Posted By:
warshawlawIn addition to the people in this thread who've said that they find having a card owned by a "famous" collector to be enjoyable, which is proof enough, every other major collectable field (but especially art) assigns a premium for provenance. Card buyers are even starting do it too: what about the most famous card in the world? I remember an interview with Mike Gidwitz, who bought the T206 PSA 8 Wagner after McNall and Gretzky sold it [we now pause for MW to chime in that it is trimmed and PSA slabbed a trimmed card:)], and he was of the (correct) view that the upside on the card was even greater in his hands than it was before The Great One owned it, in part because its provenance would generate a certain notoriety and buzz when he went to sell it.
Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would negate virtually every aspect of celebrity collecting. I mean, why should I want to own a scrap of paper or an old cancelled bank check with someone's writing on it, just because that someone is Babe Ruth? Why would I want to own an ugly black bird just because it is the "Maltese Falcon"? Why did someone pay big bucks for Ty Cobb's dentures from the Halper collection? Why was trash from Andy Warhol's estate auctioned off for big bucks? The answer is the same: collectability. Some people consider it to be interesting and desirable to acquire things owned by famous people. My point was that pioneering collectors have a certain degree of fame, and therefore I would not be surprised to someday see people pay a premium for an item from the personal collection of a hobby pioneer, especially if it has that person's handwriting on it. It isn't for everyone, but if there are a few people out there who care, the item will have a premium value.
Come on, admit it: if you found Jefferson Burdick's personal copy of an early ACC with his notations written in it, you would expect to sell it for a huge premium based on the famous annotations.