[brian1961]

Why must we bring who was the better player into the discussion? So often that issue is brought up into these threads, and it's rather immature to the reality of why collectors go for particular players.

Some of you pre-war guys seem to be "licking your chops" with glee in anticipation of the advancing age of the Baby Boom generation, when Mickey Mantle cards will finally fulfill your Chicken Little rants.

Some players are timeless. The poll consists of two players---both timeless.

It seems to me you will do well with either one, but personally, I would select the card you would be much less emotionally attached to. So, when the ten-year-mark comes around, you won't bat an eye parting with the piece.

Investing in solar panels seems like a good idea, as long as they do what they're supposed to. What happens if baseball-size hail pummels them? Or even golf ball-sized? In retrospect, if a natural disaster hits, you may need to sell that Mantle or Cobb sooner than you think, if it survives the disaster. Moreover, if you survive the disaster.

Off the subject, am I? Maybe it's a better subject, only for a reality check.

Distill this all away, and it comes back to, "My dog's better than your dog."

At least with Ty and Mick, their legacies are monumental, and doubtless will stand firm. As will Babe Ruth.

There is a problem with some players---few cards, coins, premiums were made of them. Their legacies suffer for it, to a degree. A lot of nice Cobbs were crafted, and more so of Mickey. The poll involves their two finest mainstream card. So what card will do the best, you insist? I don't care. It's just as picking which stock will do the best in the long-term.

For the mean time, it is obvious investing in cards is doing a whole lot better than what any bank is offering.

Keep your cool. Cheers. ---Brian Powell