Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

[geoff]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

On The Manning I would Guess 15K.Lets all see what Happens on The Final Price.

Thanks
Geoff

[legaleagle92481]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

Good job Geoff. What is your guess on the Manning they have on there now? I am going to guess 12k and that Gerry does not bid.

[geoff]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

Wow I feel like I Won Something Now.It would be Cool to Win The Favre Jersey because I Guessed The Price Right On.


Thanks
Geoff

[dcgreg25]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

Looks like geoff wins the prize by guessing the final price exactly at $16,000.00.

[legaleagle92481]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

Does anyone else suspect that this may be a signed game issued jersey rather than a signed game used one?

[jhunt28]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

I emailed NFL Auctions yesterday to ask if they can verify what game the jersey was from. I didn't mention it's probably from the St. Louis game, I just wanted to see.

And here's what some idiot from NFL Auctions emails me:
"[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I was told Monday night against Minnasota"[/font]

Uh, hello, McFly?!?!? The Monday night Minn game on 10/5/09 was at HOME (PURPLE home jersey). Duh!

And this is what we collectors have to rely on?

So you asked which game the Favre VIKINGS jersey was worn, and they told you it was "against Minnesota"??? So it was a Monday Night inter-team scrimmage?? WOW...amazing who is behind the curtain at NFL Auctions.

[nickacs]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

I emailed NFL Auctions yesterday to ask if they can verify what game the jersey was from. I didn't mention it's probably from the St. Louis game, I just wanted to see.

And here's what some idiot from NFL Auctions emails me:
"[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I was told Monday night against Minnasota"[/FONT]

Uh, hello, McFly?!?!? The Monday night Minn game on 10/5/09 was at HOME (PURPLE home jersey). Duh!

And this is what we collectors have to rely on?

[kingjammy24]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

Dealers will often put out their initial offering with significant pricing premiums, knowing that they will need to maximize profits for those items for which there is a market (striking while the iron is hot). This is not so much price gouging as, looking at the inventory as a whole, they must profit handsomely on these initial sales in order to cover the carrying costs of the less desirable inventory which remains—much of which will be discounted and sold at significantly less than their initial listed prices. ..

patrick

one more thought i wanted to add. you discuss the pricing theory behind team deals; where distributors have to 'overcharge' for premier pieces because they'll likely take a loss on undesireable pieces. i understand this and i understand distributors being told that if they want a deal then they have to buy the entire lot, warts and all. so the distributors figure they can profit handsomely from the jeters and arods then maybe being left holding tons of benchwarmers won't be such a hit. but again, this has me confused. why sign a deal with a team as opposed to simply with the premier players? you spoke of how profits made from "hot" items will offset losses from cold items. what if the "hot" items you think you're getting don't actually materialize? case in point: steiner signed a deal with the dodgers. i have to think they were looking forward to the profits on the manny ramirez shirts they believed they would get. funny thing happened on the way to the ballpark, manny took his shirts and left steiner high and dry. same deal with the yankees and steiner where arod flipped steiner the bird on several shirts. when i asked steiner about it, they indicated that neither they nor the team could really force arod to do anything. so they paid for a team deal, lost the big moneymakers and were left with the scrubs. if players can order their own shirts and have those shirts be exclusive of any deals the team has signed, then team deals seem pretty pointless to me. whats the point of signing a deal with the dodgers, paying ahead of time for ramirez shirts you think you're getting, if you get 0 ramirez jerseys? why not take that money instead and simply sign the star players to a deal? that way, you can essentially cherrypick the "hot" players and no longer have the burden of unloading scrub jerseys.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

"..what I was trying to point out is the need to get the premuim items out front early to maximize the cash flow on those items so as to cover carrying those items that will collect dust until such time that they're discounted."

agreed. when steiner first came out with their yankees deal in 2005 everyone dryheaved at the prices. some hypothesized that eventually prices would have to fall simply because they constantly had new product coming in and the current prices wouldn't move the old stuff fast enough to prevent a massive glut from building up. that's exactly what happened and they eventually had their firesales. point is, they did exactly what you're saying here. put the 2009 jeter out at $15k, pray to the heavens, and then if it doesn't sell by the time the 2010 jeters come in then sell it at a discount via someone like GFC or GUU so it doesn't become apparent that the prices have no integrity.

