Narrow-minded Collectors

[samosa4u]

I just came up with this phrase right now - sounds a bit funny, doesn't it? However, it's probably true!

Alright, let's say I didn't know a damn thing about baseball. And I had $200,000 USD saved up and that I wanted to buy some sports cards. Now I start hanging out on this forum in order to learn about the best players/best cards, and after a few weeks, or a few months, what would I buy?

Prewar: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner.

Post-war: Mickey Mantle, Roberto Clemente, Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron.

And that's it! Pretty tiny list, isn't it? But that's all you folks ever talk about! I wouldn't know a damn thing about Joe DiMaggio or Satch Paige or Pete Rose or Walter Johnson or Jimmie Foxx. Heck, I would probably even pass on Lou Gehrig and Willie Mays! I'd tell myself "hmmm, I think I read a thread or two about them, but I can't quite remember what they were about! I think I will just buy another Cobb!"

Take a look at this list below:

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/leg.../lisn100.shtml

Look at all those awesome players that never get mentioned here - pretty crazy, isn't it?

And that's my rant for the day.

~The End~

[RCMcKenzie]

Rollie Fingers is on their top 100 list. I guess Chad Qualls is 101. I wish my collection was full of Cobbs and Wagners, instead of Rube Oldrings and Al Bridwells. It would be so much easier to liquidate when the time comes.

[doug.goodman]

While I get your general point, I pretty much disagree.

Right now, on the front page of the post-war-pre-80 we have Ed Stevens, Brooks Robinson, Johnny Bench, Warren Spahn and Sandy Koufax.

On the WWII and older page I see Lefty Grove, Sadaharo Oh and the Khumbu Icefall mentioned in titles, and a quick link click gets you Rube Walberg, Leo Durocher, Doc Farrell, Al Spohrer, Luke Sewell, Jack Russell, Al Thomas, Roy Campanella, Joe Jackson, Christ Mathewson, Ray Fisher, etc, etc, etc.

I just thought of a funny phrase right now it's "narrow-minded Net54 readers"

Doug "the vast majority of my want list is players you haven't heard of" Goodman

[oldeboo]

***Quietly sneaks over to eBay looking for Mark McGwire and Gaylord Perry cards***

[bbnut]

I'm offended Rickey isn't top 20!!

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[tschock]

In 1998, it was a very good year,
Filled with hotdogs and juiced balls and many steroids so near,
It was a very good year.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bbnut

I'm offended Rickey isn't top 20!!

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I'm offended by the whole list. It's like they put a list of names into a random generator and hit the scramble button a few times and said that looks good.

Just noticed it is a 20+ year old list.

[Snapolit1]

I don't disagree that a relative handful (or two) of names garner the lion's share attention in the pre-war collecting world. Your point maybe be exaggerated (people talk all the time about Paige and Gehrig as but two examples), but your point is generally accurate. Wait around for an Ernie Banks thread and you might be waiting a while. But have you ever gone to a post war board? Jeez its Mike Trout all day and all night. I think this is just the vagaries of collecting, and would bet it takes place with respect to vintage cars, hummels, Norman Rockwell plates, stamps and everything else. Pecking orders develop in hobbies and are in a way self perpetuating. Why is this plate more desirable than others? Because basically the hobby decided it was because more people talked about it and it got more desirable. Rinse and repeat.

[GasHouseGang]

You're right. We need to throw off those guys that just want drive up the prices by buying up the good stuff. From now on we should only talk about players like Cory Snyder or Joe Charboneau. That way we can help drive up the prices of all that junk wax we have left over, and keep them away from the really good stuff!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Pecking orders develop in hobbies and are in a way self perpetuating. Why is this plate more desirable than others? Because basically the hobby decided it was because more people talked about it and it got more desirable. Rinse and repeat.

