Revolution, not valued anymore highly than those of retail sets, even though they are much more rare.
6. Can you think of others to discuss?

[jcardstore]

Why do people do anything they do?

[KhalDrogo]

You’ve been in the hobby long enough to know the answers to these questions already.

[k13]

Supply and Demand answers all your questions.

[spurs50fan]

Because very few hobbyists hold their own value system

or

This is more of a business which employs business-like tactics

[mindcycle]

What I’ve learned over the years of collecting is this hobby is pretty much based primarily around hype. Rookie hype, set hype, overall hobby hype, etc.. When the hype is high that player, set, etc.. is more desired and prices go up. Hype can flip at the drop of a hat though, and what was once hot is now worthless. Could be years, but can change over weeks or months, like we’ve seen recently once the covid craze died down a bit.

My strategy the last half dozen years or so has been to largely stay away from anything with big hype around it, player or set, and buy things I’m still interested in collecting but nobody is talking about. Inevitably, “most” cards you passed up on will drop and you can pick them up down the road for less.

[advan24r]

Why do people collect cardboard?
Why is this hobby for the rich people now?
Is this hobby another form of money laundering?

So many questions but we still do it. This is the economics of this hobby.

[volblorx8634]

I think you bring up good questions that are worth discussing. I agree with a lot of what has been mentioned:

Supply and demand
That demand is based on hype

But why are certain things hyped? Why is a rookie year card hyped but not a final year card? Why not a championship year or award winning year? Among the non super high end base, why Prizm and not Status, Optic, etc? Again, why are certain things hyped over others? To me it's arbitrary and has no logical foundation. Enough people who have hobby influence decide something is good, so it becomes hyped. Doesn't necessarily apply to everything, like rookie year premiums for example, but I think it's the general trend.

The question you ask that I feel has a clear answer is why older older or established players are often valued less than younger players with less of a resume: potential. You know the legacy of a 10 year vet, but the potential is infinite for a rookie or sophomore player. They could become the greatest player of all time 10 years from now, and if they do their cards will only go up in value. Of course, that's an extremely unlikely scenario, but the possibility is still there.

[detroitbball]

Originally Posted by mindcycle

What I’ve learned over the years of collecting is this hobby is pretty much based primarily around hype. Rookie hype, set hype, overall hobby hype, etc.. When the hype is high that player, set, etc.. is more desired and prices go up. Hype can flip at the drop of a hat though, and what was once hot is now worthless. Could be years, but can change over weeks or months, like we’ve seen recently once the covid craze died down a bit.

My strategy the last half dozen years or so has been to largely stay away from anything with big hype around it, player or set, and buy things I’m still interested in collecting but nobody is talking about. Inevitably, “most” cards you passed up on will drop and you can pick them up down the road for less.

So in that case, the question of why rookies are more desirable than anything else, or why a base rookie is more desirable than an insert rookie, or why prizm is the king is somewhat immaterial, but is just simply a function of what a few influential people decided upon at one point, and the rest is a bit of "herd mentality". It surprises me a little that once these things get established, they don't change very easily if at all. Probably because there is too much money invested. For example the rookie thing has been going on ever since the vintage baseball cards were issued by Topps in series, and the rookies often got short printed by being in the later series. I'm a set collector, so if want to put together a set now, I have to buy the rookies even if it doesn't make sense to me to spend big bucks on someone that 20 years from now no one will even remember. So I become part of the herd. I'm not complaining necessarily. I'll go with the flow. but it just makes me wonder sometimes.

[DawnBTVS]

1. Why are rookie cards so highly sought after even though in most cases they are not rare? Why are cards of the year that a player was an all star, an MVP, or won a title not sought after?
Hobby Status + Potential. I think it also goes back to the 1960s-1980s when there were just 2-5 sets produced a year so the "rookie" cards were pretty scarce. Then you throw in the hype around Griffey Jr in '89 + the rush to be the first producer of the rookie card and that added to the value.

2. Why are insert cards of a player often less valued than the base card, even though the insert is typically more rare?
I think it's again a throwback to the 60s-80s when Inserts were not really a thing. There's also something to be said for being able to see full statistics on the back that has an appeal.

