Also Gene Wilder Pop Century autographs . . . I bought a parallel limited to 5 in 2017 for $70. The base versions are selling for $200+ now.

When I looked up what I paid for that Wilder I went down a bit of a rabbit hole. . .

I won 8 auctions on eBay in December 2017 including the Wilder.

I tried to estimate what it would cost me to buy these cards today. I took the average sale price of recent sales -- up to 5 sales if there were that many.

Here is how I did:

These 4 all had recent sales to compare to.

The first number is what I paid, the 2nd is my estimate on what these would cost today.

2017 Leaf Pop Century Kylie Kendall Jenner Auto Autograph Dual Cut LOT (4) Total $52.22 $125.60
2017 Leaf Pop Century Elizabeth Henstridge Auto Autograph Blue Card #d /10 $19.10 $37.00
2017 Leaf Pop Century Gene Wilder Auto Autograph In Memoriam Blue #d 5/5 $68.02 $235.00
2017 Leaf Pop Century Tom Sizemore Auto Autograph Card Lot $14.50 $10.00

These two do not have any comparable recent sales, but did have sales in 2018 (from PWCC).

2017 Leaf Pop Century Chevy Chase Auto Autograph Walk Of Fame SP C $34.76 $51.20
2017 Leaf Pop Century Christian Slater Auto Autograph Clear Blue #d /25 $9.50 $17.85

I can't find any comparable sales for these:

2017 Leaf Pop Century Iggy Azalea Auto Autograph Blue Card #d /10 $27.11 No Similar Sales
2017 Leaf Pop Century Iggy Azalea Auto Autograph Red Card #d 5/5 $36.00 No Similar Sales


So for the 6 auctions I had more recent sales for: in 2017 I paid just under $200. Today I would pay about $475.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: webjon,

I'm sure people can go through a lot of exercises on different card sales. When people are collecting data they inevitably choose the figures that support there own predetermined outcome, while ignoring the data going another way. I have dealt with numbers for a very long time and when people say numbers don't lie, it isn't true. You can make numbers do whatever you want. The true test is too simply sell the thing or things and see if you make money.

Most of the increase is those figures comes from one card, which may well be an exception. Some of the prices are comparing between eBay and PWCC, two different platforms. Pulling a recent sale does not indicate the average sale price, just that particular sales price. People can widely overpay or get big bargains at any given time, it won't make your card that much.

Finally, you would be paying fees for any sales done on eBay or PWCC, so the seller is not getting all the return back and still has to do S&H work.

If you can sell some of your card collection later on for a profit, good for you. Don't count on it. The only people who we know are making money on trading cards are manufacturers and dealers, and some of them are going out.

I don't know of any card collector with a moderately sized collection of random titles that will get anywhere near their money back if they decide to sell it all. In fact the more you have, the more it works against you because its too big for anyone to absorb. But on the basis of individual cards, like the RDJ Ironman, of course you can make a lot if you are an original buyer.

But let me ask you this, some people are buying the Downey now close to $3,000. Will they make money when they sell? Maybe, if someone adds a Black Label. It's a crazy pastime, but still not an investment.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I'm sure people can go through a lot of exercises on different card sales. When people are collecting data they inevitably choose the figures that support there own predetermined outcome, while ignoring the data going another way. I have dealt with numbers for a very long time and when people say numbers don't lie, it isn't true. You can make numbers do whatever you want. The true test is too simply sell the thing or things and see if you make money.

Most of the increase is those figures comes from one card, which may well be an exception. Some of the prices are comparing between eBay and PWCC, two different platforms. Pulling a recent sale does not indicate the average sale price, just that particular sales price. People can widely overpay or get big bargains at any given time, it won't make your card that much.

Finally, you would be paying fees for any sales done on eBay or PWCC, so the seller is not getting all the return back and still has to do S&H work.

If you can sell some of your card collection later on for a profit, good for you. Don't count on it. The only people who we know are making money on trading cards are manufacturers and dealers, and some of them are going out.

I don't know of any card collector with a moderately sized collection of random titles that will get anywhere near their money back if they decide to sell it all. In fact the more you have, the more it works against you because its too big for anyone to absorb. But on the basis of individual cards, like the RDJ Ironman, of course you can make a lot if you are an original buyer.

