Chris, this is why your channel is the only sports card channel i watch regularly. You are always doing videos on card nerdy topics we can sink our teeth into. I bet just about anyone writing comments here could write a damn book on this subject. Its interesting, thought-provoking, and fun. Freaking fantastic, man.

Hey, good morning, happy 4th everyone. In that order🤝🏻

A is my favorite

I love that you’re doing these experiments!

Fantastic move on the Stamkos Young Guns! I’m stocking up on his PSA 10s! Low POP and compare his Young Guns to other future HOF players and you’ll see how much it can grow. 2 cups and he’s gonna hit the 600 goal mark in 2 years. I shouldn’t share my hockey secrets but he is a BUY! Criminally undervalued

This is a great series! I’m an “A” guy personally. While dabbling in the other two options usually to sell to fund for my “A” collection.

A loses 5% plus seller fees. B loses 10% plus sellers fees. C loses 40% plus seller fees

I collect the A category. Not just for investment purposes but I love the look and nostalgia it gives me! BTW I’m not that old to have lived and collected at that time.

Easy. Vintage, Vintage and Vintage!

I love all of your experimentation, Chris. It sounds strange to hear Giannis being talked about as being in the back half of his career, but I guess it really has been 11 years or so. Time flys.

This is great stuff Mr Sewall, science class is definitely in! My hypothesis is that the growth of each portfolio might be pretty similar, but the volatility will be highest in the prospects and least volatility in vintage. Thanks for putting this together.

If goal is 3 months I would do C by far, because NBA, NHL and NFL season starts and ALL those prospects and 2/3 year players will be hype mode again for the first couple weeks, and those MLB prospects are in callup during that time. If they flop and have bad splits for a week or two, that short term loss wouldnt be too bad because the sample size is too small and people will still be buying. If long term 1 or 10 years, B is the choice, their grades are phenomenal and the print runs/pop are quite mid-low for some of those sets. Those players will still be relevant to all generations, and a lot will continue to shatter records during that time. Ovechkin breaks the goal record, crosby maybe moves top 5 in points, betts maybe cements himself as a mays 5tool player, arenado and kershaw get more recognition as they rack up numbers and retire, and those nba legends might grab another chip or two. In ten years a lot of gen z kids will be working class and if cards are still a thing, will buyin to these player relevant to their childhood, bringing another strong demographic for these cards.

I love this. I do think you need a 4th category, and it's the one you excluded: recently retired future HOFers but not yet inducted. I think they are a great buy right now: Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Pujols, Votto, Datysuk, Melo, Howard, etc.

You have the Brandon Miller Silver Psa 10 at $90. It sells for $200+ on every recent sale on eBay.

Another stat for the ‘1 year from now’ aspect : How many sales were had on cards with those specs over 365 days ? Of all 45 cards, which ones sell the most (and thus would have strong interest) and which ones don’t sell as regularly.