3. Why does Prizm command a premium over most other retail-oriented sets, even though anymore now it is not rare.
Hype + Supply + Demand more than anything else. Certain influencers promoted that (and other Chrome products e.g. Topps Chrome) and here we are.

4. Why are cards of older players who have well established careers with multiple all-star appearances often valued less than newer players with much less track record?
The rush of getting in on the next Aaron Rodgers/Tom Brady/Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant/Lebron James/Sidney Crosby/Wayne Gretzky. Couple that with the general rush of rookie cards + prospecting in general and it's the gold rush attitude. Why mine in an area with 70 other miners that you know gold is at as opposed to finding your own area and finding gold on your own?

5. Why are base cards of some "hobby-only" sets, such as Certified or Revolution, not valued anymore highly than those of retail sets, even though they are much more rare.
Simply the ease of access and the fact that most people target specific cards or rip boxes on their own. Some of it is Hype (e.g. people complaining that Select ruined their credibility by daring to go to the retail market) and the more supply there is of a card, the easier it is to obtain and sell too. A 1/5 Eddie Jones is rarer but a graded rookie card of Shawn Kemp that is in the hundreds would still carry more value because it's more liquidable from an investment/flipping standpoint.

[Spacemanspif]

Originally Posted by detroitbball

Just looking to spark some fun and hopefully mature and respectful conversation here regarding what seem to me as "curiosities" in how the hobby values certain cards.
1. Why are rookie cards so highly sought after even though in most cases they are not rare? Why are cards of the year that a player was an all star, an MVP, or won a title not sought after?
2. Why are insert cards of a player often less valued than the base card, even though the insert is typically more rare?
3. Why does Prizm command a premium over most other retail-oriented sets, even though anymore now it is not rare.
4. Why are cards of older players who have well established careers with multiple all-star appearances often valued less than newer players with much less track record?
5. Why are base cards of some "hobby-only" sets, such as Certified or Revolution, not valued anymore highly than those of retail sets, even though they are much more rare.
6. Can you think of others to discuss?

you seem to be pretty focused on just one aspect. as per usual with BO, this smells like a "why don't more people think like me so my cards will be worth more?" post

[Spartyon]

Originally Posted by Spacemanspif

you seem to be pretty focused on just one aspect. as per usual with BO, this smells like a "why don't more people think like me so my cards will be worth more?" post

Ding ding ding! We have a winner

[RyanMW]

Something I found interesting in the same vein is that holos/silvers are going for more than numbered parallels of the same card.

For example, I was shocked to see that the Trae Young Courtside Silver in PSA 10 was going for thousands more than the same card in the tie dye version #'d to 25. How? Why?

[detroitbball]

Originally Posted by Spacemanspif

you seem to be pretty focused on just one aspect. as per usual with BO, this smells like a "why don't more people think like me so my cards will be worth more?" post

Blowout is a tough crowd and always assuming the worst. My collection is so small it wouldn’t measure up to muchof nothing. And what I do own includes base and rookies and inserts and prizm and actually don’t collect revolution or certified. Yeah I’m fixated on scarcity. I have a coin collecting background where scarcity and condition are THE main driving forces of value. So I’m trying to figure out the difference in the card world. The DawnBTVS post above was the type of discussion I was hoping for

[AbraCalabro]

Most of the participants in sports cards now are interested solely in money.


1. Why are rookie cards so highly sought after even though in most cases they are not rare? Why are cards of the year that a player was an all star, an MVP, or won a title not sought after?

Hype, profiteering. Hopefuls looking to get in on the ground level, I.E. they saw what common, base, mass produced LBJ rookie cards sell for, they want in on that. LeBron RPA price fixing and subsequent hype serves as the archetype, same with the Jordan Fleer RC, but all things go back to hype and profiteering.

Also about mass produced rookie cards, they're readily available, easily trimmed with no way to track them = profit.

2. Why are insert cards of a player often less valued than the base card, even though the insert is typically more rare?

Interest goes wherever the hype tells it to go.

3. Why does Prizm command a premium over most other retail-oriented sets, even though anymore now it is not rare.

Big hype and rich guys pitching tents over 12/13 Prizm LBJ, assumed print runs making their rounds through all the hype engines, Prizm established as the show horse.