But let me ask you this, some people are buying the Downey now close to $3,000. Will they make money when they sell? Maybe, if someone adds a Black Label. It's a crazy pastime, but still not an investment.

I never said anything was an investment. Full stop.

Also I just took random purchases from a single point of time and compared to today. . . There wasn't a predetermined outcome. I actually thought several of the cards would have dropped. . .

PWCC shows completed eBay sales. It's not a different platform.

Who cares if in the Iron Man example most of the cards did drop in value and only one increased in value enough to cover the others. (Although if I had to guess I'd guess the autographs in this set did decent overall -- even without the Downey).

If I take the Wilder card out from this specific example I would have paid $130 in 2017 and replacement cost would be $241 today. I'm sure the next comment is 'ohh well then the biggest increase was on the Jenner lot.'

The point is that for the first time in a bunch of years there are some signs of growth in the hobby. No, not everything is growing (see my previous post about Angelina Jolie), but for many people things are getting positive positive in the hobby for the first time in a while -- and I actually posted several specific examples to back that up.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

The point is that for the first time in a bunch of years there are some signs of growth in the hobby.

Unfortunatly this only seems to apply to the little bit of the hobby called top end autographs or mega sketches. The main bulk of the hobby ( the other 95% ) is dying on it's feet as card collectors are driven away by the high cost of collecting.

If I recall you webjon recently said to me in another thread something along the lines of "don't confuse a profitable product with a healthy hobby". I'm paraphrasing, it's around some place, I just couldn't find the exact quote, but I'm sure you remember it.

So I would say, don't confuse signs of growth in the hobby with benefits for non-sport card collectors. Some of those signs, like $200 boxes and titles that cost too much too possibly complete, have the opposite effect for card collectors. I'm warning against the notion of cards as investments because the Big Money has arrived, just as it arrived with sports cards.

The fundamental argument might be, do you believe Big Money in non-sport cards is growth or death? I guess that would depend on whether you're a buyer, seller, collector and mainly, whether or not you can afford to get the cards you want yourself. For card collectors who feel they are getting shut out, it's not growth.

You have to remember that most collectors do not want to sell their cards and don't want to settle for buying second rate cards, if that's all that's left in their price range. So growth is in the eye of the beholder and the influx of money into the hobby is cutting both ways. Hope that makes some sense.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

The point is that for the first time in a bunch of years there are some signs of growth in the hobby.

Unfortunatly this only seems to apply to the little bit of the hobby called top end autographs or mega sketches. The main bulk of the hobby ( the other 95% ) is dying on it's feet as card collectors are driven away by the high cost of collecting.

I think it just seems like the other 95% is dying on Card Talk . . .

I don't get any where near the same sense of doom and gloom for the hobby on any other board outside of Card Talk.

And actually it seems like there is a bit more discussion on Card Talk lately too.

A little OT for this thread but to balance my experience with the Emilia Clarke autos, I have a better story with sketch cards. Way back when, I started collecting sketch cards when Strictly Ink sort of released a Ray Harryhausen set. Thanks to a nice pull or two I was able to add a couple of Warren Martineck sketches to my collection. At that time, they would have cost me several hundred pounds...each. A couple of months ago, I was able to win a Martineck sketch from that set in an eBay auction for £12.99p inc luding postage. So, as with most things, it's very much a case of swings and roundabouts

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
If I recall you webjon recently said to me in another thread something along the lines of "don't confuse a profitable product with a healthy hobby". I'm paraphrasing, it's around some place, I just couldn't find the exact quote, but I'm sure you remember it.

So I would say, don't confuse signs of growth in the hobby with benefits for non-sport card collectors. Some of those signs, like $200 boxes and titles that cost too much too possibly complete, have the opposite effect for card collectors. I'm warning against the notion of cards as investments because the Big Money has arrived, just as it arrived with sports cards.

The fundamental argument might be, do you believe Big Money in non-sport cards is growth or death? I guess that would depend on whether you're a buyer, seller, collector and mainly, whether or not you can afford to get the cards you want yourself. For card collectors who feel they are getting shut out, it's not growth.

