Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD
I have heard similar arguments before and always thought it odd. By the same argument are 1914 Cracker Jacks not a card or the innumerable other issues that are paper, or just photo paper that are widely accepted cards not cards if deemed so?
I am not picking on you, I’ve just always thought the paper stock discussion never held much water without completely disregarding hundreds of widely accepted issues (including some near entire catalogues such as Cuban releases).
|
Widely accepted doesn't mean correct. I don't care about preserving value or status quo, I just follow the basic logic when I determine what is or is not a card in my collection or any other question. A card is cardboard, as is in the name. A paper thin item is not a card; there is no cardboard or card stock. That's why a newspaper picture cut out is not a card. That's why a photo I take on a 1980's camera is not a card.
For Cuban example, 1946 Propagandas are not cards; they are paper. That doesn't make them less cool nor less collectible, it just literally is not a card. I made the same point about them in the boxing pickup thread recently when I got a James Jeffries. It's just not a card, by definition.
My position is to just use the literal, any item that is not on cardboard or card stock cannot be a card because it lacks the definitional characteristic of a 'card'.
In turn, not picking on you, but your formulation here assumes the answer as a required condition of the question. If we cannot find anything that "completely disregard[s] hundreds of widely accepted issues"; we are dictating the answer without inquiry. If we decide that to answer the question, we cannot find anything that says general hobby understanding, definitions, perceptions or beliefs are incorrect, then we dictate the answer without any reason entering into it or any examination. This is a normal thing people do, to postulate that we cannot find what we do not want to find, but of course it is the opposite of logic. This is a very unimportant issue, but one doesn't arrive at truth by determining that the answer to a question must be that the status quo is right. From unimportant categorization to where and when cards were printed to things outside the hobby that actually matter, one arrives at the truth by following logic and the evidence, not pre-concluding the outcome of an inquiry. This is probably why the genuine research threads are so barren; it requires a different starting point and basis than the hobby generally likes in its discussion. If we don't determine the conclusion before the inquiry, we often find what we thought before is wrong. I certainly have many times.
As I said for the Kashin, I'm going off memory as mine are buried in the bottom of the safe, if the post prior to this is right and they are a thinner cardboard but still cardboard then the Kashin is Berg's rookie card. If it is paper, then it is not his rookie card. It can be a rookie picture, a cool item, but a rookie 'card' is a 2 condition statement; the item must be a rookie and a card both. This stands for every player and every item.
I think the much more debatable standard I gave is the one dismissing the die cut; that a rookie card must actually picture the subject. That one is very arbitrary.
I own none of the cards in this thread and do not plan on acquiring them, no vested interest