Just released: Sports Collectibles: Q4 and 2022 in Review
Join Altan Insights as we highlight trading activity across the various alternative marketplaces with a combination of charts and penned analysis to help investors track trends and price movements that impact their portfolio.
Assets that traded positively: 109
Assets that stayed the same: 148
Assets that traded negatively: 149
Assets that traded positively: 152
Assets that stayed the same: 168
Assets that traded negatively: 83
Assets that traded positively: 24
Assets that stayed the same: 72
Assets that traded negatively: 108
Assets that traded positively: 43
Assets that stayed the same: 108
Assets that traded negatively: 53
Assets that traded positively: 14
Assets that stayed the same: 4
Assets that traded negatively: 13
Assets that traded positively: 17
Assets that stayed the same: 5
Assets that traded negatively: 9
Want to get more great insights and access to powerful tools to help guide your investment strategy? Signup for Altan Insights now.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
Join Altan Insights as we highlight trading activity across the various alternative marketplaces with a combination of charts and penned analysis to help investors track trends and price movements that impact their portfolio.
Assets that traded positively: 112
Assets that stayed the same: 169
Assets that traded negatively: 124
Assets that traded positively: 109
Assets that stayed the same: 148
Assets that traded negatively: 149
Assets that traded positively: 42
Assets that stayed the same: 137
Assets that traded negatively: 25
Assets that traded positively: 24
Assets that stayed the same: 72
Assets that traded negatively: 108
Assets that traded positively: 12
Assets that stayed the same: 3
Assets that traded negatively: 16
Assets that traded positively: 14
Assets that stayed the same: 4
Assets that traded negatively: 13
Want to get more great insights and access to powerful tools to help guide your investment strategy? Signup for Altan Insights now.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
Join Altan Insights as we highlight trading activity across the various alternative marketplaces with a combination of charts and penned analysis to help investors track trends and price movements that impact their portfolio.
Assets that traded positively: 100
Assets that stayed the same: 191
Assets that traded negatively: 117
Assets that traded positively: 112
Assets that stayed the same: 169
Assets that traded negatively: 124
Assets that traded positively: 32
Assets that stayed the same: 140
Assets that traded negatively: 32
Assets that traded positively: 42
Assets that stayed the same: 137
Assets that traded negatively: 25
Assets that traded positively: 12
Assets that stayed the same: 9
Assets that traded negatively: 10
Assets that traded positively: 12
Assets that stayed the same: 3
Assets that traded negatively: 16
Want to get more great insights and access to powerful tools to help guide your investment strategy? Signup for Altan Insights now.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
For a recent edition of Alts & Ends, we dug into the most recent eBay earnings release, which sent the stock reeling. It got us thinking though: are there publicly traded companies that could be used as proxies for an investment thesis in a collectible alternative asset class?
For instance, if you were bullish on sports cards, could exposure to eBay provide similar outcomes to actually buying and holding some blue-chip cardboard? Would Sotheby’s - back when it was publicly traded - have been a good proxy for top tier fine art exposure? Could a positive outlook on watch values be expressed in recent years through a bet on Watches of Switzerland…or perhaps could luxury titans like LVMH and Hermes similarly benefit from increasingly positive sentiment on luxury items like watches?
You get the idea.
And boy, wouldn’t that be convenient? If you’re not a collector at heart, you don’t want to dive into what to buy, and maybe fractional isn’t for you, but you’re optimistic about the future for a collectible category, wouldn’t it be nice if you could just buy a stock - same as ever - to adequately represent that exposure?
We’ll set out to see if it could have been done in various categories with various proxies over recent years or even decades. We’ll look not only at absolute price return outcomes, but also at correlations to find out if the equity used as proxy would offer similar exposure.
Before we begin, a few caveats:
Alright, enough of that, let’s dive in, starting with the longest tenured comparison we can draw. Sotheby’s, the auction house mainstay, was publicly traded from 1988 until 2019, when it went private. Of course, its private status means the mainstream investor can no longer use it as a proxy for the art market even if they wanted to, but the longevity of its trading, in tandem with the long tenure of art indices, make it an interesting study. It’s also worth adding that at the beginning of 2022, the house was said to be exploring a return to public markets via IPO.
