• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Are Pokemon Cards the new collectible like comics?
3 3

119 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Another big difference is that 1st edition Pokemon cards are also "first appearance" collectibles for Pokemon. 

 

that's actually not true.   The pokemon gameboy videogame was the first appearance of most of those characters.

And btw, that game sealed is on fire.   I never bothered buying it because I viewed it as common and yet the charizard cover is getting to mid five figures on a first edition perfect specimen.    The cards are certainly significant but not actually the "first."

Overall, I agree, 90s marvel product has its fans and even its deep fans like Mephisto but for many people it is kinda "meh" .     There's really no comparing the popularity of 90s marvel cards to the popularity of pokemon cards in any meaningful way.    

Most people also don't realize how big pokemon has become.    I'm not a particular fan of it (just kind of tolerate it because my daughter enjoys it), but the amount of revenue generated from it is staggering and way in excess of even the marvel movies (put together!).    Its a global phenomenom in the truest sense of the word.     This is just a wiki list, but look at the #1 spot with $103,000,000,000 in revenue (more than star wars, for comparison's sake).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bronty said:

that's actually not true.   The pokemon gameboy videogame was the first appearance of most of those characters.

And btw, that game sealed is on fire.   I never bothered buying it because I viewed it as common and yet the charizard cover is getting to mid five figures on a first edition perfect specimen.    The cards are certainly significant but not actually the "first."

Overall though, your point holds, 90s marvel product has its fans and even its deep fans but for many people it is so much "meh" .     There's really no comparing 90s marvel cards to pokemon cards in any meaningful way.    

Most people also don't realize how big pokemon has become.    I'm not a particular fan of it (just kind of tolerate it because my daughter enjoys it), but the amount of revenue generated from it is staggering and way in excess of even the marvel movies.    Its a global phenomenom in the truest sense of the word.     This is just a wiki list, but look at the #1 spot with $103,000,000,000 in revenue (more than star wars, for comparison's sake).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises

Holy cow.  That must be a cash cow for Nintendo.  Makes me think I should buy more stock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bronty said:
2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Another big difference is that 1st edition Pokemon cards are also "first appearance" collectibles for Pokemon. 

 

that's actually not true.   The pokemon gameboy videogame was the first appearance of most of those characters.

And btw, that game sealed is on fire.   I never bothered buying it because I viewed it as common and yet the charizard cover is getting to mid five figures on a first edition perfect specimen.    The cards are certainly significant but not actually the "first."

Overall, I agree, 90s marvel product has its fans and even its deep fans like Mephisto but for many people it is kinda "meh" .     There's really no comparing the popularity of 90s marvel cards to pokemon cards in any meaningful way.    

Most people also don't realize how big pokemon has become.    I'm not a particular fan of it (just kind of tolerate it because my daughter enjoys it), but the amount of revenue generated from it is staggering and way in excess of even the marvel movies (put together!).    Its a global phenomenom in the truest sense of the word.     This is just a wiki list, but look at the #1 spot with $103,000,000,000 in revenue (more than star wars, for comparison's sake).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises

That's why I put "first appearance" in quotes and specifically mentioned collectibles.  If you decided to collect Pokemon, buying the Pokemon Gameboy video game isn't a collection... it's one item.

Collecting the 1st Edition cards as "first appearance" collectibles makes the most sense, since there are 102 of them and it's possible to actually "collect" something.

1999 wasn't far from the first year of Pokemon, while 1994 Fleer Ultra X-Men cards are still three decades from the start of X-Men collecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, valiantman said:

That's why I put "first appearance" in quotes and specifically mentioned collectibles.  If you decided to collect Pokemon, buying the Pokemon Gameboy video game isn't a collection... it's one item.

