Posted By:
writehooksGreat question, Jason. And all of the responses – particularly Barry's – have included some salient points.
Perhaps because I've been fortunate enough to have a few books published, I'm particularly sensitive to the relative lack of respect granted printed material. From my observations, it's definitely a generational thing. My speciality is boxing ephemera, books and programs, but at every show I also make sure to bring along a small cache of pre-1960s books and publications (programs and media guides) from baseball and hockey to counter-balance the "same old, same old" card stock that I and every other dealer seems to have in abundance.
The over-40 crowd instantly gravitates to the printed stuff, with boxing programs, vintage copies of Ring and old baseball and hockey publications being by far the most popular. What I find most interesting (and gratifying) is that, rather than merely giving these items the cursory inspection they give the cards, collectors old enough to remember devouring the Sporting News every week or charting their favorite fighter's rise up Ring's monthly top 10 inevitably want to talk about it. A program, book or magazine serves as a kind of historic freeze-frame, triggering memories, opinions and observtions in ways that a card never seems able to match.
How this translates into perceived value isn't quite as clear-cut. Unless they're hardwired for vintage issues, most over-40 collectors don't care much about cards, but at every show I still sell a lot of post-1980s issues to the younger set. On the other hand, the same "old guys" who shake their head in stunned amazement when they see a $100 price tag on a three-year-old Sydney Crosby card don't bat an eye at paying three or four times that figure for a mid-60s boxing program.
Just my two cents ...