You have to remember that most collectors do not want to sell their cards and don't want to settle for buying second rate cards, if that's all that's left in their price range. So growth is in the eye of the beholder and the influx of money into the hobby is cutting both ways. Hope that makes some sense.

It sounds like we are talking about entirely different things. $200 boxes is a different topic than cards growing in value.

As far as some older cards growing in value I tend to believe a rising tide raises all ships.

As far as $200 boxes. . . I think I've said on this board over and over again -- when I was selling people would balk at spending $5 on a complete set of cards at a show. I doubt the manufacturer could produce them for $5 let alone the time spent by the dealer to collate sets, supplies, etc.

$5 sets aren't profitable for the manufacturer or dealer (and are a real killer now with how expensive postage is), at some point something had to give. . .

The hobby is trying new things. They won't all work, but some of them are succeeding in bringing in new collectors. If a collector can't deal with the fact that they can't just get everything they want on release of a product then they probably aren't going to enjoy the hobby as much as it evolves.

Given how truly scarce some of the older autographs are, and how much some celebrities charge to sign at conventions I can't say I'm surprised to see the values of autographs increase.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:
A little OT for this thread but to balance my experience with the Emilia Clarke autos, I have a better story with sketch cards. Way back when, I started collecting sketch cards when Strictly Ink sort of released a Ray Harryhausen set. Thanks to a nice pull or two I was able to add a couple of Warren Martineck sketches to my collection. At that time, they would have cost me several hundred pounds...each. A couple of months ago, I was able to win a Martineck sketch from that set in an eBay auction for £12.99p inc luding postage. So, as with most things, it's very much a case of swings and roundabouts

Nice pick up!

I haven't followed these cards at all -- do you think $12.99 is the going rate, or did you just get an awesome deal?

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:
A little OT for this thread but to balance my experience with the Emilia Clarke autos, I have a better story with sketch cards. Way back when, I started collecting sketch cards when Strictly Ink sort of released a Ray Harryhausen set. Thanks to a nice pull or two I was able to add a couple of Warren Martineck sketches to my collection. At that time, they would have cost me several hundred pounds...each. A couple of months ago, I was able to win a Martineck sketch from that set in an eBay auction for £12.99p inc luding postage. So, as with most things, it's very much a case of swings and roundabouts

Nice pick up!

I haven't followed these cards at all -- do you think $12.99 is the going rate, or did you just get an awesome deal?

Without a doubt, I just got lucky this time But, I doubt cards from this particular set have maintained their high values with a handful of exceptions, e.g. I have two full colour Sean Pence sketches that would still fetch a great price if someone managed to prize them from my cold, dead hands

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:

quote:

Originally posted by weasel-king:
The RDJ card in the original post is the only non-sport card I regret selling in my years of collecting.

If memory serves, I sold it for $175 (which should tell you how long ago it was!). I had picked it up for $125, so the profit was an easy sell for me when I decided to simply not finish the master set.

I've never had an RDJ card but I did pull two Emilia Clarke autos from GoT Season 2. One I sold for around £95 and the other, I think, for slightly more. At the time, June 2013, the money came in useful. Looking at listings today for the same card...does not bring a smile to my face. Hindsight is a wonderful thing

I had both versions of Emilia from complete set Archive boxes I got at a great price from jumping in early on, before most people were interested in the cards.

I sold the full-bleed version long ago, for about what you sold yours for (so also way too cheap), but at the time, I kind of needed to for purposes of paying back my back account for buying the Archive boxes.

Look at the bright side, though. If "Game of Thrones" had been able to come up with the universally adored finish for Daenerys that Marvel came up with for Iron Man in the MCU movie series, those Clarke cards might have doubled in value (like Downey's just did), which would've made our early parting with them for what we did an even more bitter pill to swallow.

I heard a Snoop Dogg song earlier and remembered he signed for Allen and Ginter in 2014. I was floored when I saw these are selling for $300+ now. In 2014 these were selling for $75-100.

I think there is a bit of truth to what everyone is saying but what I seem to be seeing at present is a bit more selective. The price hikes are mostly for the following:

Legends who have only signed for one or two sets are starting to get noticed. Before the RDJ $1K+ explosion the death of David Bowie knocked his card right off Ebay.