Obviously vintage is always the safest bet when it comes to investing (and flipping) with the only caveat being you have to know what you're doing.. I mean you're not going to lose money on vintage if you're an experienced collector/investor/dealer - not only that - but if you know your stuff and are familiar with the vintage market - vintage cards are extremely easy cards to flip - especially high-grade raw vintage because there is always a demand for high-grade vintage cards (even mid-grade cards, and low grade cards with nice eye-appeal). I mean I can't recall the last time I lost money on vintage, sure on the rare occasion I'll break even, or not make as much as I would like - I usually like to 5X my investment on cards less than 40 bucks or so - but I haven't taken a loss in a very-very long time.. Of course at the moment I have a pretty substantial vintage inventory, hence money invested into cardboard - but I don't anticipate losing money on any of it - and that's what makes vintage so great from an investment perspective - I don't have to sell vintage immediately, I can take my time with it and the market will remain strong and stable with long-term gains almost a certainty (it's a good hedge against inflation to boot).. So given my experience as a vintage investor/collector/dealer - losing money on vintage is not possible, not with my nearly 40-years of experience dealing in vintage cards, lol..... So with all of that said - vintage is vastly superior to ultra-modern and a terrific "store of value" to boot if you''re looking to invest in something tangible that holds value - similar to bitcoin, gold etc just not nearly as volatile.. I suppose my point is that a raw VG/Ex 1966 Topps Mickey Mantle will always be a good buy for $75 bucks because you can flip it raw for $140+ and make 100% return or you can invest another $20, have it slabbed and hope for a 5.5 and 5X your investment, and you can do so at your own leisure, because that card is NOT going down in value, ever! lol. Now of course I totally understand the ultra-modern position too, and indeed - ultra-modern has the most upside for large short-term gains if you're hedging based on player performance - but ultra-modern also has substantially more risk - and it's not even close -which is why I generally stay away from big money ultra-modern cards - not because I'm afraid of the risk - mostly because I don't know too much about modern cards or players outside of hockey. Although I did buy a ton of ultra-modern mixed sports collections recently and found a "honey hole" on eBay for ultra-modern "large flat-rate shipping boxes (3-5K cards per box)", which I proceeded to gobble up because they were LOADED - but I only picked that stuff up because it's terrific stuff for my $1-10 dollar card show bins - that and the boxes were loaded with HOF'ers, superstars, rookies, parallels refractors/prizm's, inserts etc.. Because my goal as a dealer is to have cards (and sports-related items in general) in my inventory that will appeal to any/every collector - regardless of the sport they collect - from vintage to ultra-modern, whatever it may be. I also try to keep non-sports in my inventory as well - the more unusual the better, lol.. Vintage "car cards" do really well, so do GPK and pretty much anything associated with pop-culture or Americana or items in general that are nostalgic for middle aged guys like myself, lol Anyway, that's just my 2 cents, and what I do in the hobby and what I'm comfortable with.. I've been doing it since the late 80's until I took a hiatus from the hobby in my late teens, then got back into it when I was in my early-to-mid 30's and picked up where I left off, and now I'm a middle aged dude with a lot of cardboard.... And I'm sure there are plenty of collector/investor/dealers out there that can relate, lol... Also, let me point out that when I think about the term "ultra-modern" - I also think about what was once "ultra-modern" when I was a kid - and how the junk wax era all panned out - at least in the long-term.. Especially for a lot of the "pseudo-collectors/investors" that thought their investment in Juan Gonzalez and Ben McDonald would payoff their mortgage and send their kids to college a decade or two later... So yea, if you're doing the ultra-modern thing, keep in mind there will be PLENTY of Gregg Jefferies, Kevin Mitchell's, Cecil Fielder's etc from this era - most guys will end up being "flashes in a pan", so from an investment perspective - I would strongly discourage investing in ultra-modern as a long-term investment unless it's really rare desirable stuff - like serial numbered cards (less than /200), scarce parallels and/or insert cards etc, moreover I would only invest in established players that are shoe-in's for the HOF -- because you cant go wrong with them (usually, lol) -- I'd certainly stay away from investing in rookies the moment they have cards (unless the price is zero risk) if your goal is long-term investment - also, you can bet that 95% of ultra-modern cards have already seen their all time high's, and they'll never come close to those values again, and only a handful of younger players at any given moment will retain their collectibility ... It's funny, because I really enjoy breaking out an old Beckett every now and again and reading it (especially "Collectors Corner" and the "Hot" & "Cold" list) - because it's not only entertaining - but it's a terrific reminder of how objectively volatile "ultra-modern" cards actually are.. I mean open a Beckett from any given time/era and have a look at who were the "hot" players, what their cards were valued at -- it's flipping ridiculous because 90-95% of those players cards didn't retain that value, and only 5-10% saw an increase and this time/era is no different at all.. Also, if you're looking back at card values - don't be afraid to use an inflation calculator to put those values into context.... Now obviously the hobby these days when it comes to ultra-modern is way different than it was back in the day when Beckett was considered the "gold standard" for card values, but the concept of investing/flipping is the same.... Also, I don't know why the hell collectors are still using Beckett in the first place in 2024 considering eBay (in real time) does precisely what Beckett claimed they did to determine their card values, yet Beckett values/prices compared to eBay prices can be significantly skewed - and sometimes it's not even close... I mean I would love know how Beckett claims they arrive at their values these days?? I know when Dr. Beckett ran the publication he would survey his readers - every issue had a price survey readers could fill out for a chance to win a 1-year subscription - that and Beckett would send representatives out into the wild and have them observe and document card shows, local card shops and other hobby events - but that's exactly what eBay does now in real time, and quite honestly I don't care what Beckett says - not only that - but I've noticed some shady dealers/collectors use the differences between Beckett and eBay to their advantage - at least I've had collectors try that with me.. I mean it's been a long while since I've looked up any of my cards in Beckett, but the last time I did - Beckett had cards that objectively sold on eBay everyday for $1-5 dollars (for example) valued $25-50 bucks in their guide... How exactly is that supposed to work?? I suppose my point/rant with the "Beckett thing" is stay away from using Beckett as a price guide unless you have to, and you shouldn't unless you're trying to place a value on a particular card that's extremely rare, lol - but in that case you can ask whatever you want and sell when you get an offer that meets or exceeds what you think the card is worth.. But objectively - eBay, auction houses and other mediums where cards are bought and sold ARE all that matters when trying to determine the value of your cards - NOT what Beckett tells you, lol.. Look, I'm sure if I used Beckett for advice - I'd be out of business, lol.. Sure, Beckett can recommend whatever price/value they like (without telling their readers how they determine these values) but that doesn't mean Beckett's perspective is objectively true - in 2024 "comps" are the only thing that matter, because that's what collectors are paying for a particular card at that very moment, so if you're using Beckett value as investment value then do so at your own financial risk - because I can assure everyone/anyone reading this comment that PLENTY of collectors/investors/dealers lost a TON of money because of Beckett and their subjective pricing - and no one can say the same about eBay, auction houses or sites where comps are available - because that is the market.. Does anyone know how Beckett arrives at their card values? if so, tell me because I've heard all kinds of stories without anything being reliable.

