Originally Posted by MMarvelli

I believe that collecting vintage pre-war cards isn’t best judged by the definition of the word ‘card’ by post-war adolescents whose almost overwhelming supply of baseball player likenesses were distributed on cardboard. If you are collecting post-war baseball cards then I can see a desire to collect strictly cardboard.

But if you are passionately collecting pre-war ‘cards’ I think you are in a vast minority if you only pursue standard weight and sized cardboard. Also, to say that the word ‘card’ is short for cardboard and defines the hobby would be a bit cavalier. I would think it would be rather ballzy to call up J.R. Burdick (at the time) and start a conversation that he incorrectly named the American Card Catalog because it contains silks, blankets, chips, disks, flimsy paper, ‘oversized’ cards, etc.

I think if you are collecting pre-war you are more inclined to embrace the ACC and its abundant variety. If you are a type collector, like me, it would be insane to be a cardboard only type collector while using the ACC as your general index for pre-war cards. If you only collect thick, stackable cardboard of a generally established maximum size of approximately 3” x 4”, you would exclude the majority of the ACC.

I am not sure why there is a need to define card collecting with a rigid majority standard. It is what you decide it is to you. If you want to collect HOF members you can go hard core and narrowly define your standards. You can also broadly collect HOF members and obtain any item, including post cards and maybe even press photo’s. It isn’t like the professor gives us a grade based on one criteria when our quest is complete.

So, my answer to “when is a card a card?” would be that it is irrelevant.