Gene Wilder hikes make total sense.

Upper Deck's Marvel releases have drawn quite a bit of attention to the hobby. Plus they seem to have kept a lid on overproduction.

Pop Century's one time signers generate a bit of activity when it starts to look like they aren't going to sign again.

This hobby is both licensed and very limited. Even the most common signatures have dropped to a production of 800 or less. (A fraction of 1% of any average fan base)

Cards like Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Gardner came out at a top price with little room to move. I think they need to do something exciting with their careers for them to move. I did hear that Jolie is being brought into the Marvel universe.

The autograph part of this hobby has always had a built in pattern for long term value if enough people ever got turned on to it.

Should anyone collect as an investment? Never. But I am bit excited to see what the next 10 years or so brings to all of this.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude,

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I think there is a bit of truth to what everyone is saying but what I seem to be seeing at present is a bit more selective. The price hikes are mostly for the following:

Legends who have only signed for one or two sets are starting to get noticed. Before the RDJ $1K+ explosion the death of David Bowie knocked his card right off Ebay.

Gene Wilder hikes make total sense.

Upper Deck's Marvel releases have drawn quite a bit of attention to the hobby. Plus they seem to have kept a lid on overproduction.

Pop Century's one time signers generate a bit of activity when it starts to look like they aren't going to sign again.

This hobby is both licensed and very limited. Even the most common signatures have dropped to a production of 800 or less. (A fraction of 1% of any average fan base)

Cards like Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Gardner came out at a top price with little room to move. I think they need to do something exciting with their careers for them to move. I did hear that Jolie is being brought into the Marvel universe.

The autograph part of this hobby has always had a built in pattern for long term value if enough people ever got turned on to it.

Should anyone collect as an investment? Never. But I am bit excited to see what the next 10 years or so brings to all of this.

I totally agree. . .

A lot of the price hikes seem to happen where there is carry over -- i.e. legends as you pointed out, things that have their own fan base like Star Wars, products that are bleeding over in to sports collectors like Marvel -- or for that matter Pop Century and Allen and Ginter. I haven't looked, but I'd guess a lot of non-sport specific sets that don't carry over in any of these ways haven't done as well.

Compared to the size of the fan bases print runs on autographs are absurdly slow. I was really surprised to see how quickly new new Marvel set sold out on ePack. Looking at the number of autographs that were appeared plus those that showed up on eBay and COMC I'd guess Karen Gillan had less than 100 signed cards. Jeremy Renner and Cobie Smulders slightly higher than Gillan, but also very low. When you get into the big four -- Hemsworth, Evans, Holland and Brolin you are talking well under 100 signed. . . I'd guess around 50 of each.

I know people are going to complain because they can't get every card they want instantly for very cheap, but the reality is that model isn't sustainable.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Cards like Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Gardner came out at a top price with little room to move. I think they need to do something exciting with their careers for them to move. I did hear that Jolie is being brought into the Marvel universe.

Just saw Jolie is going to be in Eternals . . . no clue what that is. Hopefully it brings interest to her autos. . . wonder if she will sign again. . .

All those Marvel people have signed way more than that. They're all stickered, don't forget. People like Hemsworth have been in something like 5 or 6 sets now. He clearly signed plenty of stickers. You just needed to not be fussy about which set it comes from, before they all disappeared or sky-rocketed. I'd go as far as to say signers on the Marvel sets like Michael Rooker are much rarer than Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth. Just nowhere near as in demand. As Raven said though, people like that were already in the upper price brackets from the moment of release.

I picked up a Jeremy Renner a while back easily for about 30 bucks (from the Civil War set). There are plenty of these around, people are just sitting on them and/or overcharging for them.

In general though, is any of this really a surprise? Rare stuff that gets rarer goes up in price. Things signed by people who are very prominent right now, go up in price. Things signed by famous people who died, go up in price. Christopher Lee cards doubled in price over night (and were all of a sudden twice as plentiful overnight as well - coincidence?). All the Ronnie Barker autographs from Avengers disappeared or are now around £100.