I'm an English literature major, and we call the top 100 books the canon. Generally it is represented by dead white guys, who were chosen by old white guys. But over the last 20-30 years, more open minded academics have started to change the canon by broadening and redefining what's important. It looks a lot like NET54 organization as they break it up into groups. Post Colonialism. Feminism. Realism/Naturalism. Contemporary. Poetry. World Lit. Victorian Era. Elizabethan. African American Lit. It's a glorious time to be alive if you're a reader as the canon has grown to adopt diversity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I just came up with this phrase right now - sounds a bit funny, doesn't it?

I don't get the hate.. there is something for everyone here. And why would you collect players that others wanted you to collect?

there is more conversation and information about 89 Fleer Randy Johnson variations than anyone can ever dream of. Same with Billy Ripken. Topps Venezuela, Gretzy vs Orr, Star basketball. Jackie Robison's facelift, SGC v PSA, T206 back multipliers....on and on and on.

Come here looking for information on the players and cards that YOU want to learn about, and you will find it. if not, start it. and I am sure you will find plenty of takers.

[Casey2296]

I was hoping to keep my progress on a Gus Zernial master set under wraps so y'all didn't drive the prices up.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

While I get your general point, I pretty much disagree.

+1

I think your list of 10 players makes for a good start. They're iconic.

However, collecting not those players is more fun, IMO, and more affordable. My list of individual players I collect is:

Tris Speaker, Ernie Lombardi, Barry Larkin, Johnny Bench, Ken Griffey Jr, Cal Ripken Jr, Bucky Walters, Paul Derringer, Joey Votto, Derek Jeter, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, and Aaron Boone.

I also collect Wheaties, which just arent as popular as they used to be.

I've also recently been buying pennants due to what I see FS on Net54.

My favorite threads are recent acquisitions for memorabilia, Hey Pennant Guys, memorabilia rooms/displays, show off your Cincinnati Reds items.

I think the longer a board member sticks around, and the more they explore, the less likely they are to be stuck with the top 10 players, and they may branch out into non card items.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

I don't get the hate.. there is something for everyone here.

I don't think his rant was meant to hate. I think it's a great conversation starter, which generally needs to be a little controversial in order to spawn discussion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[glchen]

Babe Ruth sez: "Sorry, Willie, I think I was the best baseball player I ever saw. Now buy more of my cards!"

[GeoPoto]

Best Pitcher (after Ruth)

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1605641989

[oldeboo]

This thread needs a Ty Cobb card, who has one?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm an English literature major, and we call the top 100 books the canon. Generally it is represented by dead white guys, who were chosen by old white guys. But over the last 20-30 years, more open minded academics have started to change the canon by broadening and redefining what's important. It looks a lot like NET54 organization as they break it up into groups. Post Colonialism. Feminism. Realism/Naturalism. Contemporary. Poetry. World Lit. Victorian Era. Elizabethan. African American Lit. It's a glorious time to be alive if you're a reader as the canon has grown to adopt diversity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Not everyone shares the changing of the canon as something positive, Allan Bloom, in his highly influential The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students (1987) argues that moral degradation results from ignorance of the great classics that shaped Western culture. His book was widely cited by some intellectuals for its argument that the classics contained universal truths and timeless values which were being ignored by cultural relativists.

Additionally, defenders maintain that those who undermine the canon do so out of primarily political interests, and that such criticisms are misguided and/or disingenuous. As John Searle, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, has written:

"There is a certain irony in this [i.e., politicized objections to the canon] in that earlier student generations, my own for example, found the critical tradition that runs from Socrates through the Federalist Papers, through the writings of Mill and Marx, down to the twentieth century, to be liberating from the stuffy conventions of traditional American politics and pieties. Precisely by inculcating a critical attitude, the "canon" served to demythologize the conventional pieties of the American bourgeoisie and provided the student with a perspective from which to critically analyze American culture and institutions. Ironically, the same tradition is now regarded as oppressive. The texts once served an unmasking function; now we are told that it is the texts which must be unmasked." (this was taken from online)

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by tschock

In 1998, it was a very good year,
Filled with hotdogs and juiced balls and many steroids so near,
It was a very good year.