Love these types of videos! C will likely make the most in the short term but it will be because of 3-4 cards, players who get hyped up or they have a great start to their seasons! A will be least volatile and will grow but by how much is the question. I don’t think you’ll see much movement, up or down in group B. Always, enjoy your content Chris, you da Man!

Not that it matters, but the "C" group adds up to $2,490. Great video, Chris!

Another awesome video Chris. Super

B for all 3… will hold or increase in short term & in long term those players will get a bump from entering the HOF… as well will be the GOATS of this generation who newer collectors today will want when they have more disposable income.

Great video as always. Your a professional and a great person.

Great video!!! I love the idea.

Wish u had the time to go through each card represented and why they were chosen, etc..but I understand that would take alot of time. Great video, looking forward to the next

Cool vid, look forward to follow ups.

I agree after one year group B the established stars. I would also place Jose Ramirez and Jose Altuve in the B category. I think both these players don't get enough Good notice and both look like Hall of Fame players to me. I know to a certain group Jose Altuve is not popular but I think he is still a HOFER in the making with 3,000+ hits by end of career & 300 Homers with already 300 SB's.

I agree B will hold up best. Great video

I'd take C for both timeframes. I know A is most consistent and unlikely to lose value, but I'm a bit of a risk taker on prospecting.

I enjoy your tests. I agree with you about the established stars, B, for the three month and one year period. The vintage, A, for the ten years is absolutely correct. Vintage is king!

Great stuff, as always. I would pick A.

I think, short term, C has the most potential to go up but I’d go B for one year. I feel like vintage is a safe investment with little risk and less reward.

For pure short term gain, C would be the choice - high risk, high reward. I tend to be more in the A camp as a collector but have been intrigued lately with cards that would fall in the B category, so I will guess group B for the 1 year returns. For 10-year I would lean toward B over A, with C being a disaster for most, but not all, players.

Hi Chris. This is going to be fun to see the results. I vote "B" will do the best in 3 months and 1 year. "A" for the 10 years.

A is a fixed rate CD B is a low risk well balanced index fund C is investing in many different high risk stocks where maybe one or two balances out your losses, but most likely you lose money in the end. I do think A and B values will be more influenced by the health of the card market in general and C by the play and hobby love of the individual players.

I only know basketball, group B for basketball except for this one flaw- you got brandon miller silver psa 10 at $90 but it's currently $200, if we account for a $110 undervalue then group C for sure.

Brad Komminsk, Cory Snyder. Danny Tartabull, Greg Swindell, Mike Greenville, Kevin Seitzer and a dozen others were hot prospects from mid 80s.

