Quote:
Originally Posted by maniac_73
I'm not a big fan of them personally but I understand why others would enjoy them. Only because to me, a card represents a period in time. I look at it as a historical piece and not just an art piece.
|
Exactly. It's an actual genuine real artifact from a time when someone who's now a household name was still an unknown, unproven player... someone you could approach for an autograph and not only would he be thrilled to give you one, but if he wasn't pressed for time he'd be happy to spend a few minutes with you to talk baseball or otherwise just hang and talk about whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maniac_73
That gets lost for me in reprints
|
Not for me... although I agree that it's not the same as holding the real thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maniac_73
That gets lost for me in . . . cards that never were.
|
True. I'm thinking of the "1952" Joe DiMaggio card that Topps made a while back. Even if Topps made an official statement to the effect of 'this is the card we would have made, if we had issued a DiMaggio card that year,' it's not the same because the photo and the writeup were done with x-number of years of hindsight of how big a legend he became.
Perhaps if Topps had intended to produce a DiMaggio card in '52, and such a card had made it all the way to the proof stage before Topps decided to pull the plug, and those proofs were reprinted and sold for the first time in the '80s or later, that would be a different thing... but in general, I agree with you.