Well done sir!

[jchcollins]

The hobby is in many ways different than the sport(s) from which it's subjects are drawn, and as was insinuated earlier - the history of the hobby and especially the mainstream, self-aware hobby (IMHO, after about 1980) of course exerts its own influence - and in many cases this is based on sometimes random preferences derived from hobbyists - many of whom are indeed old white guys. I digress:

I collect mostly postwar vintage, simply because while I could choose to pour significantly more financial resources into things like prewar or modern speculation - at some point I stop because I can't get past what I perceive as ridiculous prices to pay for single pieces of cardboard, when in my heart of hearts I realize that anything "old" related to baseball instantly seems cool to me and makes me feel like a kid again. But even with postwar, the general theme of the OP's post rings true. If you followed only whose cards were hot, you would miss out most of the time on players like Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Steve Carlton, and a host of others. To me this is where it seems my grass roots collecting background was in many cases more helpful back in the day (late 80's, early 90's) - I didn't know much of the organized "hobby" and it's existence outside of each month's Beckett arriving at my door. So I based my preferences for what I wanted to collect in vintage cards (again, mostly 50's and 60's - prewar cards weren't unheard of when I was a kid, but they were more expensive than drugs...) on what I read of baseball history. An example that I think ties in well here - and nothing today against this player - but when I was like 11 or 12, I would have put Duke Snider at the top of the list in terms of famous '50's players. I had his book, met him and got his autograph at a card show. In my mind he was every bit Mantle's equal. Popular sentiment today would say otherwise, of course, and that is very much borne out in the price of The Duke's cards. But that's what you miss if you go only on what is only popular in the hobby vs. what you might have read about history.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

If you followed only whose cards were hot, you would miss out most of the time on players like Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Steve Carlton, and a host of others.

Willie McCovey.

Guy was the most feared hitter of the '60s, in a league that had Aaron and Mays. Spent his best years protecting Mays in the Giants' lineup and was pitched around like crazy, yet still managed to hit over 500 HRs. Despite missing an average of a few dozen games per season, too.

And other than his rookie, his cards cost pocket change

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Willie McCovey.

Guy was the most feared hitter of the '60s, in a league that had Aaron and Mays. Spent his best years protecting Mays in the Giants' lineup and was pitched around like crazy, yet still managed to hit over 500 HRs. Despite missing an average of a few dozen games per season, too.

And other than his rookie, his cards cost pocket change

Agreed. SF fans respected Mays, but worshipped McCovey. Yastrzemski is another - besides his RC, his other cards even in super nice shape aren't expensive at all. First AL player with over 3,000 hits and 400 home runs - triple crown winner? Seems silly.

Bob Gibson is another at least in comparison to Koufax and Ryan and Seaver. His RC is pricey, everything else not so much. Dude was a certified badass and first ballot HOF'er. Makes no sense to me.

[BabyRuth]

oldeboo was looking for a Ty Cobb card for this thread. My doctor told me to get more fiber in my diet so I've been enjoying this Cobb salad.

[ValKehl]

When I read the OP's title for this thread, I thought he was referring to collectors of this set of cards:

[skelly423]

This is a great thread. I think I wear the label of narrow minded collector. For me it’s a question of budget. I am fortunate enough to have some decent disposable income, but my budget isn’t unlimited. For example I love the t206 set but have no hope of ever owning it in its entirety. So how do I decide who to buy? With respect to their collectors, I will pass on the Shag Shaughnessy’s and Ambrose Puttman’s and get the names that I learned as a kid, Cobb, Young, Johnson. It’s not a case that I don’t appreciate the “lesser” players, I simply can’t afford them all.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The hobby is in many ways different than the sport(s) from which it's subjects are drawn, and as was insinuated earlier - the history of the hobby and especially the mainstream, self-aware hobby (IMHO, after about 1980) of course exerts its own influence - and in many cases this is based on sometimes random preferences derived from hobbyists - many of whom are indeed old white guys. I digress:

I collect mostly postwar vintage, simply because while I could choose to pour significantly more financial resources into things like prewar or modern speculation - at some point I stop because I can't get past what I perceive as ridiculous prices to pay for single pieces of cardboard, when in my heart of hearts I realize that anything "old" related to baseball instantly seems cool to me and makes me feel like a kid again. But even with postwar, the general theme of the OP's post rings true. If you followed only whose cards were hot, you would miss out most of the time on players like Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Steve Carlton, and a host of others. To me this is where it seems my grass roots collecting background was in many cases more helpful back in the day (late 80's, early 90's) - I didn't know much of the organized "hobby" and it's existence outside of each month's Beckett arriving at my door. So I based my preferences for what I wanted to collect in vintage cards (again, mostly 50's and 60's - prewar cards weren't unheard of when I was a kid, but they were more expensive than drugs...) on what I read of baseball history. An example that I think ties in well here - and nothing today against this player - but when I was like 11 or 12, I would have put Duke Snider at the top of the list in terms of famous '50's players. I had his book, met him and got his autograph at a card show. In my mind he was every bit Mantle's equal. Popular sentiment today would say otherwise, of course, and that is very much borne out in the price of The Duke's cards. But that's what you miss if you go only on what is only popular in the hobby vs. what you might have read about history.

Like John, I am a postwar collector. I am absolutely eaten up with the 1950s, particularly the first half or so of the decade, and more particularly still with Bowman. I am a set builder at heart. I have a few graded cards, but I much prefer low to mid grade cards in a binder. Another part of my collecting life is reading. Again 1950s baseball, particularly all things New York, is my focus. My reading drives my collecting, and when I am putting together sets I am pumped when I can add cards of players like Ralph Branca, Bobby Thomson, Carl Furillo, Billy Cox, Sal Maglie, etc. These are the larger than life characters who live on in the books that I read from what must have been such an awesome time to be alive and see baseball at places like the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. Sure, I also enjoy collecting cards of Mantle, Mays, Jackie, etc., but that whole era has a flavor that would be missed (IMO) if I only collected those stars.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Not everyone shares the changing of the canon as something positive, Allan Bloom, in his highly influential The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students (1987) argues that moral degradation results from ignorance of the great classics that shaped Western culture. His book was widely cited by some intellectuals for its argument that the classics contained universal truths and timeless values which were being ignored by cultural relativists.

Additionally, defenders maintain that those who undermine the canon do so out of primarily political interests, and that such criticisms are misguided and/or disingenuous. As John Searle, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, has written:

"There is a certain irony in this [i.e., politicized objections to the canon] in that earlier student generations, my own for example, found the critical tradition that runs from Socrates through the Federalist Papers, through the writings of Mill and Marx, down to the twentieth century, to be liberating from the stuffy conventions of traditional American politics and pieties. Precisely by inculcating a critical attitude, the "canon" served to demythologize the conventional pieties of the American bourgeoisie and provided the student with a perspective from which to critically analyze American culture and institutions. Ironically, the same tradition is now regarded as oppressive. The texts once served an unmasking function; now we are told that it is the texts which must be unmasked." (this was taken from online)

Wonderful response! I in no way disrespect the canon of classics. I have grown more in awe of Shakespeare the longer I am out of college, as well as for the Elizabethan artists. I have read and enjoy some of the classics - Allegory of the Cave by Plato stands out. More modern poets like Longfellow and Robert Frost. I appreciate what they have added, and I respect them for it.

But I also find real value in the new canon of politicized opinions (the world of post modern thought). The women added to the canon - such as Virginia Woolf, and the post colonial authors - like Chinua Achebe, they have all added such thoughtful and thought provoking work that they should arguably have a place at the table. At my liberal arts college....College of Idaho....the canon was moved to a class called Literary Theory I and II.