We compare BID (great ticker) performance to the Masterworks All Art, Post-War and Contemporary Art, and Impressionist and Modern Art indices for the full years of 1989 to 2018. Could one of the focal points of art commerce serve as a proxy for the growth of the art market and the rise in value of key works? After all, as the market rises, so too does volume and therefore fees.
Over the period, BID kept pace reasonably well with Impressionist and Modern Art, as well as the All Art Index, though to a lesser extent. Around the turn of the millennium, Post War and Contemporary left the field in the dust amid changing tastes, as has been well documented. Investors in BID, then, would have missed the explosion in those values but would have received a decent approximation of the broader market. For what it’s worth, BID significantly underperformed the S&P over the period (by about 4% annually), and Post War and Contemporary significantly outstripped the S&P (by about 3% a year).
BID’s annual returns showed modest correlation to the Impressionist and Modern Art index (0.33), lower correlation to All Art (0.16), and not surprisingly, lowest to the Post War and Contemporary Index (0.10). What’s interesting, though, are the results if you lag the returns of BID by one year to sync up with the returns of the following year in art. Art is believed to often demonstrate lagging performance to traditional financial markets, with market and economic circumstance weighing on art in a delayed fashion. That belief holds true here, as the lagged correlations to Impressionist and Modern Art, All Art, and Post War and Contemporary Art rise to 0.63, 0.57, and 0.38 respectively.
To better illustrate that trend, we’ve removed Post War and Contemporary from the chart, and we’ve pushed the Sotheby’s price series one year later. Here, you see a significantly higher degree of unison in both movement and trend.
The verdict: at the outset of the period, if you had wanted to act on a bullish thesis for art prices, and you invested in Sotheby’s as a proxy, you couldn't be overly disappointed in its ability to act as one (even if relative performance to broader equity markets left much to be desired). However, if you had a specific thesis on Post War and Contemporary, BID would not have served you particularly well. But again, hindsight is 20/20, and choosing the best performing portion of the art market and the best performing artists and works within it would not only have been practically difficult (expensive and cumbersome), but it would have been intellectually challenging as well. This is particularly true for a non expert, which is the scenario we’re keen on exploring.
Moving on to one of the companies that provoked this thought experiment: eBay. For all its pain points, eBay has still played host to card collectors for decades. It’s been a fixture of the collecting community, with familiarity breeding both frustration and fondness. But could eBay stock have served as a proxy for card values over the years?
We’ve charted against the CardLadder50, and we note there is big selection bias within that index over the long term, as the constituents were chosen based on a status they effectively rose to attain over the time period. The constituents are cards that, by 2020, we all knew had attained an elevated status, but back in 2004, you likely wouldn’t have gone 50 for 50 predicting the composition.
Still, eBay held its ground relatively well up until early 2018, though some lagging did begin in the mid-2010s. Of course, it’s important to note that it’s not like cards were the focal point of eBay’s business, representing an even smaller portion at the time. Furthermore, there have been business challenges to contend with from the mid-2010s onward, with share ceded to various competitors in various categories on an ongoing basis. So, while eBay might’ve seemed a sound choice as a proxy at the outset, an investor may have been attuned to threats to that status over time.
Of course, when the 2020/2021 card boom came, the company stood little chance of keeping up with the blue-chip card explosion, despite delivering a 68% return in 2020. Through Feb 1 of 2023, the CL50 had appreciated at an annual clip of 15.6% since 2004, far outpacing the 6.3% of eBay over the same period. Through Feb 1 of 2018 though, the gap was much narrower at 10.0% to 8.1% in CL50’s favor.
Interestingly, if you were to look at CardLadder’s Low-End Index, which catalogs cards under $500, over the same period (Feb 2004 - Feb 2023), you’d find it generated annual appreciation of just 4.3%, underperforming eBay. So eBay would have more than approximated appreciation there, but that’s not really a crowning achievement. Given the ever-growing population of low-end cards, it’s not likely that any investor would seek to mimic the exposure of that broad market.
It feels like we’re not far away from a moment in which an index of blue-chip cards will indeed be investable, but that could structurally change their performance, and regardless, it wasn’t an option available to the layman in the 2000s and 2010s.
