[Exhibitman]

David, in your vitriol you are missing my point: The analogy to items in museums and to public historic sites is inapposite. We are not talking about cutting up a museum collection, we are talking about privately-owned items that are not part of a public trust. I agree that ruining a museum collection--something expressly set aside for the public's benefit and education--is a stupid idea. Had you read carefully you would have seen that in my initial post I had already dismissed that idea. However, the issue framed the way that you and many other posters here frame it is a red herring. My card collection is a more apt analogy--privately held and not used for the public's benefit. It would not be as much of an issue if I decided to make relic cards from my collection as it would if the same exact cards in the Burdick Collection were shredded by the Met and sold in the gift shop.

Better yet, how about strip cards? Many collectors who get uncut strips will cut them down to individual cards, especially if one or two of them are mutilated and the rest are nice. Is that a collecing "sin" akin to cutting up the Mona Lisa?

My point, once again since you either missed it or do not want to acknowledge it, is that we are dicussing privately holding an item for one person's good versus cutting it up and creating many items that many people might privately hold and enjoy, not cutting up a piece of the commonly-held cultural heritage and distributing it to private owners. The two are very different concepts and in my view merit different reactions. All of the whining about the desecration of baseball history is based on a premise about the use and disposition of items in question that is inaccurate.