Interesting Jay Leno Article

[samosa4u]

Hello everyone,

I was reading this article (Hagerty Magazine September/October issue) last night and I kept thinking about sports cards.

Please read over it and post your thoughts on here.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

There are at best a handful of people in the world alive today who saw Cobb play (and doubtful that any remember it!) Only a few handfuls of people who saw Ruth play. I'm sneaking up on 50 and never saw Mantle play. Not an apples to apples comparison with our hobby.

[MVSNYC]

Scott, I started writing this hours ago, and saved the draft...we're on the same page...

I love Jay, and I love his car show.

To me, I don’t think this article, as interesting as it is, crosses over to Sports Cards/Memorabilia...If it did, cards from 1887, 1909, 1933, 1952, etc, would not be desirable. Obviously they are still VERY desirable. And yet, we collectors, lack a direct, first-person connection to cards (and memorabilia) from those years...BUT, the players, and their stats (the really good ones), are immortal (Anson, Cobb, Ruth, Mantle...etc). And we want a "piece" of them. Nostalgia.

There's a difference between a celebrity owning a car/pipe/belt, etc...and a game used/worn item that was used/worn by a beloved athlete. And the cards, well, they're such a large segment of the collecting hobby, and will always be, like stamps, coins, etc.

BUT, very interesting article, thanks for sharing. Jay makes some very good points.


Regards,
Michael

[Topnotchsy]

I think there are a number of distinctions (these are initial thoughts)

1) With movies, the connection is generally somewhat singular. It's a specific movie, which even a big fan will likely only watch a few times, and that's it. With sports, it is 162 games per year (plus Playoffs) year after year.

2) Sports plays a much larger role in modern culture than any movie, or movie franchise ever would.

3) There is loyalty and fandom for teams and players that doesn't exist on the same scale with movies

4) Sports, because there are so many levels (games, seasons, player careers and teams) that span different lengths of time, there is a connection that spans generations. There is nothing today to connect to a 1930's movie, but my interest in a specific team or player automatically connects me the past in a way that doesn't exist for movies.

[Stampsfan]

1. Most everyone has heard the name "Babe Ruth".

2. Has anyone heard the name "Hoot Gibson"?


I cannot recall a single piece of Hoot Gibson memorabilia (autograph, lobby card, etc.) in any auction I have followed.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

1. Most everyone has heard the name "Babe Ruth".

2. Has anyone heard the name "Hoot Gibson"?


I cannot recall a single piece of Hoot Gibson memorabilia (autograph, lobby card, etc.) in any auction I have followed.

Maybe someday I'll come across a Babe Ruth card that was owned by Hoot Gibson.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

1. Most everyone has heard the name "Babe Ruth".

2. Has anyone heard the name "Hoot Gibson"?


I cannot recall a single piece of Hoot Gibson memorabilia (autograph, lobby card, etc.) in any auction I have followed.

You never heard of Bob 'Hoot' Gibson?

There's the connection...thin though it may be.

.

[sportscomicfantasy]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

I think there are a number of distinctions (these are initial thoughts)

1) With movies, the connection is generally somewhat singular. It's a specific movie, which even a big fan will likely only watch a few times, and that's it. With sports, it is 162 games per year (plus Playoffs) year after year.

2) Sports plays a much larger role in modern culture than any movie, or movie franchise ever would.

3) There is loyalty and fandom for teams and players that doesn't exist on the same scale with movies

4) Sports, because there are so many levels (games, seasons, player careers and teams) that span different lengths of time, there is a connection that spans generations. There is nothing today to connect to a 1930's movie, but my interest in a specific team or player automatically connects me the past in a way that doesn't exist for movies.

On the large scale, I would agree with you but there are notable exceptions. The biggest I could point out are Star Wars and Star Trek!

There are plenty of Star Wars items getting major bucks, week in and week out. I remember about 10 years ago, there were several items going for 6 figures from a major auction house for Star Trek. One of the models used in the movies or series went for $250, 000.

When my wife was alive, I went to DragonCon in Atlanta for many years in a row. I don't know how many go there now, but one year they had 80,000 people over a 4-day extended weekend. I think it's this weekend that it is probably going on right now. I felt it seemed busier at that convention then it did the year they had the Sports Card National in Atlanta, don't remember but that was about 18ish years ago.

I think it really depends on the actor, film, series etc. There is always someone willing to pay more money than someone else for something that most would think is crazy. I have plenty of sports items that guys on this site would think is crazy and visa versa.

I do think sports is more far-reaching than movies and TV for longer periods of time because most are people who have followed certain teams their whole lives. There are few series that you can do that in movies or TV, but there are some.

The other possible examples that come to mind are Lord of the Ring and James Bond 007, and the new kid on the block I would say is Harry Potter.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by sportscomicfantasy

On the large scale, I would agree with you but there are notable exceptions. The biggest I could point out are Star Wars and Star Trek!

There are plenty of Star Wars items getting major bucks, week in and week out. I remember about 10 years ago, there were several items going for 6 figures from a major auction house for Star Trek. One of the models used in the movies or series went for $250, 000.

When my wife was alive, I went to DragonCon in Atlanta for many years in a row. I don't know how many go there now, but one year they had 80,000 people over a 4-day extended weekend. I think it's this weekend that it is probably going on right now. I felt it seemed busier at that convention then it did the year they had the Sports Card National in Atlanta, don't remember but that was about 18ish years ago.

I think it really depends on the actor, film, series etc. There is always someone willing to pay more money than someone else for something that most would think is crazy. I have plenty of sports items that guys on this site would think is crazy and visa versa.

I do think sports is more far-reaching than movies and TV for longer periods of time because most are people who have followed certain teams their whole lives. There are few series that you can do that in movies or TV, but there are some.

The other possible examples that come to mind are Lord of the Ring and James Bond 007, and the new kid on the block I would say is Harry Potter.

but you're using contemporary examples which isn't making the same point Leno is. Call me 50 years after the last Star Wars movie or Star Trek movie is in theaters.