4. Why are cards of older players who have well established careers with multiple all-star appearances often valued less than newer players with much less track record?

See answer to 1.

5. Why are base cards of some "hobby-only" sets, such as Certified or Revolution, not valued anymore highly than those of retail sets, even though they are much more rare.

Not enough hype.

[Nomad]

I think that baseball is a little more like coins, where you have set builders and all that. Maybe in the wrong sport. But basketball brings the hype. And once the dust settles, the really interesting finds will rise. Right now late 90s cards are seeing a lot of sifting and some sets are emerging that were not hype at time. And inserts are king.

[RogerGodahell]

Rookie cards have been the "card to own" since cards started having any value attached to them. Then there was Beckett price guides in the 80's and 90's. They basically just made up whatever prices they wanted until the internet and eBay came along and collectors started setting the market based on what they would pay. A much better system.

[Nomad]

I was there in the 1980s and there was a little more to Dr. James Beckett's pricing methodology than that. There were card shops, and they did record sales. And collectors were just as price focused... any completely arbitrary pricing would be quickly corrected.

[Spacemanspif]

Originally Posted by detroitbball

Blowout is a tough crowd and always assuming the worst. My collection is so small it wouldn’t measure up to muchof nothing. And what I do own includes base and rookies and inserts and prizm and actually don’t collect revolution or certified. Yeah I’m fixated on scarcity. I have a coin collecting background where scarcity and condition are THE main driving forces of value. So I’m trying to figure out the difference in the card world. The DawnBTVS post above was the type of discussion I was hoping for

So, there's a lot of posts like these lately so I apologize if it comes off harsh, but it's kind of tiring to see these arguments that are generally made in bad faith and built on false premises, but I'll do my best to explain the other side.

First off, something being rare has nothing to do with it being in demand. Supply and demand curves are independent of each other. This is what I mean by "built on false premises". Second, your post also comes off as multiple reiterations of the same question: "why doesn't rare = popular?", so once I correct you on the supply/demand thing, I feel like there isn't much left for discussion, but I'll try to address some of the more specific parts of your questions

1. Why are rookie cards so highly sought after even though in most cases they are not rare? Why are cards of the year that a player was an all star, an MVP, or won a title not sought after?
They print more rookie cards because they're in higher demand. If they weren't in demand, they would be of equal scarcity as any other card. Production (Panini & Topps) are just giving the people what they want. You buy a rookie card when they're young, and watch them grow. There's actual utility in watching a player's career progress, and feel like you have a stake in it. There's also objectivity in it. If you were trying to determine which year to buy, how do you know what years are going to be the "most special" in a player's career, while it is happening? Are you proposing that the only time we buy cards is after a player is retired, and then look back and rank the years, and then buy accordingly? That is absurd, and completely subjective. An RC symbol tells you objectively, that it is their Rookie card, and is therefore special. This type of consistency is a necessity, or you'd have to keep track of the career arc of every player from every sport, and have arguments every day about why X year was more impactful to their career than Y.

2. Why are insert cards of a player often less valued than the base card, even though the insert is typically more rare?
depends on the card. there are plenty of times inserts are worth more than the base cards, like WAY more. especially when they're RARE

3. Why does Prizm command a premium over most other retail-oriented sets, even though anymore now it is not rare.
Because it's a better product? For years, there was enough on the shelf where you literally had your choice what to do with your $20, and everyone chose Prizm over Paper Hoops and Prestige, until those products had to go on sale to get rid of them. Again, Panini gave the people what they wanted. Current production levels have nothing to do with why one product became more popular than others

4. Why are cards of older players who have well established careers with multiple all-star appearances often valued less than newer players with much less track record?
Why do I have to pay $20 for a new movie ticket, but I can watch old movies on VHS as many times as I want for free? Again, there's utility in watching a player grow, and in obtaining something new. There's utility in the gambling aspect (even if you don't agree with it, you have to acknowledge people love gambling). This is not a Hall of Fame induction where you're just comparing resumes after the fact. This is also typically where the hidden arguments for why vintage should be worth more are made, and hence the skepticism

5. Why are base cards of some "hobby-only" sets, such as Certified or Revolution, not valued anymore highly than those of retail sets, even though they are much more rare.
This is the same question wrapped differently. Long answer short, you need mass appeal to reach mass audiences. I personally like Revolution but understand it's not for everyone. Also, it's a double edged sword. People complained about not enough people loving Select and how it should go Retail, until it goes Retail and then they complain about how it devalued the set

6. Can you think of others to discuss?
Stop equating rarity with demand or value. Once that idea is gone, most of your questions go away.

