Quote:
Originally Posted by tulsaboy
I know that I'm outvoted at this point, but I like the one that looks crappier. Part of the charm of older cards is that they aren't perfect. And they weren't even perfect when they were new. They were novelties that were originally designed to sell a product -- candy, gum, cigarettes -- and ultimately became the product themselves. They weren't intended to be works of art; they were intended to amuse children. I for one struggle with newer cards because they are too shiny, too perfect, too flashy. I like newer cards because my kids know the players and they don't know Brett or Mays or Mantle or Aaron. But to my eye, if I'm wanting to obtain a "card that never was but should have been" I would want one that fit in quality, style, and design. Thus I like option B.
Thanks for sharing your work, by the way!
kevin
|
Kevin,
You're the MAN! Insights are fantastic. It helps explain things for me. Collectors connect differently with product. It's kind of like musical taste.
I meet mainstream folks that dig 3 chords and some enjoy the sounds of hubcaps rolling down stairs. I loathe shiny, new things. I do, however, totally get why people like them. It's the explanation that interests me. Ben stated he likes shiny versions of older cards. He's very detail-oriented that way (he noted the toning difference in the name plate). Thank you for your insights!
Phil