|
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
I don't think they should be sold here only because they could be misleading. Perhaps not to the initial buyer on the board, but I'm thinking of the next buyer.
eBay is a fine enough venue in my opinion. This board has more of a generally advanced collector community. |
Quote:
Please see my additional comment above. Also, I don't view those items as "tweeners." Clearly, they were produced to be collected, clipped, or traded in some fashion. That's why many of them have labels like "baseball cards" or "sports stamps." A cut out picture of Babe Ruth or Joe Jackson from a 1916 Reach Baseball guide is something totally different. |
Quote:
I am mostly, strongly against cutting up "good" vintage anything. I know I have a smaller Pelicans team cut out with Jackson on it and it goes with a larger piece I have. I think I paid about $8 for it. I am happy with it. The voting is about 2-1 in favor of (including not caring) letting them be sold on the BST with mandatory transparency and in the correct section. So far I haven't been convinced or have reasoning to go against that overwhelming majority. To those that would say "well, if they are sold here, no worries but what about the next sale?" That is another fair question and my answer is I hope people are honest and transparent. And I don't think by "allowing" them to be sold on the BST we are necessarily asking for the pubs to be cut up. But by allowing their sale I know it is debatable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I do see where you mention the grading :)....but I wasn't referring to that. I probably didn't communicate that very well. |
Quote:
If one third of a T202 or one half of a T201 isn't an authentic baseball card by itself, then how can a photo cut from a baseball guide be construed as a stand-alone collectible as legitimate as a baseball card? I have no issue with ungraded pieces of paper exchanging hands for money, but when you see these same scraps, quite often with unrelated text on their reverses, selling for $50, $100, or even more in holders where a 1 to 10 grade is assigned, you're implicitly telling the customer that they are receiving a sports collectible/card meant to be marketed as such. And the fact that a disclaimer even has to be attached to such an item should tell us something about what is being sold. |
Quote:
We both agree on the grading of them. I have long argued against giving numeric grades to hand cut cards, especially with no caveat. I agree with you on that. However, as for the disclaimers they are there for a reason and can warn against danger. I like them on flips. |
I'm generally not in favor of banning the sale of items (that's not an absolute rule, and I'm sure I could think of exceptions). I do think things must be accurately described so the buyer understands what is being purchased (I don't accept the usual eBay scammer's "Technically, I didn't lie. I never said it was a card" lines. You can lie via omission, such as omitting the fact that you yourself cut the picture out of a magazine). However, while I'm not for banning things and am not for telling people what they should or should not collect, I would support rules about in which categories they can be sold. As has already been mentioned, there can be the rule that they can't be sold in the card sections. If someone put an autographed baseball in the Post-War card section, Leon might move it to the autographs collection and there would be no complaints.
My problem is collectors often want to ban things based on sentiment or prevailing taste. That someone says Spalding Guide cutouts should be banned but not cutout Harper's Woodcuts is a demonstration of this. Their distinction between the two is sentimental. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with sentiment, and I perceive and value Harper's Woodcuts differently than Spalding Guide cutouts, but the topic here is about banning the sale of. |
....
|
I'll testify that Scott's a purist. He eats the entire bag of potato chips in one bite, because he thinks it would be unethical to remove one chip from the set. I keep telling him I think its okay to at least remove the chips from the bag first, but he says "No, I want to go to Heaven." All I know is I hope Heaven has an Internist.
|
....
|
It was a joke. I avoid the use of emoticons, so there is sometimes some confusion. I already stated I'm against cutting up books, and, in fact, wouldn't cut out a Harper's Woodcut either. We're disagreeing about philosophy (and psychology) not practice.
Besides, to be candid, I think my points and analogies were sound. I fail to see how someone in 2010 cutting up a Harper's Weekly for its pictures is so different than cutting up a Spalding Guide. One point is I never used sentimental as a derogatory term. Collecting is a sentimental activity. When some says he thinks Spalding Guides or Babe Ruth bats should be left intact, that's a sentiment I agree with. I merely said I didn't think it was a reason to ban items. |
It should be noted that woodcuts are considered different than many Spalding and Reach Guide photos because woodcuts are handmade original works of art, while the guide photos are reproductions of photos or art. The woodcuts were printed from hand carved or engraved woodblocks,-- the way Durer and Picasso did it--, while the guide photos have the dot patterns of modern newspaper photos. For most of the 19th century, newspapers and magazines didn't have the modern reproductive technology and the pictures were made by hand.
That's a point apart from the cutouts debate on this thread, but explains why woodcuts are valued differently than cutouts from 20th century newspapers, magazines and books. And I was just joking when I called Scott a 'sentimental fool.' I assumed it was obvious, but humor can be lost in translation on a chatboard. |
Quote:
As an example, in addition to the Home Run Baker supplement issued 12-9-1911, there are at least three different times the same photo was printed as a full page in other issues of Police Gazette, at least one as late as July 1918. While I'm not a fan of destroying guides for their pages, I do own lots of Police Gazette pages, which is obviously a bit contradictory. |
Several years ago I won a collection of PGs and they came in both versions-- the blank back supplements and the pages from the magazine. First time I had ever had any.
|
....
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:22 PM. |