Correlation between the monthly returns of the CL50 and eBay was nonexistent over the period at 0.01. Annual returns were more modestly correlated at 0.36.
The verdict: not a good proxy, with too much non-card noise and otherwise challenged business prospects for eBay. Public exposure to Collectors, PWCC, or Fanatics Collectibles would make for an interesting future study. Speaking of Collectors, the parent company to PSA actually kept pace with card values much more respectably until it was taken private in 2021. Correlations to the CL50 were also higher, with monthly return correlation of a still very modest 0.16 but annual return correlation significantly elevated relative to eBay at 0.75.
In luxury - specifically the watch space - we’re working with data of a shorter time period. The WatchCharts Market Index dates back only to the beginning of 2020, essentially capturing only one boom and bust period. The index tracks the price performance on secondary markets of 60 watches from the top 10 brands.
If you weren’t set to pony up for a Rolex or Patek Philippe - or to choose one that might best benefit from a growing market - there are a few equities you might evaluate as proxies. One such option would be Watches of Switzerland, a British retailer of Swiss watches. The company maintains status as an authorized retailer of both Rolex and Patek products.
As waitlists for these products mount worldwide and retail prices climb, investors have taken notice, with WOSG experiencing an incredible surge throughout 2021 before cooling with the market in 2022. Even with the pullback, it’s up 105% since the start of 2020. By comparison, the S&P 500 is up just 21.16%. So if you wanted to play the watch boom, WOSG certainly provided that avenue…but the sustainability of its ability to provide that exposure longer term is a question mark, particularly when - as a primary market retailer - it’s not necessarily leveraged to the value changes of secondary market darlings and blue chips. Still, it handily outpaced the WatchCharts Index over the period, and appeared to respond to changes in market sentiment on more of a leading basis.
Investors could have also played a thesis based on increased demand and improved sentiment for luxury goods more broadly. This would’ve led them to luxury titans like LVMH and Hermes. While those - as larger, more stable businesses - didn’t boom quite as hard, they also haven’t similarly suffered during the downturn, showing greater resilience and bottoming more quickly. Those well-known names outperformed the broader S&P Global Luxury Goods Index.
Of the three companies (WOSG, LVMH, and HRMS), approximate monthly returns demonstrate the highest correlation between the WatchCharts Index and WOSG, which is perhaps not a surprise. Still, it’s essentially no correlation at all at 0.13. The other two companies’ returns, though, exhibit -0.12 and -0.08 correlations respectively. Similarly, the price correlation between WatchCharts and WOSG is considerably higher and positive at 0.82, while it's 0.71 for LVMH and 0.68 for HRMS.
The verdict? It’s a short time period, but Watches of Switzerland would’ve best provided exposure to the boom in luxury watch markets, though imperfectly. Whether that would hold up over a longer period is a large unknown, particularly as demand grows for low supply, secondary market watches and the supply of new, primary market watches perhaps fails to keep pace.
As in watches, publicly traded companies in the wine & spirits space offer exposure predominantly to producers and distributors, rather than those really operating in secondary markets for rare vintages. LVMH plays host to 25 wine & spirits “houses”, but that portion of the business accounts only for about 10% of revenue, whereas fashion & leather goods make up close to 50%. As a result, while it tracked fairly close to the Fine Wine Market Index from Sotheby’s until 2014, the following years resulted in a significant divergence in LVMH’s favor. Monthly returns of the index and LVMH show very little correlation at 0.13, though the similar price trends yield a price correlation of 0.90. You would’ve done very well investing in LVMH, but not as a representative proxy for the wine market. You could also use broad Liv-Ex indices to represent the wine market, but ultimately to similar effect.
Diageo and Ricard Pernod are solely beverage focused, and the results are reflective of that, at least in comparison to LVMH. Both offer higher correlations to the Sotheby’s Fine Wine Index, though correlations of monthly return remain modest at 0.21 for DGEO and 0.20 for PERP. The price correlations are ever so slightly higher than for LVMH at 0.91 and 0.92 respectively. DGEO annual returns offer 0.69 correlation to the Sotheby’s index, higher than LVMH at 0.48. Ricard Pernod has the lowest annual return correlation of the bunch at 0.42. You’ll notice quite comparable drawdowns in both 2008 and 2022, and the Fine Wine index managed to escape the brief 2020 swoon.
