Judge Landis "Card" Mischief -- a question [Archive]

View Full Version : Judge Landis "Card" Mischief -- a question

Archive

10-16-2002, 11:05 AM

Posted By: B Hodes  Like many folks frequenting this site I am a HOF card collector. I have a M114 (Baseball Magazine Premium) of Judge Landis from during his reign as High Commissioner/Czar of Baseball. This is a very large (9.5" x 12") photo of Landes looking his imperial self. Here is the question ("mischief"): is this a "card" of Landis ? If it is, it is the only card I am aware of (I also checked Brett's wonderful site) from during his reign. Just wondered what everyone thinks. I know that there are probably some pretty strong, well-reasoned opinions out there.

Archive

10-16-2002, 11:28 AM

Posted By: Andy BaranBrian, In my opinion, it is not a card. I follow one simple rule: If it doesn't feel like a card, then it is not a card. To me, there is no way that an item of that size can feel like a card. I'm sure that others disagree with me.

Archive

10-16-2002, 12:00 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerAndy---I really don't always try to take the opposite side from you but I think this is a card. I would call M101-1s, M101-2s, M101-7s,etc cards so I see no reason not to call this a card. As I have stated on numerous other occasions I would not call schedules or tickets cards.

Archive

10-16-2002, 12:38 PM

Posted By: scgaynorJust for the sake of conversation. I seem to remember both of you participating in a thread about how the 1869 Peck and Snyder CDV of the Cincy Reds should be one of, if not the 1st inductee, into a "Baseball Card Hall of Fame". My question is, why, if the 1869 CDV is considered a "card" would this Baseball Magazine premium not be considered a "card". There are several Baseball Card issues that have the same "feel" as these Baseball Magazine premiums, but are considered "cards". My opinion is that neither should fall into the category of "Baseball Card". One is simply a CDV (or even Trade Card), and the other is more like a poster. Scott

Archive

10-16-2002, 12:42 PM

Posted By: DavidI just call them 'premiums' or 'suppliments' and let the potential buyer decide what it is. Some buyers will call it a card, some won't. Personally, I don't think the M114s are cards, but it's neither here nor there as I'm not a card specialist. Whether or not they are cards, they are collected by card collectors-- so they fall within the general genre of cards. Just like Sweet Caporal Pins, Armour Coins, original card art and Topps Stamps.

Archive

10-16-2002, 01:09 PM

Posted By: Kevin CummingsIn my mind, size matters a lot (for cards, anyway <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> ) as well as the composition. If it's over 4" x 6" and made of thin paper (I'm generalizing here), I wouldn't consider it a card. That sure as heck doesn't mean it's not collectible, especially if it's one of the few or maybe the only period image of a desired player or Hall of Fame member. I've got a Sporting News supplement of Chick Stahl for the same reason. Same goes for Cameo Pepsin Gum pins. (Now if I could only find out who won the Nig Cuppy one in the SportscardsPlus auction!)

Archive

10-16-2002, 01:13 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranScott, As I stated earlier, in my opinion, if it doesn't feel like a card, then it is not a card. If it feels like a card, then it is one. A CDV or Trade Card is roughly the same size as some baseball cards (like Just So Tobacco), and it feels like a card to me due to the size and stock. On the other hand, the Landis item that we are discussing feels more like a poster to me. Brian just asked for opinions, and I gave mine. None of us is right or wrong on this subject, as it is not black and white.

Archive

10-16-2002, 01:34 PM

Posted By: scgaynorAndy, I think that you misunderstood the intention of my response. I agree that the answer is not black and white, and my message was not an attack against you. I respect your opinion, and I know from experience that you are a fine person. However, there are several issues that have the same "feel" as the Baseball Magazine Premiums, such as R423's, Goudey Premiums, several Cuban issues, etc that are gernerally accepted as "cards". I just wanted to examine the issue of what "feels" like a card. My intention was not to say that you were wrong, just to start a discussion and hear different opinions. Scott

Archive

10-16-2002, 01:40 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranScott, For what it is worth, I don't consider the other items that you mentioned to be cards either. I'm not sure that they are generally accepted as such, though I may be incorrect.

Archive

10-16-2002, 01:42 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranAs Kevin also stated, I believe that the size of the item is the most important factor as to whether or not it feels like a card. Again, just my opinion.

Archive

10-16-2002, 02:32 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarI'd hardly call my M101-2 Jackson a CARD (it's printed on paper), but it's certainly collectible. (I'm using the computer at the house of the guys who told Bob he needs a new computer...)

Archive

10-16-2002, 02:36 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognarright in the middle of my blacksox cards, (The keyboard on this crazy computer isplit in half!)

Archive

10-16-2002, 03:04 PM

Posted By: runscott"If it is a card, then it feels like a card". But if it feels like a card, it isn't necessarily a card - I have found very rough toilet paper in rural Georgia gas station bathrooms that feel a lot like W-cards, and even have dotted perforations that mean each "card" was obviously meant to be separated, but these obviously aren't cards (even though mass-produced and obviously not 'proof' sheets). So there must be some additional definition that has very little to do with "feel". Size might also be a consideration. But I think there are several issues of "cards" that have most criteria used in our definitions, without having all of them. For instance, many legitimate cards don't have player information on the back. Others are larger than traditional-sized cards, but are made of card stock and do have stats, so everyone agrees they are cards. Supplements, for one thing are "supplements" which is a category of baseball collectibles, and not the same as "cards". Also, they are very large, blank-backed, and have no player information on the back. For these reasons, I don't consider them cards.

Archive

10-17-2002, 10:33 AM

Posted By: warshawlaweom

Archive

10-17-2002, 11:59 AM

Posted By: B HodesYes, the Judge is in the Callahan set but that was issued sometime after both his death and induction into the Hall of Fame. To my knoweldge the only person in the set who was not yet in the Hall of Fame was then Commissioner "Happy" Chandler who is one of the hardest cards in the set. If you include commemorative cards and the like (postcards, Perez-Steele editions) every hall of famer has a card that is affordable. But Hall of Fame collectors won't count these -- we'd rather argue about Supplements and Carte de Vistas and drive ourselves nuts (and broke) finding cards of people like Harry Wright, Bid McPhee and Oscar Charleston.