"While agreed that they have at least comperable (if not superior) marketing accumen, I think another factor for the teams is cash flow. Back to Econ 101... You have an item for sale that someone is willing to offer you either (A) a guananteed $100 today; or <B> a promise to pay you a $110 in a year (which by the way comes with the risk that the buyer may not come through with any or all of the payment at the end of that time)..."

sure. but what's interesting is that many teams are in fact going it themselves. it'd be interesting to ask teams like the blue jays, tigers, or A's why they didn't choose to use a distributor. given that they're small-market teams, you'd think they'd be the ones most interested in having a "bird in the hand" as opposed to wealthy giants like the yankees, red sox, and dodgers (all of whom incidentally are the ones who chose to use steiner). the jays and tigers can go it themselves and wait for the cash to trickle in while the yankees and red sox need the money asap? seems odd.

rudy.

[EndzoneSports]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

"to buyers, the amount needed by sellers is irrelevant. ultimately, items sell for what the public is willing to pay and that price has nothing to do with the amount that sellers need. of course, every seller that overpays tries to avoid taking the loss by overcharging others (and thus passing their "loss" on to the buyer.) at the end of the day, all you need is one buyer so i guess this strategy sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't.

You're point is absolutely correct and I'm not even going to try to go back and explain myself as I managed to botch the intent all together... I guess what I was trying to point out is the need to get the premuim items out front early to maximize the cash flow on those items so as to cover carrying those items that will collect dust until such time that they're discounted.

The part that has me a little confused is why teams even bother with distributors. the teams and/or league could sell these things on their own and take the entire pie instead of sharing it with a middleman. the leagues/teams already have famous brand names, greater resources, more robust marketing departments and access to far larger markets than any distributor like JOSports could ever hope to secure. all of them have already been selling merchandise directly to the public for years.

While agreed that they have at least comperable (if not superior) marketing accumen, I think another factor for the teams is cash flow. Back to Econ 101... You have an item for sale that someone is willing to offer you either (A) a guananteed $100 today; or <B> a promise to pay you a $110 in a year (which by the way comes with the risk that the buyer may not come through with any or all of the payment at the end of that time). The value of money over time is what results in the present/future value calculations that result in interest (the "cost" of money). I really believe that many teams look favorably upon the "bird in the hand" theory of taking the guaranteed lump-sum payment up front as opposed to the possibility of greater profits over time; allowing a 3rd-party deal with the risk.

Regards,

[kingjammy24]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

"...they must profit handsomely on these initial sales in order to cover the carrying costs of the less desirable inventory which remains—much of which will be discounted and sold at significantly less than their initial listed prices...Some may not always agree with the dealers’ pricing strategies, however, these businesses have invested a significant amount of capital in order to be able to obtain this inventory to begin with."

to buyers, the amount needed by sellers is irrelevant. ultimately, items sell for what the public is willing to pay and that price has nothing to do with the amount that sellers need. of course, every seller that overpays tries to avoid taking the loss by overcharging others (and thus passing their "loss" on to the buyer.) at the end of the day, all you need is one buyer so i guess this strategy sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't.

the part that has me a little confused is why teams even bother with distributors. the teams and/or league could sell these things on their own and take the entire pie instead of sharing it with a middleman. the leagues/teams already have famous brand names, greater resources, more robust marketing departments and access to far larger markets than any distributor like JOSports could ever hope to secure. all of them have already been selling merchandise directly to the public for years. taking a shirt off a players back and selling it to the public is not rocket science. heck, the NFL is already selling jerseys on their own website. so obviously a distributor needs to offer something unique like an authentication/tracking system that would be too time-consuming for the team to deal with.