It makes me think of one of my poetry instructors at college who said - "If you can tell me the rules of poetry and exercise them, then I will let you break the rules. But if you don't know the rules, then you need to practice them and learn them until you understand them." I think the same is true when arguing the canon. If you understand the value of these works, and you can see why they were highly respected, then you have a right to question the individuals choosing who is and isn't in (editors of Norton Anthology, in particular) and ask why other artists (based on gender and ethnicity) are not included.

When I teach Shakespeare to my high school students, I talk to them about what makes Shakespeare so timeless. And I highlight that he knew the rules of poetry so well, that when he broke the rules of the sonnet, he was doing it on purpose and he knew what his purpose was.

Turning this back to collecting baseball - I am particularly fond of some of the SABR and mathematicians who are trying to influence hall of fame voting by showing that player XYZ who is not in the hall of fame is just as good as player ABC, who is in the hall of fame and revered. Today, mlb.com ran an article title "Best players on every team not in the HOF." One of the players they highlighted was Lou Whitaker, and they highlighted his statistics as very similar to Rogers Hornsby and Joe Morgan. So, why isn't Lou Whitaker in the Hall of Fame?

[Eric72]

Some "obscure" players have reached legendary status on this board.

Paging Mr. Large-Ass Herzog

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by todeen

Turning this back to collecting baseball - I am particularly fond of some of the SABR and mathematicians who are trying to influence hall of fame voting by showing that player XYZ who is not in the hall of fame is just as good as player ABC, who is in the hall of fame and revered. Today, mlb.com ran an article title "Best players on every team not in the HOF." One of the players they highlighted was Lou Whitaker, and they highlighted his statistics as very similar to Rogers Hornsby and Joe Morgan. So, why isn't Lou Whitaker in the Hall of Fame?

Do I like MLB.com? Yes
Do I like and should Whitaker be in the Hall? Yes, but he's lower tier based on watching him his whole career...that, along with his stats.
In any universe is Whitaker equal or near equal to Hornsby or Morgan? No frickin' way. LOL

[Rich Klein]

As a person who is more of a dealer than a collector I get what the OP is saying.

To me, when I saw that, my instinct was I can't tell you how many times over the years I saw newer people immediately gravitate towards the BEST names instead of working on building a collection. Our generation of collectors/dealers did collecting, I personally think it's possible the next generation will mainly focus on names/grades/cards which can be treated like assets and be traded on that level.

Will there be room for the average collector/dealer? Absolutely but it will be a minority of what you see not the majority. I was chatting with one of the dealers from whom I buy a lot of nickel/dime/quarter cards and mentioned how I used to be able to afford the occasional box from him. Now he was doing deals for boxes in the thousands of dollars and said something to the effect of: I preferred those days to what is going on now. Why? He does not know how long he can stay in that game.

It is what it is and we'll survive and there will always be us dinosaurs as collectors and dealers to get through this as well.

[Mark]

What you say makes sense. Things have changed over the years.

But even way back when, there were some people who were drawn to the Big Names. I remember going into a card store 20+ years ago, in Monroeville Pa., and asking to see the stack of Goudey's that were under the glass. The owner said, "which kind of collector are you?" He explained that there were 2 kinds: the first buy only the Ruths and Gehrigs, and other ones want the other cards.

[Throttlesteer]

None of us were alive to see most pre-war players play. Of course we're going to be interested in the best of the best. Yes, there are some niche collectors who like unique stories or have a connection to a player thats a bit more abstract.

Let's face it. Most people would prefer Ruth or Cobb over Admiral Schlei.

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Some "obscure" players have reached legendary status on this board.

Paging Mr. Large-Ass Herzog

What's paging?

[CJinPA]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I just came up with this phrase right now - sounds a bit funny, doesn't it? However, it's probably true!