Diageo perhaps tracks the wine index best, though it did underperform over the period, particularly in more robust recent years for wine’s secondary market. Wine market performance is quite nuanced, though, and rational theses can be built at the region and vintage level to achieve better returns. So, while broad market exposure may have been somewhat replicable in the past, the landscape may become more complicated in the future, especially with the increase in sophistication in wine’s secondary markets,
Rare Whiskey’s Icon 100 index more handily outstrips both DGEO and PERP thanks to the surge in demand for rare spirits over the last decade. There’s little in the way of monthly return correlations, with both stocks exhibiting correlation below 0.1. Same goes for annual returns. Price correlations are high over the period, but given the trend, that means little. Ultimately, there’s little reason to believe that exposure to the most collectable and sought after scotch (acknowledging index selection bias) can be at all replicated via the publicly traded equity markets, though perhaps that will change as the market matures and undergoes further cyclicality.
Generally speaking, in recent history, public market investment could have in many cases provided a decent substitute for exposure to a collectible asset class. However, it’s often quite imperfect, whether in its ability to capture the same level of absolute return or to offer low correlation to traditional equities and therefore diversification benefits. Rarely is there a way - for better or worse - to experience the performance of the true blue-chip collectibles in a category without being directly exposed to the assets themselves.
Of course, that still leaves the pesky issues of investability and expertise. A solution for the former is in progress via fractional at present, whatever shape that may take in the future. The need for expertise is hard to bypass, but may become less relevant to the extent true investable indexing materializes. With a decreased emphasis on moves in value based on underlying, pure collecting-motivated transactions, one is left to wonder if these assets would increasingly trade more like stocks, with diversification and correlation benefits eroding.
Those are, in some respects, questions for tomorrow. For the moment, collectors and collectible “investors” will feel confident that they are gaining exposure to a performance profile not at all easily replicated, again...for better or worse.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
All information provided by Altan Insights is impersonal and not tailored to the needs of any person, entity or group of persons. Past performance of an index is not an indication or guarantee of future results.
It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Exposure to an asset class represented by an index may be available through investable instruments based on that index. Altan Insights does not sponsor, endorse, sell, promote or manage any investment fund or other investment vehicle that is offered by third parties and that seeks to provide an investment return based on the performance of any index. Altan Insights is not an investment advisor and makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in any such investment fund or other investment vehicle. A decision to invest in any such investment fund or other investment vehicle should not be made in reliance on any of the statements set forth in this document. Prospective investors are advised to make an investment in any such fund or other vehicle only after carefully considering the risks associated with investing in such funds, as detailed in an offering memorandum or similar document that is prepared by or on behalf of the issuer of the investment fund or other investment product or vehicle. Inclusion of a security within an index is not a recommendation by Altan Insights to buy, sell, or hold such security, nor is it considered to be investment advice.
These materials have been prepared solely for informational purposes based upon information from sources believed to be reliable. Altan Insights does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. Altan Insights is not responsible for any errors or omissions, regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content.
Photo: Sotheby's
This article was featured in our newsletter, Alts & Ends. Click here to subscribe for free and receive the best collectible market insights straight to your inbox on a weekly basis!
It's been 6 whole months since the record for the most expensive piece of sports memorabilia was last broken. What the heck is taking so long?!
Last time, we had to wait a little over four months. Of course, before that, it was two-and-a-half years, and before that, seven years. But damnit, this is an instant gratification culture that demands a step into higher altitude.
That step just might be here, but there's a real chance we'll never know the details.
The Dynasty Collection, a name so high-brow it feels like it can only be uttered in hushed tones while wearing white gloves, has officially begun its Sotheby's world tour. For those who haven't yet seen, the collection comprises six individual sneakers, each worn by Michael Jordan in his six NBA title-clinching performances. Jordan is pictured in locker room celebrations wearing one sneaker, having gifted the other - complete with autographs and/or inscriptions commemorating the moment - to the former Bulls Director of Communications Tim Hallam after each victory.
