Baseball Cards in the Era of Digital Photography
 

“The bogus religiosity which now surrounds original works of art,” Mr. Berger wrote in “Ways of Seeing,” “is ultimately dependent on their market value” and “has become the substitute for what paintings lost when the camera made them reproducible.”

Fascinating article, that applies equally to our collecting of little cardboard baseball men...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/a...ction=Trending

I think about things like this all the time.

Someday, I hope to have an original 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth. It's one of my dream cards. But I can't explain WHY it seems so special. It's cardboard with ink printed on it. I have a reproduction 1933 Goudey Ruth. It is made of cardboard with ink on it.

Why do I hope to someday have enough extra cash to spend several thousand dollars on the one printed in 1933 vs the repro printed in 1985ish.

It's sort of illogical to pursue this hobby, and normally I'm a logical guy.

As an art historian and academic in museum studies, but someone who just returned from vacation where I played the tourist taking photos of me and my friend amongst the ruins and pictographs (see below), I say that people taking and posting selfies or whatever with or of the Mona Lisa is awesome, and if they're having fun that's great. Talking about, sharing one's thoughts and feelings about such things is a good thing. I was on vacation to have fun.

However, I have long thought about modern digital art and all the issues there, including 'manufactured rarity.' I do note that, other than the 1800 lithographs, most baseball cards you collect use reproductive, though not digital, printing methods. The T206s and Goudeys, to name just two, reproduce photos or other artworks.

I do appreciate collecting and that items have financial value, but I agree with the article quoters that the commoditization of items and the singular focus/fetish on financial value is a total turnoff. I have long felt this way about the sports memorabilia and card hobby too.

It's all an interesting topic for discussion and musing. I sort of view the article as an opinion piece, and there's nothing wrong with publishing an opinion on the topic-- that's where discussions start and continue.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=24539 http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=24540

The original is infinitely better, at least to me, because it was produced during the respective player’s career and with the tools and materials available at the time. Accordingly, it’s a piece of history rather than just an attractive image. A vintage card or other artifact, I would argue, is as close a thing to a time machine as we’ll ever have.

I don’t think there’s anything illogical in that.

Patina
 

This is why vintage cards with a bit of "patina" are so enjoyable to me. I always appreciate the reaction of people outside the hobby have for a nm, nm+ T card vs. a vg-ex, ex card when you tell them they are both 100 years old. "That one doesn't look old, it looks brand new." I prefer the nicer cards in my collection, but enjoy showing the aged cards more because they get a more genuine reaction most of the time.

+1

Also, they've had reprints for decades. That is nothing new.

Agree wholeheartedly. :)

https://i.imgur.com/PscJMi6.jpg

First off, I agree with you completely...so I'm not trying to be a contrarian. An original Ruth is coveted by me because it does feel historically significant, and owning one would feel like owning something that should be in a museum. Looking at my reprint doesn't really bring me joy, it just makes me think about how I don't have an original :)

But the counterpoint that I come back to in my head from time to time is why the perceived value for certain cards is so high. Paintings are a different thing, because an original painting has been produced by the artist. WHO paints the picture is just as important as what the picture looks like. But an original Ruth? The Babe didn't print those cards. So if the value of an original over a reprint is the "oldness" then shouldn't I be almost as happy to own ANY original 1933 Goudey (of which I do own a few commons and whatnot). They are historical baseball artifacts printed in the time of the Babe, on the same sheet as the Babe, printed with same ink at the exact same time....they just happen to have another players picture printed on it.

So the illogical part comes down to this:

If I had the extra cash, would I spend $3000 on a reprint card with Ruth's picture? Of course not.

Would I spend it on an original mid-grade 1933 Goudey of a common player? Of course not.

But if you put those two together with Ruth's image on an original card? Yes, I'm all in.

Illogical. :)

Ah, but now you’re definitely on to why I love signed T206 cards so much more than their naked, multi-produced brethren.

I think you’re overanalyzing. What’s illogical about wanting an attractive card of Ruth from when Ruth played?

Part of the value comes from the fact that it was produced in 1933
Part of the value comes from the fact that it depicts Ruth
Part of the value comes from the fact that it’s part of a popular set
Part of the value comes from it’s attractiveness

A reprint doesn’t check all of those boxes, nor does a different card from the set.

Haha, yes...in fact I am overanalyzing. It's what I do.

Honestly, I do enjoy pondering such things. And obviously, any hesitations I have around things like perceived value and whether this hobby is logical or illogical are completely overridden by the fact I love baseball cards and the joy they bring me.

And T206Collector, now THAT sounds like an interesting pursuit. I can't imagine that's an easy project, but probably pretty rewarding when you can track them down!