It happens all the time. Look at what people are currently trying to charge for the Mahershala Ali autograph card from The 4400. Used to be a 5 buck card. Now he's getting non-stop media attention and people know who he is... there's only one on ebay US, and the seller is asking $250 for the same card. Not saying they'll get that price for it, but isn't all we're discussing here just basic commercialism and opportunism?

Incidentally, if anyone in the UK wants that card, I noticed someone else listing it for £16 or offer, delivered, because they obviously don't realise. Doesn't show up in most searches because they've used his full name of Mahashalalhashbaz Ali. That won't stay under the radar for long now he's been confirmed for the MCU.

Of course it is an assumption that they signed way more. Even though signing stickers allows for companies to stretch things I would think that they would still need some sort of agreement to use signatures and images across different releases.

I have yet to see a flood of Sigourney Weavers and Michael Keaton's. I have not seen a Hiddleston in a really long time. It's a bit far fetched to believe that every seller is sitting on them to drive up the price. What I typically see is a seller put it out at a certain price knowing that the supply has dried up a bit.

Rooker's UD card was not a sticker and it is definitely more rare. I just found his Walking Dead sig to be a much better looking autograph. Also UD seems to jump from on card to sticker at strange intervals.

Cards can still be had for a much lower price for those with the patience to wait for the right seller. I just picked up an Eric Bana Star Trek card for $18. I often look at the sold section of ebay and still see some decent deals. But knowing the production numbers of the cards these are a steal, not getting them for what they are worth.

I picked up an Ali from the Alphas set just before Green Book hit but that sort of thing is exactly what should drive the price of a card up don't you think?

quote:

Originally posted by ravenheart:
In general though, is any of this really a surprise? Rare stuff that gets rarer goes up in price. Things signed by people who are very prominent right now, go up in price. Things signed by famous people who died, go up in price. Christopher Lee cards doubled in price over night (and were all of a sudden twice as plentiful overnight as well - coincidence?). All the Ronnie Barker autographs from Avengers disappeared or are now around £100.

Not saying they'll get that price for it, but isn't all we're discussing here just basic commercialism and opportunism?

Cut down your post a bit to repeat what I think are the key points. I agree, none of this is new. If you want to call it commercialism and opportunism that's OK, to me its simply a matter of increased demand for whatever reason. RDJ was an expensive auto, but he went up because Ironman became so prominent in the whole series. Ali was easy to go up because he was an unknown common when the 4400 came out and now he's an Oscar winner. Demand rose, so the price follows. Its not strictly about rarity at all. If demand gets high 50 copies or 500 copies make no difference, they will sell out. But of course only 50 copies has the potential to be the card more sort after. However 1/1s, which can be no rarer, can go begging when there is no interest, so that is why demand trumps rarity.

With autographs, the death bounce always exists. Die and some collector thinks they need your signature. A minor name will return quickly to the original price, but bigger stars will mark up higher and stay up. Do a big movie or TV show, same thing, more demand, higher price. All this is true, and has always been true, on a case by case, celebrity be celebrity basis.

The autograph card market as a whole has gone soft and I see many bargains out there because time has pasted, demand has been met, and the prices slip off. That's just my opinion and I like it because many of these autos have been unreasonable high and just not worth it.

And ravenheart, I picked up that Jeremy Renner Civil War when it first appeared and I think I paid $90. Now it's $30. Guess that was one I should have waited on, but Marvel didn't give him all that much to do. Slippage.

The interesting thing that manufacturers have done is limit the stickers as well as create multiple cards with the same signer. . . This allows 2 different groups of people to remain engaged in the product -- the people who aren't picky have options, and the completests with resources have multiple things to chase. This also helps to limit the 'race to the bottom' on prices. I'm certain that if all of the Hemsworth stickers were included in a single product all on the same card the price of his autograph would be far less than it is now having his autograph spread over many cards and many sets.

Thanks for the tip on the Ali auto -- I had no idea it had become interesting.

The $30 Renner autographs all but disappeared last year. The prices have been creeping up to at least double that and even in some cases approach $100. Same thing with the Michael Pena autographs. . . last year they were in the $30s I've been looking for one for months and can't find one anywhere near that.

Ultimately I'm just happy to see growth in non-sport cards after a long period of stagnation perhaps even contraction.