 

TBH I'm struggling to understand your point.    Lots of people collect all the pokemon video games for example, and there's lot of them.   Its not like they put out one really successful game 20 years ago and stopped.    In fact there's multiple versions of every game even.   And the games are collectible too?    So while it may or may not be your cup of tea, the fact is, the cards are not the first appearance in a collectible.    A mint sealed copy of the first game will outsell a perfect condition version of all but a few of the cards.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, valiantman said:

 

1999 wasn't far from the first year of Pokemon, while 1994 Fleer Ultra X-Men cards are still three decades from the start of X-Men collecting.

agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, october said:

The rule of 25 doesn't apply to a ton of stuff. Beanie Babies? Nope. The vast, vast majority of 90's cards and comics? Nope. Literally everything I collected as a kid is worthless. You can argue all of that stuff was overproduced, and it most certainly was, but interest is still next to zero for a most of it. Even hot collectibles like video games are mostly low dollar. If you owned certain games and if you kept them sealed, it's a goldmine, but the rest? Not so much. The majority of NES carts are still cheap (under $50 each for a good whack of the library) and even CIB stuff isn't generally that expensive. 

I agree that 25 years from now something will be popular and valuable, but identifying that thing is much much easier out the back window than the front. 

The Rule of 25 ALWAYS applies. You're misunderstanding what it is. The Rule of 25 says that there will be a collectible 25 years from now from what 12-17 year old boys want right now. It does not mean that every thing that a 12-17 year old boy wants right now will become collectible. The gamble is to find it and be right but not spend a lot of money doing it. My son was 12 in 2007, you can be assured that everything he bought and wanted from 2007-2012 was bought twice in my house. (thumbsu

I would argue that Beanie Babies were NOT wanted by 12-17 year old boys in 1995. They were wanted by people looking to make fast bucks, present company included.

Edited by FlyingDonut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

The Rule of 25 ALWAYS applies. You're misunderstanding what it is. The Rule of 25 says that there will be a collectible 25 years from now from what 12-17 year old boys want right now. It does not mean that every thing that a 12-17 year old boy wants right now will become collectible. The gamble is to find it and be right but not spend a lot of money doing it. My son was 12 in 2007, you can be assured that everything he bought and wanted from 2007-2012 was bought twice in my house. (thumbsu

I would argue that Beanie Babies were NOT wanted by 12-17 year old boys in 1995. They were wanted by people looking to make fast bucks, present company included.

It doesn't ALWAYS apply, Dan. The things my friends and I wanted as 12 year olds are not, and have never been again, as collectible as they were when I was 12. Here's what we wanted. Not exactly retirement portfolio material:

1. Sports cards like Ken Griffey and Mark McGwire rookies. 

3 through 20. MORE sports cards. 

21. Air Jordans.

22. NES games, including a lot of sports titles (specifically RBI Baseball and Ice Hockey, or slightly later the Maddens on SNES/Genesis)

23. Starter jackets. 

24. Starting Lineup figures. 

25. Comics like Punisher mini series #1, Spider-Man #1, Wolverine #1, Ghost Rider #1, New Mutants 87. 

26. Marvel collectible cards. 

Out of the above, some sealed NES games and the Jordans hold significant value (talking $1000+ here). Knowing that something 25 years from now will be popular is pretty worthless without a crystal ball, so yelling "rule of 25!!!" every time something goes up is about as helpful as yelling "stocks!!!" when an IPO succeds. Yes, obviously, nostalgia drives value, but so what? You still have to pick the one winner out of a VERY crowded field of losers and then wait decades to see if it pays off. Had my parents invested in the things my friends and I wanted, REALLY wanted, they would have significantly, disasterously underperformed the risk free rate. In fact, we did buy a lot of wildly popular stuff that my friends and I wanted during that age, mostly cards. It's kindling now. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bronty said:
37 minutes ago, valiantman said:

That's why I put "first appearance" in quotes and specifically mentioned collectibles.  If you decided to collect Pokemon, buying the Pokemon Gameboy video game isn't a collection... it's one item.

 

TBH I'm struggling to understand your point.    Lots of people collect all the pokemon video games for example, and there's lot of them.

What is the equivalent of a Charizard "rookie card"?  Do you really think it's a sealed Gameboy video game?

The 1999 1st Edition Pokemon cards are "close enough" to the beginning of Pokemon, particularly in the U.S., that they are basically the "rookie cards" of Pokemon characters.  Getting hung up on whether they're the "true first appearance" is where you're struggling.  If the true first appearance of Pokemon was on a candy wrapper in Japan in 1994, it wouldn't change that the sealed video games and the 1st edition base cards are "close enough" to be very high dollar collectibles today.