"..determining the value of unquestioned authenticity. All collectors would certainly be willing to pay some amount of a pricing premium for the peace of mind of knowing that the item is truly authentic. How much this is worth can vary from collector to collector and from item to item. With the rampant amount of fraud and deception that has plagued our hobby for years, one would think that such guarantees would be a Godsend. What one is willing to pay for such assurances, however, is yet to be determined."

speaking only for current NFL football jerseys, i'm not sure how much value such assurances will have in the future if photomatching becomes increasingly easier and more widespread. if you purchase a jersey from a team and can easily match that shirt, then what do you need a litany of holograms and tracking IDs and tags etc? essentially, those things are provenance and provenance is irrelevant if the item is photomatched.

unless they provide a unique and important service, i just don't see much of a purpose for middlemen in general. when teams slowly realized that there was money in this hobby, it's understandable that they didn't know how exactly to move on it and thus felt they would benefit from distributors who claimed to have niche expertise. once the teams realize how it all works, i imagine they'll do it themselves. sort of like collectors who eventually realize they have no need for authenticators. why share the pie if its easy not to?

rudy.

[genius]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

Plus you can buy a cheap replica that looks very similar when framed for about $50 or less on ebay. Not only are these items not scarce, you could wear one to a game and not one head would turn since hundreds of others would be wearing a graphically-perfect replica. No way these hold up in value over the long term.

[EndzoneSports]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

selling hyped rookies at hyped prices has been going on ever since sports fans began trying to turn their weekend relaxation into "investments". with the hype built into them, the prices already assume the rookie will become the next first-ballot HOFer so any upward potential has already been gobbled up by the dealer. if it was such a great investment with so much potential, why would the dealer be selling it? if the sanchez had so much potential upswing why wouldn't jarrod keep it for himself and realize the windfall? dealers are only too happy to sell because they realize that there's very little upside left after the grossly-inflated, hyped rookie price.

if something is truly a great investment, it'll usually attract a lot of attention. how many buyers plunked down $20k for the sanchez? 15? 20? or 1? was there a bidding war for the sanchez?

i've seen more players fizzle after a strong rookie season than go on to become first-ballot HOFers. this isn't a theory. i've seen it happen over and over for the past 20 yrs. it's how dealers make their money. ask any kid who ever loaded up on (insert hyped rookie of the year) because dealers convinced them "it was a great investment". it was a great investment..for the dealers.

"That being said what would the first jersey that Elway, Aikman, Favre, etc. ever wore in a regular season game go for? Probably well over 50k."

apples and oranges. back in 1979 (montana) or 1983 (elway) or even 1989 (aikman) you didn't have teams and leagues deliberately producing as many gamers as possible for the sake of resale. many steiner shirts refer to the week or month it was used. week or month! i remember when a player would use 1 shirt for half the season. now they're intentionally pumping them out like krispy kremes just to cash in. how many sanchez shirts will JOSports pump out in 2009? conversely, how many montana shirts did the 49ers release to the public in 1979? a $50k montana price would be due to the scarcity. there will be no scarcity of sanchez shirts for years to come so even in the remote chance sanchez becomes the next montana, his gamers will never be as valuable.

what used to be a hunt has now simply turned into selecting the game from which you want a jersey and then placing your order. the hobby has turned teams and leagues into game-used factories. in the 70s, a ball player might use 3 or 4 shirts total in a season. nowadays they're using 10+. you don't think increasing the supply 3x+ over is going to put a heavy anchor around the upward potential of modern pieces? there will be very little in the way of future returns because places like steiner and JO have already juiced most of it out for themselves. look, steiner is currently selling a 2009 jeter jersey for $15k. long after jeter makes the HOF, you won't see a lick of profit from that thing. instead, he'll retire and quickly fade from current interest as fans move on to the next superstar. as interest fades, the price won't have anything to cause it to increase (after all, unlike older shirts, supply is no longer an issue). if i had a griffey rookie gamer, i'd likely have made more money selling it in 1996 than now when noone even talks about him anymore because they're too busy watching pujols. even if sanchez pans out, he likely won't be able to do nearly enough for that shirt to return a decent profit (in inflation-adjusted dollars).

rudy.