As far as occasions go, it's challenging to do better than the sneakers Jordan wore to accumulate all six rings. Perhaps the only way would be to literally alter the course of time to ensure Jordan clinched some of those titles wearing earlier, more significant models of his signature sneaker line. No major disrespect to the VII, the VIII, or the XIV, but the Jordan I, III, and IV would polish this collection with an even more blinding shine.
The collection began its exhibition in Dubai, next traveling to Hong Kong, Singapore, and New York. The messaging is clear: these are artifacts of global importance, and Sotheby's is after the deepest of pockets, wherever they may reside.
But the collection is to sell privately. And for us to find out the final price tag, both buyer and seller will have to agree to disclose it.
In that case, be prepared to tack on the pesky but necessary "publicly-known" caveat to any talk of sports memorabilia record sales going forward. Like an iceberg, significant mass in the sports memorabilia market lies beneath the surface, out of sight. The private market for sports memorabilia bustles, but its discreet nature means it often fails to push the broader market further into the pantheon of fine art. Of course, it also protects sellers from off nights at auction and offers discretion, both of which maintain the integrity of an item's reputation. Private sales of fine art have been on the rise at major auction houses in recent years: in 2019, they accounted for 7.6% of auction house sales, which nearly doubled to 13.5% in 2021.
The seller is not Tim Hallam, who no longer owns the shoes. Price estimates are being bandied about in the press, from simply surpassing the $10.1 million Last Dance jersey to the dizzying heights of over $100 million.
If Warhol and Monet can do it, surely so too can Jordan, right? Come on, did those guys average 30 points per game for their career? Jordan would give Da Vinci fits from midrange, analytics be damned.
Here's the rub: to reach nine-figures, the sale would have to 10x the current most expensive piece of sports memorabilia, more than 3x the highest known offer for any sports collectible ($30 million is said to have been offered for a PSA 10 1952 Topps Mantle), and more than 55x the highest price ever paid for a pair of sneakers.
The most ever paid for a pair of Jordan's sneakers is $1,472,000 back in October of 2021 for his earliest known regular season Nike Air Ships. This collection, with ties to all six of his NBA titles, is on another level, but is the market far along enough to make that level 68x higher? Perhaps someday, but perhaps not yet. Problematically, perhaps we'll never know.
If a collection of six shoes sells for nine-figures, but the news doesn't clutter your timelines for days on end, did it even happen? That may be the question we're left to face. Whether buyer and seller disclose or not (please take a victory lap!), there's only one way to celebrate: kick off one shoe and light up a stogie. It's Jordan year.
Want to get more great insights and access to powerful tools to help guide your investment strategy? Signup for Altan Insights now.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
This article was featured in our newsletter, Alts & Ends. Click here to subscribe for free and receive the best collectible market insights straight to your inbox on a weekly basis!
eBay stock was off to a great start in 2023. In fact, at one point in early February, it was up over 22% to begin the year. The turnaround was on! Finally, eBay is modernizing for a new era in the collectibles trade, and investors are taking notice...right?!
Fast forward to today, and the stock is up just 4% for 2023. Since reporting earnings in late February, eBay is down 8%. By no means a catastrophe, but certainly a bucket of cold water on a bullish start.
For years, collecting enthusiasts in categories like sneakers and trading cards have watched as eBay, home to their first episodes of collecting commerce, did little to adapt, evolve, and improve to meet heightening standards of customer experience. While StockX and GOAT created a sneaker resale experience that meaningfully reduced customer friction, buyers on eBay were left to sort through unintelligible product listings. You know the ones: "YEEZY 300V2 ZEBRA TURTLE DOVE RARE NEW DS JORDAN 1 NIKE ADIDAS.
"If that makes literally no sense to you....it shouldn't!!! It's utter nonsense that has been allowed - perhaps even incentivized - on the platform for far too long.
And if you're a card collector that uses eBay, as so many still do, we don't even have to begin to tell you about the platform's many shortcomings on that front. Alas, big investment capital is chasing the trading card space, competitors are consistently beefing up their capabilities and offerings, and inertia alone won't save eBay for long.