3 Months: Portfolio B I feel like many of these guys will cement HOF candidacies and values will rise accordingly. One Year: Portfolio A As a vintage guy I believe that vintage is the best longer term investment.

Great video and once again Very creative. Scarcity rules! This test IMHO is a bit flawed in that not all cards are graded the same. In addition, scarcity will dictate the price not performance. So, the question then becomes how does a card become scares? It's either via demand or print numbers. The later will always command and sustain a hire price. Demand will ebb and flow but as farther time marches on, even the HOF'ers will start to lose some value...remember Stan Mize and Earl Webb?

There's too much that can happen with injuries & old age for me to say anything but the vintage is the safest "bet". Before prospecting became such a big thing, you could "guess" right and make good money on young players. Now most value gets "baked in" before (especially baseball) they even play. I believe vintage will always be the safest bet. But damn, Chris, you sure are making us look old calling a Kobe RC "vintage". Lol😅

I would pick the Vintage group for one year.

I would pick the veteran stars pack. That’s because in 10 years. Most of those players will be in the Hall of Fame and will achieve a Hall of Fame bump. Your Hall of Famer will not achieve a similar sudden jump in price. Very interested to see where this goes. Thanks for sharing.

Chris, I love the experiment! Tough decision for me. Hypothetically, I’m going with C, with the chance some of the prospects/young players blow up. Realistically, I don’t gamble much so I’m going A lol. Happy Independence Day! 🇺🇸

Great video great exercise thanks for sharing happy fourth to you and your family.

I’m grabbing up A.

I’m looking forward to seeing how this plays out. For 3 months, I’m taking portfolio B. For 1 year, I’m thinking maybe C. One or 2 of those guys has a good year….sky’s the limit on their cards.

I did the mistake of buying hockey, baseball and football card boxes in 2021-22 and kept them thinking that the important cards gonna increase in value with time 🤦🏻 I even still have all the cards I bought back in 1990-92 🤦🏻🤦🏻

To sell in three months and to sell in a year I'd buy the prospects. One great year in such a volatile market could wildly effect those values. To sell in ten years I'd buy the established current players. Recent retirements and ongoing happy memories could skew those way up.

Hi Chris awesome video... of course. a yr from now definitely A. But 5 yrs from now a but possibly B because those r generally low pop yrs and pretty much all those guys r Hofs. 5 yrs from now I would take 1 block of A over 3 blocks of C

Great experiment! I think I would agree with you, although I might be tempted to go with the prospect cards for the 3 month interval. So much of current player and prospect status is tied up in performance, so either way you have to choose wisely, but I think prospect cards have the biggest highs when a player does well even in the minor leagues

It's certainly hard to say. Lot C is like buying small cap stocks, lot B is like buying the blue chips & lot A is like buying bonds.

Sewell is cool!!!😊😊😊😊

I don't follow basketball closely but I would sell on Wembanyama. I get Ralph Sampson as a floor and Rudy Goebert as a ceiling vibes. Plus major injury risk on guys that size. My thought is that his cards sell with higher expectations than that.

I agree the middle with the stars will do the best. Many seem to be pretty low right now and have room to grow. Just from my portfolio of vintage cards ,In the last year they have been trending down or maintaining. I expect they will have the best gain in 10 years but I would not count on it.

For 3 months I'd take group C, it's obviously the most volatile but I think if you have 1-2 prospects blow up it could lift the entire group. Poor (or no) performance out of this group I don't think will depress the value too much as people hold out hope for "their guys". For a year I'd go with group A. It's not going to move up a ton but the other groups are too influenced by what's happening right now. Group B I could see dipping as the back end career players performance continues to dip as would be expected and Group C a year is enough time for the hope to run out and even 1-2 "hits" from this group won't offset the decline in everyone else from Group C. Interesting experiment!

picking B

I assume that none of the prospect cards are numbered? Perhaps a parallel portfolio with only number cards... 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%.

Thanks Chris, good plan. I’m watching in San Diego so I’ll try your idea with my own team, the Padres. My vintage (actually still playing daily) star is Manny Machado, my active established star is Fernando Tatis, Jr. & my prospect is Jackson Merrill. I’ll buy one PSA 10 of each player & monitor their value as time goes by. Hopefully they’ll all stay healthy & keep producing positive results.