Alright, let's say I didn't know a damn thing about baseball. And I had $200,000 USD saved up and that I wanted to buy some sports cards. Now I start hanging out on this forum in order to learn about the best players/best cards, and after a few weeks, or a few months, what would I buy?

Prewar: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner.

Post-war: Mickey Mantle, Roberto Clemente, Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron.

And that's it! Pretty tiny list, isn't it? But that's all you folks ever talk about! I wouldn't know a damn thing about Joe DiMaggio or Satch Paige or Pete Rose or Walter Johnson or Jimmie Foxx. Heck, I would probably even pass on Lou Gehrig and Willie Mays! I'd tell myself "hmmm, I think I read a thread or two about them, but I can't quite remember what they were about! I think I will just buy another Cobb!"

Take a look at this list below:

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/leg.../lisn100.shtml

Look at all those awesome players that never get mentioned here - pretty crazy, isn't it?

And that's my rant for the day.

~The End~

I'm amazed that this thread has gone on so long without the mention of Ted Williams yet? The Splendid Splinter, Teddy Ballgame - for real!

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

What's paging?

Its an ancient and archaic communication system devised by long deceased individuals who, without the availability of the modern technology that has now cured the world's ills, implemented a primitive electronic devise - known contemporaneously as an "intercom" - to amplify and broadcast sound. While remnants of the long-forgotten communication system can still be found in situ within prehistoric dwellings, countless daft millennials and those without a cognizant grasp of anything before 2007 remain shocked and baffled by it's existence and former use.

[Bridwell]

Getting back to the original post, I'd rather buy a card of every one of these top 100 players instead of just 3 or 4 high-dollar cards. You can do that for $200,000. I agree that a lot of great players can be found for very low prices. To me, that seems a better investment than risking it all on 3 or 4 cards. And it's more fun, remembering all these amazing stars!

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Bridwell

Getting back to the original post, I'd rather buy a card of every one of these top 100 players instead of just 3 or 4 high-dollar cards. You can do that for $200,000. I agree that a lot of great players can be found for very low prices. To me, that seems a better investment than risking it all on 3 or 4 cards. And it's more fun, remembering all these amazing stars!

Interesting comment, which may help explain why some people concentrate on a select few, and some branch out. My personal investment preference is to focus on high achievers. Others see safety in diversification. I think there's a pretty direct parallel with collecting habits.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

None of us were alive to see most pre-war players play. Of course we're going to be interested in the best of the best. Yes, there are some niche collectors who like unique stories or have a connection to a player thats a bit more abstract.

Let's face it. Most people would prefer Ruth or Cobb over Admiral Schlei.

Hey, I just bought an Admiral Schlei lol!

[Bridwell]

My collection spans all eras of baseball, and includes at least one card of each of those 100 best players. Here's one of my PSA Registry sets that I'm working on. It's been a really fun project: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregist...gallery/367589

[Vegas Cards]

Based a recent posting to b/s/t listing a decent Mantle here is like throwing red meat to the wolves. I'm sure that's true for any of the big names - there are more buyers than sellers right now for certain players.

I don't look at my collection just as an investment, but like a lot of us who collected new cards during the 1980s and 90s, it's incredibly frustrating to find that most of what you had bought over 10-20 years is basically worthless now.

Learning from that experience is what lead me to refocus on the vintage part of my collection. I may be narrow minded, but I won't touch any of the cards being put out now.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Cards

Based a recent posting to b/s/t listing a decent Mantle here is like throwing red meat to the wolves.

Next time drop a few clues before feeding time, that Mantle was gorgeous

[rats60]

If you are a baseball fan, you know who to collect. I collect Pirates so that means Clemente and Wagner, but I did basic sets of other Pirates HOFers.