Rudy makes some great points, the most important of which is affirming the basic tenants of supply and demand economics.

The true value or worth of an item can only be determined at the time of sale between a willing buyer and seller. The negotiated and agreed upon transaction price definitively sets the value at that time (and only for that time). Any subsequent discussion of value can only be considered as an estimate as the (true) value determined in any subsequent transaction will be set by the parties involved at the time the transaction takes place. A jersey that sells for $20K today, is worth $20K for today only. If tomorrow the new buyer elects to put this jersey back on the market and comes to an agreement to sell it for $15K, this more recent transaction sets the jerseys value at $15K. I make this rather obvious point as it relates to the fickleness of sports fans and collectors.

Part of the value of any item in a transaction is based on the popularity of (and thus, demand for) the player in question. As we are dealing with players who will typically work only 16 days a year during a “career” that is likely to span only about four years (on average), much of this popularity which feeds demand is based upon a fairly compressed time frame… How did they play this week? It is for this reason that whether a player is considered a hero or a goat can swing wildly over a very short time span.

Rudy points out the recent proliferation of game jersey being “created” in order to satisfy the demand of collectors. I whole heartedly agree that—unless our hobby finds a way to sustain longevity, there is little hope for being able to maintain value over time. As with all other commodities, the supply will eventually outpace demand, putting downward pressure on pricing. To a certain extent, one can already see this happening.

Dealers will often put out their initial offering with significant pricing premiums, knowing that they will need to maximize profits for those items for which there is a market (striking while the iron is hot). This is not so much price gouging as, looking at the inventory as a whole, they must profit handsomely on these initial sales in order to cover the carrying costs of the less desirable inventory which remains—much of which will be discounted and sold at significantly less than their initial listed prices.

Some may not always agree with the dealers’ pricing strategies, however, these businesses have invested a significant amount of capital in order to be able to obtain this inventory to begin with. The pricing of individual items within their inventory has to fit into a business model that also ensures long-term financial stability for the business (ie Return on investment) and thus a long-term existence of the business.

There are also some pricing intangibles that are yet to be worked out… Primarily, determining the value of unquestioned authenticity. All collectors would certainly be willing to pay some amount of a pricing premium for the peace of mind of knowing that the item is truly authentic. How much this is worth can vary from collector to collector and from item to item. With the rampant amount of fraud and deception that has plagued our hobby for years, one would think that such guarantees would be a Godsend. What one is willing to pay for such assurances, however, is yet to be determined. Over time, the market will tell.

Regards,

[kingjammy24]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

.. he has shown the potential to POSSIBLY become a star one day.

the problem is his jersey was priced as if he already is a star. do rookie shirts of non-stars typically go for $20k?

you can spend $3k less and get the photomatched jersey, with team LOA, for a 3x superbowl mvp, 2x mvp, HOF'er:

http://www.meigray.com/edealinv/servlet/ExecMacro?nurl=control/StoreItem.vm&ctl_nbr=2381&siId=2142223&catLevel=0&scLevel=&thisCatLevel=&oldParentID=&catParentID=4453&scId=4453

buy the sanchez because you like it and can afford it but not because of some "investment" nonsense.

rudy.

[LastingsMilledge85]

Re: Favre Vikings jersey up for bid

Bottom line I rather waste my money on a proven quarterback and certain hall of famer than an overrated Sanchez who will probably be a bust. Typical NY media hypes up their players to what they will never become.