I'd take Group C for 3 months and Group B for 1 year. I feel like the inclusion of the Marino, Yount, Ripken and Griffey in Group A is going to keep the average gains lower than any other group. Group C will be hype based and Group B will be performanced based.

I’m a long time collecor so the 10 year value has more importance to me.. seems like u said the vintage holds up better in the long term…

hey this simulation is excellent. I look forward to seeing the results! I do recommend using a larger sample size and only 1 grading company as populations and sports are variable between groups. For example 11 PSA slabs are used in A, 9 in B and 13 in C. You'd want to get as close to apples to apples as you can for control variables like grading company, grade itself, grade as a % of it's own graded population, total population of graded card, sport itself, etc. so if you use 2 hockey cards in group A, the same should be the case in group B and C. you are NEVER going to be perfect so the best COUNTER to what I just said is increasing the number N to 50 or 100 cards for each group. It will better offset any imbalance created by what I just said. Either way, look forward to the results! You're always putting out the best content and I appreciate you.

I feel as though in 3 months, there will be minimum movement on all groups .... death or unexpected retirement. Group A will be the most stable(outside of Jerry West) long-term safe bet Group B Will be most unchanged in a year 20% change up/down Group C will be most volatile 50% or more change in both directions over the year

Three months from now I think C would sell the best (I think those NFL and NBA rookies will sell well then), but in one year I'd take A (I think vintage is the safest long term bet).

I'm skipping the 3 month guess because I'm not organized enough to flip on that schedule😄... At one year, the prospects in group C will experience the wildest swing in values with many(most?) falling down to just better than commons... Group B will probably enjoy the biggest increase as they include players who generate interest as active pros... Group C will follow the general trading card market rise, which is typically slow and steady, so they will increase in value just a bit... So, group B is the better play here unless you managed to pick a breakout star in Group C...

IMO, I think group B will be the worst performer overall. A young player breaking out for a year will 3x their price. A veteran doing the same usually doesn't swing their prices all that crazy since they already have established career stats. Group C could be the loser if a few of those players really fall off but prospects usually hold value until their 3rd year or so. Vintage is the better investment long term but you need someone to die for prices to go up more than 10% or so in a year

Hi Chris, great experiment! Hmm I think 3 months is group C, 1 year group B, and 10 years group A.

3 months - (a) no change (B) +10% (C) -20% 1 Year (a) +3.5% (B) +20% (C) -30% - 10 years - (a) + 10% (b) +52.5% (C) -75% - what the heck, it's your money....LOL. Do it annualy if your still around (+100%) Thanks and have a great one!

A: Microsoft (Slow, but steady wins the race). B: IBM ( The cousin of Microsoft though, a bit less certain. In the long run). C: AMC (''It's better to be lucky than good'' division. A one in a million chance to defeat the odds). ''So you're saying there's a chance?''

Hey Chris As always great content. HUGE Stack behind the Texas Snowman ⛄there. You guys buy comic collections too?? 🤔🤔

I actually believe the Group C has the best three month possibilities while the group A has the best 1 year & 10 year possibilities. My reasoning is James Woods was just called up & if he performs well that card is going to take off. The same is true with Jasson Dominguez (except being called up, although I believe he will be sometime after the All-Star break). Additionally, the other three sports will be at the beginning of their respective seasons or just getting ramped up & that will create some excitement around those rookies. Am I right? Probably not, but I am a gambler when there's nothing on the line! lol

I’ll say C for the 3 months as it will get the start of football season boost. 1 year I think B but maybe C if a majority of C keep playing well.

C, B, C

Well, I’d only take A for 10 years. With a couple thoughts. The Kobe rookie I would expect to go up in value. The Griffey rookie. Sideways at best. The other pics are really solid and a couple of them, I’m hunting for right now.

That Brandon Miller on portfolio C is a very bold inclusion. Will probably skew the results.