When I started collecting, it was all about complete sets. Now it is about star players. I sold off most of my sets to do player runs. I did Cobb and Koufax. I am working on Ruth and Stan Musial. When I am done with Musial, I will move on to either Ted Williams or Jackie Robinson and finally Willie Mays last because there are so many cards. Collect the players that you like. As someone said above, cards have gotten so expensive you have to be picky about what you collect. This has caused a move away from commons and minor stars to superstar players.

[Vegas Cards]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

Next time drop a few clues before feeding time, that Mantle was gorgeous

Based on feedback I underpriced it. Casey2296 was more than gracious and let me off the hook with a bit of a bump.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Vegas Cards

I may be narrow minded, but I won't touch any of the cards being put out now.

I focus on vintage now, for myself. But I'm trying to get my son involved, and so I've begun to go modern again. I want him to purchase cards of players he is seeing every day on TV. I bought a Mike Trout RC, and in a few years I'll probably give it to him. He is interested in the Astros, and he likes my memorabilia I have in my case, so I bought him some Funko Pop Astros. Picked up a couple Astros RC from my LCS. And then I splurged on two Kyle Lewis RC, which I'll probably give to him in a couple years as well. I decided to buy him Topps complete sets rather than introduce him to packs because I can't afford packs now - like another contributor pointed out. I wanted to get him a couple jumbo packs of Topps for his Christmas Stocking and the hobby packs were $30! I couldn't believe it. I could buy a complete set for the same amount as two jumbo packs which would probably yield an auto or relic card of a minor star.

It was fun to watch him go through the first Topps complete set. He organized them by team and was learning team names. He is into building reptile habitats in his room from stuffed animals, and when he came across the Arizona Diamonbacks, they instantly became one of his top favorite teams. I wish I could find every game from the 2001 WS, so he could see one of the best WS of my lifetime.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Its an ancient and archaic communication system devised by long deceased individuals who, without the availability of the modern technology that has now cured the world's ills, implemented a primitive electronic devise - known contemporaneously as an "intercom" - to amplify and broadcast sound. While remnants of the long-forgotten communication system can still be found in situ within prehistoric dwellings, countless daft millennials and those without a cognizant grasp of anything before 2007 remain shocked and baffled by it's existence and former use.

The eloquent manner in which you stated that was a display of sheer perfection.

[mrmopar]

I figure if I had $200K and was clueless about the venture i was about to jump into with both feet, I'd do a bit more research than 1 baseball card themed forum. However, if you read multiple forums, you see that each has it's own little specialty segment of the market.

It would be nice of the conversation was more varied, but it seems in general if you don't want to talk about Mantle, Trout, Graded or unopened product, you are doomed to be bored.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by todeen

He is interested in the Astros.

Hopefully he grows out of this phase

[Tasupi]

If you want to PM me an address I have some Astros cards I can send that I just don’t like looking at anymore being a Mariners fan

Also, the 2001 WS games are on YouTube in full under the MLB Vault user.

Originally Posted by todeen

I focus on vintage now, for myself. But I'm trying to get my son involved, and so I've begun to go modern again. I want him to purchase cards of players he is seeing every day on TV. I bought a Mike Trout RC, and in a few years I'll probably give it to him. He is interested in the Astros, and he likes my memorabilia I have in my case, so I bought him some Funko Pop Astros. Picked up a couple Astros RC from my LCS. And then I splurged on two Kyle Lewis RC, which I'll probably give to him in a couple years as well. I decided to buy him Topps complete sets rather than introduce him to packs because I can't afford packs now - like another contributor pointed out. I wanted to get him a couple jumbo packs of Topps for his Christmas Stocking and the hobby packs were $30! I couldn't believe it. I could buy a complete set for the same amount as two jumbo packs which would probably yield an auto or relic card of a minor star.

It was fun to watch him go through the first Topps complete set. He organized them by team and was learning team names. He is into building reptile habitats in his room from stuffed animals, and when he came across the Arizona Diamonbacks, they instantly became one of his top favorite teams. I wish I could find every game from the 2001 WS, so he could see one of the best WS of my lifetime.