Over the last few years, eBay has recognized the 28-3 Atlanta Falcons-like folly of its ways, reinvigorating its efforts in focus areas like collectibles, sneakers, luxury, and motor parts. From the launch of vaulting to the introduction of authentication and authenticity guarantees (increasingly table stakes in key categories), it seemed the sleeping giant had perhaps not been fully awakened, but had at least been gently slapped in the face or had its hand placed in warm water (classic prank).
And the reality is: eBay is a giant. It absolutely remains a whale in many collectible categories, shortcomings be damned. The company still generates $74 billion in gross merchandise volume (GMV) annually from 134 million active buyers. That includes 16 million "enthusiast buyers" who execute 30+ transactions per year on the platform and spend more than $3,000.
With those figures in mind, though, we come back to the earnings report disappointment. The company actually beat earnings expectations, but a look under the hood posed cause for concern.
First, the company declined to give specific FY23 guidance. Given that the stock market is predominantly a forward-looking game, it's often forward-looking guidance provided at earnings releases that can significantly move share prices. Abstaining from providing it for the year, then, is a somewhat unusual but not entirely unprecedented choice, and it speaks to the uncertainty of the economic situation. The vague guidance that the seasonality in GMV would be similar to FY22 allows one to infer that GMV will once again decline annually, potentially bringing it below 2019 levels. That, of course, does not bode well, and it implies continued share loss.
It was noted on the earnings call that focused categories grew seven points faster than the overall business, but that equates to 2% growth despite significant investment. Not bad at all in a choppy market, but not a turbocharged turnaround. And those buyer figures? 134 million active buyers are down from 147 million buyers at the end of 2021, and the all-important enthusiast buyers are down from 19 million to 16.
Turnarounds don't happen in a day, but investor confidence in 2023 progress waned after the earnings report. Just as the Falcons wish they started milking the clock a bit earlier, it's likely eBay is left wishing they had rebooted and refreshed sooner. Still, the platform plays host to enormous volume. So long as people are collecting cards, you can bet that sellers will be receiving messages trying to cancel orders because the buyer's "kid" got a hold of their laptop and went on a very specific and sophisticated buying spree.
Want to get more great insights and access to powerful tools to help guide your investment strategy? Signup for Altan Insights now.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
From the rolling hills of Burgundy, Domaine de la Romanée-Conti (DRC) has developed into a highly regarded and sought-after wine producer recognized for record-breaking sales. The brand is known for its exceptional Pinot Noir wines, which are some of the most expensive and coveted wines in the world.
The History
The estate was initially owned by the Abbey of Saint-Vivant, which was founded in the 9th century. The monks planted vineyards on the land and produced wine for centuries. In 1631, the land was acquired by the de Croonembourg family, who further developed the vineyard and expanded its size. In 1760, the land was purchased by Claude François de Jouffroy, who added the name "Romanée" to the vineyard's title. His daughter, Marie, married Nicolas-Joseph Marey, who added "Conti" to the vineyard's name after receiving the title of Count from the King of France in 1760.
In the 19th century, the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti was acquired by Jacques-Marie Duvault-Blochet, who was a French entrepreneur and wine merchant. He made significant improvements to the vineyard, such as the introduction of new grape varieties and modern winemaking techniques. In the 20th century, the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti was acquired by the Leroy family, who have been the owners since 1942. The current owner is investor and connoisseur Aubert de Villaine, who has been managing the estate since 1974.
The Vineyard
The Domaine de la Romanée-Conti has a vineyard of approximately 4.5 hectares (11 acres), with 4.5 acres belonging specifically to Romanee-Conti. The remaining of which is divided into seven different Grand Cru vineyards. These vineyards are located in the Côte de Nuits region of Burgundy, France, which is known for producing some of the world's finest Pinot Noir wines.
The Wines
The land within Vosne-Romanée is broken into multiple productions of valuable vineyards. While La Romanée-Conti is the flagship producer, there are additional Pinot Noir and even some Chardonnay wines curated annually that also command attention and respect at auction. he seven vineyards are Romanée-Conti, La Tâche, Richebourg, Romanée-Saint-Vivant, Grands-Échézeaux, Échézeaux, and Montrachet.
