Quote:
Originally Posted by glchen
Bill, it is good to read about your love of cardboard and baseball. Please don't get me wrong. I love collecting baseball cards also. I collected when I was a kid, and I had a lot of fun buying packs at the local drugstore in town or before a Little League game. I exchanged cards with my friends in school, and I really enjoyed it. I still have many of my cards from back then, and although they are worthless in value, there is still a lot sentimental value there. I enjoy collecting today to somewhat relive those times during my childhood, and also to obtain some of the cards I could never dream of obtaining when I was a kid. In addition, it's very enjoyable learning the history of the different baseball cards, and it's a different type of experience in collecting the cards in of itself than when I was a kid.
Moreover, I could never collect art. Most of it's bulky, and I can't understand 99% of it. I much prefer to hang pictures of my family on the walls of our house than any painting or print of a noteworthy painting. However, I still believe that art is a different level of collectible than baseball cards.
So, I will reply to your argument this way. If you could only save one of these, your ten favorite or what you consider most important baseball cards ever, or this one painting of George Washington painted in 1796 by Gilbert Stuart (the Lansdowne portrait), which I’ve attached, and currently hanging in the Smithsonian Museum, which would you choose? A description of this painting is here ( Link), and in brief the painting shows Washington refusing a third term as President. Note that there are copies of it painted by the same artist, but this would be the original. You could save only one, and the other would be incinerated and lost forever. Which would you choose? |
Well..................
To follow the stated hobby logic, I'd save the cards. Because just like Broders, the painting can't have any value because the painter could always paint more. (And actually did)
The comparison is a good one in some ways. if I were to pick a handful of cards, the similarities would be that they and the painting would represent events and actions that altered out country in some way and that the alteration was one that remained.
Washington refusing a second term became a tradition that wasn't made law until 17 years after it was broken in 1940.
Obviously something that affected the countries politics and still does over 200 years later.
But an early card of Jackie Robinson? - a 49 leaf to make it easy. Also represents an act that represented a huge change in the US. And while it was less of a solitary act then one involving several people I would make the stretch that as a milestone in a movement that eventually had worldwide influence decades later it could be seen as equivalent historically.
Steve B