The comparison between Fleer Ultra X-Men and Pokemon isn't valid because Fleer Ultra X-Men don't represent the "first" of anything X-Men.  They're 30 years too late.  Pokemon cards are plenty early to be treated as "first" in value even if they're not THE first Pokemon product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, october said:
33 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

The Rule of 25 ALWAYS applies. You're misunderstanding what it is. The Rule of 25 says that there will be a collectible 25 years from now from what 12-17 year old boys want right now. It does not mean that every thing that a 12-17 year old boy wants right now will become collectible. The gamble is to find it and be right but not spend a lot of money doing it. My son was 12 in 2007, you can be assured that everything he bought and wanted from 2007-2012 was bought twice in my house. (thumbsu

I would argue that Beanie Babies were NOT wanted by 12-17 year old boys in 1995. They were wanted by people looking to make fast bucks, present company included.

It doesn't ALWAYS apply, Dan. The things my friends and I wanted as 12 year olds are not, and have never been again, as collectible as they were when I was 12. Here's what we wanted. Not exactly retirement portfolio material:

1. Sports cards like Ken Griffey and Mark McGwire rookies. 

3 through 20. MORE sports cards. 

21. Air Jordans.

22. NES games, including a lot of sports titles (specifically RBI Baseball and Ice Hockey, or slightly later the Maddens on SNES/Genesis)

23. Starter jackets. 

24. Starting Lineup figures. 

25. Comics like Punisher mini series #1, Spider-Man #1, Wolverine #1, Ghost Rider #1, New Mutants 87. 

26. Marvel collectible cards. 

Out of the above, some sealed NES games and the Jordans hold significant value (talking $1000+ here). Knowing that something 25 years from now will be popular is pretty worthless without a crystal ball, so yelling "rule of 25!!!" every time something goes up is about as helpful as yelling "stocks!!!" when an IPO succeds. Yes, obviously, nostalgia drives value, but so what? You still have to pick the one winner out of a VERY crowded field of losers and then wait decades to see if it pays off. Had my parents invested in the things my friends and I wanted, REALLY wanted, they would have significantly, disasterously underperformed the risk free rate. In fact, we did buy a lot of wildly popular stuff that my friends and I wanted during that age, mostly cards. It's kindling now. 

@octoberYou're saying the same thing as @FlyingDonut - and then saying it's doesn't ALWAYS apply.

You both agree that something becomes more valuable in the 25th year after kids wanted it.  You both agree that everything that's 25 years old doesn't become more valuable.

Yelling "stocks!!!" when an IPO succeeds doesn't replicate the 25-year gap between high demand, low demand, then high demand again.  If it was the same sort of thing, there would a 25 year window involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, valiantman said:

when an IPO succeeds doesn't replicate the 25-year gap between high demand, low demand, then high demand again.  If it was the same sort of thing, there would a 25 year window involved.

I'm not comparing the time windows. I'm comparing the difficulty involved in picking the winners. Nostaligia does drive value....but so what? Trying to correctly identify that one thing is INSANELY hard. Do you know how I know that? Because the things that are valuable now from 20-30 years ago (certain sealed NES games, gem mint 10 Pokemon cards, Alpha Black Lotus, unused Jordan 1's) are not just wildly popular, they are also generally very scarce. They are scarce because very, very few correctly predicted their value spike outside of a handful of people who were probably branded as nutjobs at the time. Everyone else was busy buying the "can't miss, no brainer investment opportunites". Trying to predict the future leaves you with cases of 1993 Fleer Baseball, boxes of post-Unity Valiant and rerelease Star Wars figures more often than not. 

Edited by october
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final irony is that correctly predicting future demand and choosing those one or two great things is not enough. Not only do you have to be right in order to cash in on something like a sealed Pokemon series 1 box 20 years later, other people have to be WRONG too. If everyone sees the potential future value and hoards them, the supply spikes and the price declines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, valiantman said:

What is the equivalent of a Charizard "rookie card"?  Do you really think it's a sealed Gameboy video game?

The 1999 1st Edition Pokemon cards are "close enough" to the beginning of Pokemon, particularly in the U.S., that they are basically the "rookie cards" of Pokemon characters.  Getting hung up on whether they're the "true first appearance" is where you're struggling.  If the true first appearance of Pokemon was on a candy wrapper in Japan in 1994, it wouldn't change that the sealed video games and the 1st edition base cards are "close enough" to be very high dollar collectibles today.