Romanée-Saint-Vivant
This Grand Cru wine made from Pinot Noir grapes grown in the Romanée-Saint-Vivant vineyard, which is adjacent to La Romanée-Conti. The wine is known for its finesse, elegance, and complexity.
Richebourg
Another Grand Cru wine made from Pinot Noir grapes grown in the Richebourg vineyard, which is located in Vosne-Romanée. The wine is known for its depth, richness, and powerful tanins.
La Tâche
Also made from Pinot Noir grapes, the wine is known for its complexity, depth, and spiciness.
Grands-Echezeaux and Echezeaux
This is a Grand Cru wine made from Pinot Noir grapes grown in the Grands-Echezeaux vineyard, which is located in Flagey-Echezeaux. The wine is known for its richness, complexity, and silky texture. Echezeaux is also one of the best-performing DRC wines at auction with sales that have exceeded $70,000 and a secondary market that has outperformed other comparable sub-indices.
Montrachet
This is a Grand Cru white wine made from Chardonnay grapes grown in the Montrachet vineyard, which is shared with neighboring wineries. The wine is known for its richness, complexity, and intense fruit flavors.
The Market
Domaine de la Romanée-Conti wines are considered some of the most valuable and sought-after wines in the world, and they are often used as a benchmark for fine wine prices. The investment market for DRC wines is robust, with prices that continue to rise year after year. Per Liv-Ex, prices for DRC Romanee-Conti increased by more than 200% in a 10-year period between 2007-2017 across multiple vintages.
In 2018, a single bottle of 1945 Domaine de la Romanée-Conti sold for $558,000 at a Sotheby's auction, setting a new record for the most expensive bottle of wine ever sold. To date, there have been four different vintages which have had the valuation of their cases exceed $300,000 - with the 1990 production leading at more than $475,000 for a case via Sotheby's Hong Kong in 2014. That sale surpassed the previous case record of $402,800, set by a 1999 vintage through Christie's Geneva in 2011. Additional sales include a case of 1985 Domaine de la Romanée-Conti which sold in 2016 for $352,064 at Christie's while in that same year, Sotheby's moved a case of 1995 for $313,037.
Want to get more great insights and access to powerful tools to help guide your investment strategy? Signup for Altan Insights now.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
With more than 200 total lots featuring a plethora of putters, drivers, irons, and staff bags, the 2023 Golf Clubs Only Auction marks the first event hosted by Golden Age after their white-glove Modern Collector sale in January. Anytime the world's current record-holder for brokering the most expensive golf club holds a golf club-centric event it's worth tuning in so in this edition of Auction Action, preview the top lots scheduled to sell this weekend.
Scotty Cameron and the red dot is synonymous with iconic golf memorabilia. This particular putter, curated from a single block of German Stainless Steel (GSS), carries all the attributes that any Cameron-collector would cherish. With two large cherry bombs and vertical stamping on the face, the Cameron displays the features one would find on a Tiger Woods-used putter. The grip has an inscription in Tiffany-blue lettering of the club's namesake and the matching trademarked blue is also found on the cover. Through the first 29 bids the putter leads the event with a pre-buyer's premium price of $18,730.
One of the greatest duos in sports - Scotty Cameron and Tiger Woods - headlines this rare lot.
This victory putter was designed to celebrate Tiger's 1997 Masters tournament. During that tourney, Tiger used a Scotty Cameron Newport putter and his dominating win helped not only catapult Tiger up the PGA leaderboard but also helped solidify Scotty Cameron as a leading producer of high-end putters. In total, only 270 of these putters were released by Cameron in honor of Tiger's record score of 270 across the four day event at Augusta National. The limited edition putter has garnered significant interest as 35 bids have pushed the price at publication to $11,630. That pre-premium price has already surpassed a different example which sold at Golden Age in September for $11,534.
There's another limited edition Scotty Cameron collection worth watching this weekend with this lineup of copper-capped clubs.