[Arianny_Fan]

It's all based off of stupidity. Follow your gut and dont follow any HERDS of any kind. Ex: grading a million Zion Prizm base rcs, dont support breakers, wiping out retail to resale, spending $1000 for a donruss hobby box, collect first, investing might pan out, but will most likely kill you in the end.

[hauntedcomputer]

I've never seen a satisfactory, rational reason for rookie cards to be more expensive or desirable. The Topps series releases perhaps explains some of it. In the old days, you could reasonably expect there would be more cards released per player each year, so that would mathematically make earlier cards "worth more" (seemingly rarer) as the hobby "grew." But the hobby has never grown in a straight line and has only been seriously commercial for 40 or 50 years.

When I was a kid busting packs, we always hated rookie cards because it was usually a boring head shot with three or four tiny heads on a card of players you'd never heard of. We much preferred the "trophy guys," where Topps would put a little trophy on the card for an all-rookie team award (even though it might be their second or third card issued.)

I'm convinced some of the early movers and shakers of hobby economics basically decreed it so, and then hyped and overpriced and pushed until it became reality and now is seen as perfectly sane and reasonable behavior. Of course that would then create an arbitrary system of supply and demand on a hobby built almost exclusively on perception. Autos, patches, and foil aside, the cost of printing cards doesn't vary greatly from rookie superstar to career scrub.

It's an irrational hobby because humans are irrational.

[asujbl]

Collectors are weird OCD people (including myself)

That is the answer to 90% of questions

I didn’t even read the original post

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by RyanMW

Something I found interesting in the same vein is that holos/silvers are going for more than numbered parallels of the same card.

For example, I was shocked to see that the Trae Young Courtside Silver in PSA 10 was going for thousands more than the same card in the tie dye version #'d to 25. How? Why?

Although unnumbered, Courtside silvers that year are super short printed which is what drives demand

[tyrith]

Originally Posted by hauntedcomputer

I've never seen a satisfactory, rational reason for rookie cards to be more expensive or desirable. The Topps series releases perhaps explains some of it. In the old days, you could reasonably expect there would be more cards released per player each year, so that would mathematically make earlier cards "worth more" (seemingly rarer) as the hobby "grew." But the hobby has never grown in a straight line and has only been seriously commercial for 40 or 50 years.

When I was a kid busting packs, we always hated rookie cards because it was usually a boring head shot with three or four tiny heads on a card of players you'd never heard of. We much preferred the "trophy guys," where Topps would put a little trophy on the card for an all-rookie team award (even though it might be their second or third card issued.)

I'm convinced some of the early movers and shakers of hobby economics basically decreed it so, and then hyped and overpriced and pushed until it became reality and now is seen as perfectly sane and reasonable behavior. Of course that would then create an arbitrary system of supply and demand on a hobby built almost exclusively on perception. Autos, patches, and foil aside, the cost of printing cards doesn't vary greatly from rookie superstar to career scrub.

It's an irrational hobby because humans are irrational.

Rookie cards are worth more because a rookie card will always be a player's first card in a set. A star could wind up with 15 years of Prizm cards, a bunch of years of NT autos, etc, but the rookie card will ALWAYS be the first one, and the first one of anything collectible is always the most desired and desirable. Look at books, comics, video games, firearms, anything you can name that people keep to look at and not to use.

It's not arbitrary or hype to want to have a 2018 Luka versus a 2019 Luka, for instance. What is a 2019 Luka more like - a 2018 or a 2020? For retired stars they keep on printing cards even now. There will ALWAYS be more Lukas. There won't be more first year Lukas.

[pejc300]

OP: Hoping to have some quality discussion

First three responses:

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Why do people do anything they do?

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

You’ve been in the hobby long enough to know the answers to these questions already.

Originally Posted by k13

Supply and Demand answers all your questions.

Blowout gonna blowout