All in on "A" 📈🤑💯

i honestly think 10 years down the road profile B would be worth the most, after 3 months probably C has gone up the most with people hyping up extremely modern cards, but after a year i would have to say profile B again i dont think A will move much at all its a good safe portfolio in sports card terms but there is no external factors like their play that wil impact the price of the cards, where as the portfolio B has players that are still active and in the public eye a big game or news can change their value but they have cemented themselves as stars so more down side risk then A but not very much overall with their legacys mostly already in place. and ultra modern for me is just a shot in the dark the movement on ultra modern could see experiential growth if a player has a break out but also the cards have so much value price in compared to their peers that if they are just average thats not good enough. hopefully my comment makes sense haha basically my thinking is that vintage is going to stay flat/return similar to inflation, B will out perform that and that C im leaning toward underperforming but its so hit and miss with ultra modern and so hard to predict

Portfolio A for all 3 durations will be highest (or devalue the least)

This is an interesting experiment, I think it would be cool if you did a similar portfolio with numbered cards. Or a history of how number cards have fared over time. As for this experiment, I think vintage won’t change much either way, the stars will increase in value, but not significantly, and the prospects will be wild swings of big losses and big gains over the 6 months.

B for 3 months A for 1 year and longer

Can I make a video with my most recent $2500 worth of purchases to track on my own alongside yours? Hope you're still doing videos in 10 years..

One issue you are going to run into with the vintage collection is that card prices tend to peak right after a person passes away. So, your Jerry West rookie (the highest priced card in the vintage star lot) is likely capped in value over the next 3 months/year/longer. That may drive the results of this experiment.

That prospects portfolio is going to tank massively

A all day

Wow, this is a great idea! I can see A going up slightly in three months and going up a little again in one year. Group B will stay the same in 3 months then maybe a slight increase in a year. C will for the most part go down, one or two players might have an increase, but as a whole i feel it will be the loser in this race.

I wish there was a way to short the entire baseball prospects market.

I would take Box A Row 1, Box B Column 1, and Box C Row 2. But it would be a lot easier to choose if it were 5x5 random sports. Bingo! #JAI I get 20% 😅😢😂

Hi Chris, will your auctions website be open to buyers from Canada?

10 years from now definitely A. 3 months from now B or C

D: Invent time machine. Go bck 50 yr. Buy HOF vintge in MT+ condition.

Very interesting but I think it would be best to just pit A v B and see what happens. The C category is too subjective if that's even the right word. There's so many different cards that could go into the C category that if you got someone with genuine modern prospecting nous( not me) then that category would brain the other two in the short term and perhaps even medium term. I don't really follow NBA and NFL anymore from a hobby standpoint but I would not want any of those modern baseball cards in my portfolio. Even the Bedard is suspect as the pop count of his YG is in its infancy, and that will affect prices even if he performed above expectations. It might also be fun to see how the eras stack up if the $2,500 went into just one or two cards. Anyway, very interesting. God bless America.

Group C would have a chance if the cards chosen were their premium (most desirable) rookie cards in a Gem 10 grade. As it stands, Group B likely wins all three categories. Group A has too many players whose relevancy is diminishing, so I don't see a majority of those particular cards or players going up in value over time.

Short term? C, these are pretty volatile, and should go up in the next 3-6 months. Long term? A. These will slowly increase in price over the next 5-10 years. I dont know what to say about B, I think this is the biggest risk, prob break even long term, a little loss in 3. Months

B is better for everything lol :)

I would not buy any of these portfolios to sell 3 months from now. Don't think any will be in the money after seller fees. In a year I would say the middle group will go up the most and in 10 years I would def go with A.

no doubt group C if only 3 months, as one or two of those cards could double since these players are at the start of their young careers, and they can still do great things, while the other groups can't really do anything to make their cards increase, except for HOF entry and just time in general...I would take group C for one year as well for the same reasons...if we are talking 5 to 10 years, then I would be most interested in group A, as by that time, many of the cards in group C will have dropped as these players move on in their careers and a handful of them will probably be out of the minds of collectors...

A = break even B = down 25% C = down 60% One year later

B

I bet on A

Why no ohtani

3 months: C; 1 year: C; 5 years: A; 10 years: B

A

I would choose none of those portfolios. The vintage is a bunch of beat up crap, the established player group is a bunch of uninteresting common cards, and the prospects look like future discarded scratch off tickets on the ground in gas station parking lot. All three visually are saddening...but they probably work for the experiment 😛