The unique special issue putter set comes from a total production of 500 which were developed in 1996 and highlights a significant turning point for the Cameron brand. There are eight putters featured in this set which are plated in copper and the collection showcases the rate of appreciation found within collectible clubs. It wasn't that long ago - in 2019 - when a complete set of this special issue could be acquired for less than $5,000. Any interested collector will have to pay at least double that total today as this set has reached $10,573 through 35 bids which is the most activity ever on Golden Age for one of these copper club collections. One particular reason of interest is that these clubs predate the rise of the Scotty Cameron/Tiger Woods combo which would dominate the golf world for more than a decade.
All Images via Golden Age
Want to get more great insights and access to powerful tools to help guide your investment strategy? Signup for Altan Insights now.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
This article was featured in our newsletter, Alts & Ends. Click here to subscribe for free and receive the best collectible market insights straight to your inbox on a weekly basis!
It's not often that a nascent technology requires such a swift rebrand, but for everyone's (least?) favorite three-letter abbreviation, you could make the argument it's not a moment too soon.
"NFT."
There are a lot of pretty ugly three letter combinations in the world, from medical maladies to swear-laden abbreviations, but for many people, non-fungible tokens illicit disdain, fatigue, or mockery. Fraud, overzealous rhetoric, and various misgivings have perhaps quickly sullied the well for a technology that does have merit, even if not yet best used.
In NFT art, the effort to both rebrand and reposition is on. As far as the latter goes, any position that isn't the center of a tweet brimming with Web3-speak, diamond hand emojis, or suggestions that we "have fun being poor" would be quite the upgrade.
Fortunately, prominent collectors and institutions are shooting for a higher bar.
Earlier this month, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) announced that it acquired a number of notable and valuable NFT pieces via donation. The bulk of the works came from "Cozomo de Medici", a pseudonymous Twitter fixture prevalent in crypto conversation. Included amongst the donations from various parties were a CryptoPunk, the last-minted Chromie Squiggle, other Art Blocks works, a Tom Sachs rocket, and work from World of Women creator Yam Karkai.
Interesting: the announcement and communication from LACMA avoids any use of the term "NFT," opting instead for "blockchain art" or "on-chain art." The choice is an overt acknowledgement that there is indeed a stigma attached to those three letters. That stigma makes it difficult to isolate the art from the controversy.
LACMA isn't the only top tier museum embracing on-chain art, though the others aren't as shy in using the common nomenclature. The Centre Pompidou in Paris, Europe's largest modern art museum, announced the acquisition of 18 NFTs from 13 French and international artists. The works will become part of France's national collection of modern and contemporary art.
The official announcement from Centre Pompidou notes: "The idea is not so much to focus on the cultural phenomenon of "collectibles", collections of images sold by NFT, as to explore the most daring creative uses of these technologies, prompting an original study of the ecosystem of the crypto-economy and its impact on the definitions and contours of artworks, creators, collections and the receiving public."
The first line seems to eschew the idea of PFPs, avatars, and/or large series releases. Nonetheless, Yuga Labs donated CryptoPunk #110 to the museum, while Larva Labs donated Autoglyph #25. Yuga Labs co-founder, Greg Solano, didn't hesitate to claim a victory for Web3 and NFTs: "Seeing CryptoPunk #110 displayed in the Centre Pompidou, arguably the world's most prestigious contemporary art museum, is a great moment for the Web3 and NFT ecosystem, and we're honored to help drive this cultural conversation."
The donation of Punk #110 is part of the Punks Legacy Project, a Yuga Labs initiative aimed at placing the project in museums worldwide. They had previously donated a Punk to Miami's Institute of Contemporary Art.
You'll notice there is perhaps more of a push dynamic than a pull dynamic at play here, with the likes of Yuga and Cozomo de Medici eager to push their collections into esteemed halls and enjoy the positive associations therein. Nonetheless, these museums have accepted the works into their collections, and those votes of confidence could breed greater demand from a larger number of institutions.
Whether labeled as "NFTs" or not, "on-chain art" is being exhibited off-chain in the right places. We're just relieved that LACMA and Centre Pompidou no longer have to worry about having fun being poor...
Bonus fun fact: did you know that the Centre Pompidou inspired Nike legend Tinker Hatfield's design for the Nike Air Max 1?
Want to get more great insights and access to powerful tools to help guide your investment strategy? Signup for Altan Insights now.
Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.