The comparison between Fleer Ultra X-Men and Pokemon isn't valid because Fleer Ultra X-Men don't represent the "first" of anything X-Men.  They're 30 years too late.  Pokemon cards are plenty early to be treated as "first" in value even if they're not THE first Pokemon product.

I’m not disputing that the charizard card is the most valuable.   But keep in mind a 9.8 first edition Pokémon red (with guess who on the cover ? Charizard) is a 50k+ item now.   I’m not sure why you’re eager to explain that away like it’s a candy wrapper. 
 

Anyways , the point we both agree on is that the dynamics are very different than marvel cards.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

I’m not disputing that the charizard card is the most valuable.   But keep in mind a 9.8 first edition Pokémon red (with guess who on the cover ? Charizard) is a 50k item now.   I’m not sure why you’re eager to explain that away like it’s a candy wrapper. 

Heard there was a trade for a NWC grey. 

I know which one I would rather have, but the future value trajectory winner isn't very clear to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, october said:

Heard there was a trade for a NWC grey. 

yes that's right.  Not sure it was even a first edition (?).    Don't think it matters for purposes of the discussion anyways.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, october said:

It doesn't ALWAYS apply, Dan. The things my friends and I wanted as 12 year olds are not, and have never been again, as collectible as they were when I was 12. Here's what we wanted. Not exactly retirement portfolio material:

1. Sports cards like Ken Griffey and Mark McGwire rookies. Not collectible now. Most likely because of insane overprinting and the 1994 baseball strike ALTHOUGH they're coming back.

3 through 20. MORE sports cards.  Not collectible now. Most likely because of insane overprinting and the 1994 baseball strike ALTHOUGH they're coming back.

21. Air Jordans. Exploding in value, Absolutely insane right now.

22. NES games, including a lot of sports titles (specifically RBI Baseball and Ice Hockey, or slightly later the Maddens on SNES/Genesis) Many NES games are nuts - the ones that are nuts are not the ones that sold a zillion copies however.

23. Starter jackets.  Vintage Starter stuff is nutty right now.

24. Starting Lineup figures.  Dogs

25. Comics like Punisher mini series #1, Spider-Man #1, Wolverine #1, Ghost Rider #1, New Mutants 87. Prices across the board have doubled in the past year.

26. Marvel collectible cards. Dogs

Out of the above, some sealed NES games and the Jordans hold significant value (talking $1000+ here). Knowing that something 25 years from now will be popular is pretty worthless without a crystal ball, so yelling "rule of 25!!!" every time something goes up is about as helpful as yelling "stocks!!!" when an IPO succeds. Yes, obviously, nostalgia drives value, but so what? You still have to pick the one winner out of a VERY crowded field of losers and then wait decades to see if it pays off. Had my parents invested in the things my friends and I wanted, REALLY wanted, they would have significantly, disasterously underperformed the risk free rate. In fact, we did buy a lot of wildly popular stuff that my friends and I wanted during that age, mostly cards. It's kindling now. 

 

 

You bought then. You shouldn't have. You should have bought in 2000 when no one wanted the stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of sealed NES that were more common are doing amazing actually.   The trick was not being a sucker and buying loose when the difference between the loose and sealed was paltry. 

Super Mario 3 is as common as it gets for sealed NES and its still five figures sealed and minty now because everybody wants at least one in their collection.   Hulk 181 type effect - common doesn't matter if demand is huge.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, october said:

The final irony is that correctly predicting future demand and choosing those one or two great things is not enough. Not only do you have to be right in order to cash in on something like a sealed Pokemon series 1 box 20 years later, other people have to be WRONG too. If everyone sees the potential future value and hoards them, the supply spikes and the price declines. 

You also have to not give a shyt when everyone tells you are wrong and you also have to be willing to hold on without selling or at least without extracting equity for an unreasonably long time.   (And you actually have to have been right.    Even if you are right, changing winds will mean you could have been a bit more right).    It can be done, but most people have neither the stomach nor the sense for it.   Ultimately you also need a lot of appreciation for and attachment to the material itself too or you’ll always sell too early..

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3