Who is worse?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>The t206 crazies ... going to extremes in research to determine what company put their ad on the back of cards most often, or whatever it is they are busy at work researching. OR<br /><br />The PSA 8 or better, only the best will do card snob slabheads. These guys are funny too. OR<br /><br />The vintage collectors who are starting on sets from way back in the 1960s. OR<br /><br />The "my card has an abundance of character" but not much grade guys. OR <br /><br />... enter your favorite here.<br /><br />I am only a member of the last catagory, but I am no less crazy than the rest. And all of us crazies share the common bond which includes the realization that nobody is "worse" because as Hal says, CWYWC.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>Except for me. When you all realize this, the world will be a happier place with 72% more butterflies and daffodils than currently exist. <br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>Gilbert,<br /><br />Like yourself, I definitely fall into the last category. I'm always looking for cards "of character." The collectors in the first two catagories you describe have always puzzled me. I have difficulty understanding how the marketing stategies of tobacco companies are relevant to baseball. They look kind of cool, though, so I'll give them a pass. But I'd never pay extra for a Polar Bear, for the same reason I'd never pay extra for a Yankee (actually, I like polar bears more than Yankees).<br /><br />As for the "PSA 8" collectors, now there's a breed I'll never possibly understand. How in the world can the corners or centering of a card matter that much? I've sent in a couple cards (only so I could resell them; I prefer unslabbed cards in my collection) with razor sharp corners, and they came back as "6's" or something like that. I have great vision, I've been collecting for 36 years, and I can't tell the difference between a "6" and an "8."<br /><br />As for "vintage" collectors of 1960s cards, I truly sympathize with their affections, but personally, I prefer cards from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. I consider these decades to be the Golden Age of Baseball. The 60s were pretty good, though. My Bell Brand and Kahn's Weiners cards are some of my favorites ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I think they're all great. Rather than get on somebody who collects differently than me, I'd rather learn something about how/why they choose to collect that way, and let it influence my own collecting preferences. Makes the hobby fun for me, instead of being aggravating.<br /><br />Everything I collect, I learned about from somebody else. <br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>I'm so crazy, that I'll take every 1960s HOFer card (especially the Yankees) that anyone on this board wants to give me. Call it charity.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Well, I certainly agree with each of these posts. But for this thread only, it is ok to not be PC. You can feel free to allow the anger, hatred and rage come out.<br /><br />After all, who are those who blatantly collect Rookies, Prookies, Frookies, HOFers, etc.? And what evil drives them?<br /><br />The same for the type collectors. Why should they, not have to purchase cards that they have no interest in, just because they "don't collect sets"?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>Probably the guy that finds the need to create different catagories of "who is worse." <br /><br /><br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Well, at least I don't bother people like those who collect pictures of men in their underwear, and call it "artistic". I usedta tell people that Playboy was chock full of interesting "articles" - and it was. But comeon now.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>There's nothing wrong with doing something silly if you know it's silly and you do it because it's fun.<br /><br />If a collector treats his hobby as a hobby, then what/how they collect is fine by me.<br /><br />The people I worry about in collecting and life are the people who do things they don't have to do and they don't even enjoy it (If you hate it but have to do it, that can be acceptable). Like the accounting major I knew in college who hated accounting. His motive for being an accounting major was that he was supposed to (in his mind) be an accountant. I always felt I missed something in his reasoning.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>I consider myself a "vintage collector" for whom "only the best will do". I usually go "to extremes in research" to make sure "my card has an abundance of character".<br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim James</b><p>I thought that we pretty much fit into one catagory,WING NUTS !<br /><br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1143146127/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1143146127/</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>It's not so much what you do, but how seriously you take what you do. If you're trying to find a cure for cancer, take yourself seriously. If you're collecting baseball cards, don't take yourself as seriously.<br /><br />There are many legitimate ways to collect memorabilia, it's just that I won't consider them equally seriously. Take paying $100 for a PSA 10 1981 Fleer common. I have nothing against the 1981 Fleer set and welcome collectors to purchase the cards. But when the sell price for a common is $100, it's hard for me to believe that someone isn't taking things too seriously.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>It seems to me that the lines which were once drawn in the sand are shifting. At one time, not so long ago, the consensus on this forum appeared to be that card enhancememt was generally frowned upon. Currently, however, the feeling appears to be that if a card achieves a grade of "Authentic", that card has merit as a collectable.<br /><br />Although I agree that authentic cards have merit as collectables, there are those who believe that unauthentic cards also have merit as collectables.<br /><br />I wonder if in another year we will be discussing the comparitive values of reprints vs. picture cutouts, vs. display cutouts, vs .....<br /><br />Afterall, a recent thread touted the appearance of an authentic card as desireable over a low graded, unaltered alternate option for a t227.<br /><br />What is your thinking on this?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Well the PSA 8+ folks get my vote for first place.<br /><br />I'd rank the "starting with those old 60s cards" next.<br /><br />And then I'd put the T206 minutia folks and the character card people together, and I'd join them. I'm not pitching my 60s cards, but I don't idolize them, either. Although the 67 Topps cards were the only ones I completed as a kid, and I'm close to recompleting them and recompleting my childhood at the same time.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>I am taking a new direction. No longer will I fret that I cannot afford the PSA 8's, 9's and 10. I'm reverting back to my 3rd childhood. Collecting cards and not condition. If my neighbor bought a $120,000 sports car, would I try to 1 up him and get one for $130,000? I couldn't compete on that level even if I wanted to. Same goes for sets consisting of all PSA 9's and 10's, with commons reaching $1k for a 5 cent card. I'm going back to collecting raw sets in decent condition. Back to what we did as kids. Back to when it was fun to have the card. Back to when we knew nothing about the miniscule difference between an 8 and a 10. Back to when it was fun to look through binders of players from my childhood. I will make an exeption and continue to put together my set of graded T206's. One because I know they are real and unaltered and 2 because I am assured no damage will come to them. I will continue to look for cards with eye appeal regardless of grade. This Bender is a good example.It is a PSA 1. Sorry if I got off topic a bit, but it does bring out another class of collector, so it is still of the topic, sort of .<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1154132533.JPG"> <br><br>A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Im right there with you Joe - nothing better than a great looking low grade card. <br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/File0646Medium.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DJ</b><p>Well the PSA 8+ folks gets my vote for first place as well, especially the T206 people. No Offense. IMO. I like character in my cards as well and I enjoy wear on my cards.I love stains on my Cracker Jacks and have even embraced T206 cards that would give the owner of the card a free beer at the stamped establishment on the back of the card. <br /><br />I get so paranoid with PSA8's and PSA9's simply because the price difference is so big and wonder if the card was perfectly cropped in some way. <br /><br />I held in my hand a PSA8 and a PSA9 1967 Willie Mays card last week and spent thirty minutes trying to figure out the difference. I couldn't, and the price difference on one over the other was four figures.<br /><br />DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe Brennan</b><p>Josh, Sweet looking Matty.<br><br>A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.