Are we actually Art Collectors?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Hello to all,
This is kind along the lines of Seth's thread of why do we collect, but not quite, so I didn't want to hijack it with this question.

After taking a few minutes to marvel at Craig D's new T3 website (hi Craig), it struck me that much of what we all admire about these cards that we collect is the image and, more specifically, when dealing with vintage cardboard, ARTWORK!

The T3, the lithography, etc...heck, even the 1955 DoubleHeaders that we're discussing over on the Post-War board!

Do you realize that we are Art collectors?! With an interest in baseball?

Do you agree?
Thoughts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

How many of the same front images do we have, but the backs are different? Classic example being the t206's. So it's clear that it's not just the baseball related aspect that impels us to buy, but the "art"of the backs is also a factor.

[Archive]

Posted By: ItsOnlyGil

If we were primarilly interested in asthetics and diversity; we would be collecting the shiney stuff.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Assuming that one finds the shiny stuff aesthetically pleasing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Kaufman

I have always considered each card a work of art, even though done by commercial artists of the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Seth B.

Hey Jason, here's my answer: I consider myself a bit of an art collector in my card collecting. I don't really pay attention to the players. I love baseball history (I'm a card carrying SABR member), but I don't really collect cards of Cobb or Wagner or Ruth. Maybe it's because I can't afford them, but I like to think it's because I'm attracted to the cards aesthetically, even if they're depicting nobodies. So my interest in minor league cards means that I have a lot of no-name players (mostly no-name players, actually), but I consider them aesthetically appealing cards, or, if you will, turn-of-the-century prints with baseball material distributed with cigarrettes.

So, yes, I have a miniature art collection of sorts,

-Seth

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

I know virtually nothing about art so that's only a small reason why I collect. But I do enjoy photography and I like the way the studio cabinets were photographed and my favorite black and white set is the '53 black and white Bowmans.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Dale

As one who has collected some nice art and some nice cards I'd say no we are not art collectors unless you do both. As one who has done both I think they are wildly different. Today's modern art industry and its massive print (runs) does mirror the card industry in many ways but I still consider them wildly different. If you want to play on the similarities:

Print runs
Variations (parallels)
Encasement\slabbing vs framing

But unless you collect someone that is into sports figures like Neiman has done I just don't see much else in connection with the art world.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Memorabilia collectors are much more closely related to art collectors in my opinion. I do count myself a memorabilia collector more than a card collector and my house definitely shows my appreciation for baseball. You can be a card collector without displays, but you can not be a serious collector of memorabilia without displaying it...same with art.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

but many cards are great artworks.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As an art historian who studied at an art museum, I don't have a problem with considering some baseball cards to be work of art. This does not mean I would consider all baseball cards works of art. That something was distributed with bubblegum is neither here nor there. Even Rembrandt sold his etchings and engravings commercially.

I believe there are criterion for determining what is art (the criterion do not include whether or not something is framed), but the perception of a painting or sculpture or baseball card is subjective (personal). Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin were contemporary painters, but that does not mean they liked the same paintings nor that they should have like the same paintings.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

In my opinion, if we were art collectors we would collect REPRINTS instead of authentic baseball cards. The REPRINTS look exactly the same, are easier to find and cost MUCH less. If we had a room full of REPRINTS, we wouldn't mind showing off our collection. We wouldn't worry about their grade or if they even could be graded. We wouldn't worry if they were damaged or how we handled or stored them and we wouldn't worry if they were stolen or lost in the mail. However, we DO care about those things and we DON'T collect REPRINTS. So, there has to be something MORE than just the art factor going on.

We would also have bid on the FAKE T206 Honus Wagner a guy listed on eBay THREE times a couple of months ago. It was a blatant fake and had the back ripped off so only rough cardboard was showing. He used the words "art work" in the title and kept refering to it as "a piece of art". However, he had it listed under vintage cards (instead of art) and posted two articles on what the Gretzky Wagner had sold for.

I E-mailed him to tell him it was a blatant fake and that if it were "ART" then it should be listed in the proper category and that the two articles should have not been included since he was comparing an obvious fake to an original. His response to me was to mind my own business since I had no clue as to what I was talking about, this after I had also told him that I had held a REAL T206 Wagner in my hand and KNEW what one was supposed to look like.

I complained to eBay and they removed the auction twice but ONLY because the guy had included the copyrighted articles. The third time the guy listed the "art work", eBay let the auction go because the articles were not included and the "piece of art" sold for $1,050 dollars. I E-mailed the buyer and told him the card was fake. he E-mailed back and said he thought it was but took a chance just in case and he was going to send it off to PSA to get their opinion. He said he would E-mail me back with the results. I am still waiting to hear from him.

Just my thoughts,

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

I think its a combination of art, history and the love of the national pasttime (sorry NFL fans). As a history major in college the era of 1900-1920 is my favorite time period in American history so it was a no-brainer that that was where my collecting interests would lie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom D

I saw a quote at the Met that stays with me. "Art is defined not by its origins but by its destiny." So if T3s were made to sell tobacco but now are fashioned into displays and admired and hung on the walls in people's homes and revered, then it is art. If 1993 Upper Deck baseball cards are used to line bird cages, they are not art.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As a destitute artist, Amadeo Modigliani paid his landlord in paintings. The landlord literally lined his bird cages with the paintings. While Modigliani died unknown in his 30s, the landlord lived to see Modigliani paintings sell for fortunes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Seth Nagdeman

I think we are art collectors. Original baseball cards are small versions of artwork. We protect them in graded holders like a frame. The difference between an original and a copy is the same with artwork. The original holds more value. Art is what appeals to the owner. We enjoy vintage baseball and the subjects that we collect follow our interest.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have always thought of our cards as little works of art. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob B.

I'd have to answer yes, at least for myself. I've had a few T206's enlarged into quality prints (approx. 18" x 34") with some very nice framing done and no question, it's art. (Relatively speaking of course. What art is could turn into a thread that would make some of the Net54 rants look like glad handing by comparison). Also had a 1912 National League schedule with 4 nice Wagner images enlarged to 24"x 28". It's Beautiful! Does that make it art? At a minimum it's a very tasteful decoration. I've had some T206's reprinted on the backs of my Business cards as well, with very positive responses even from non-Baseball fans. Even a few customers have them hanging on the wall in their offices. Reminds me of the tackholes in W600's and T3's.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I would agree with Adam's opinion that baseball card collectors aren't art collectors, but some of the cards they collect can be considered art.

I also agree with Bob that aesthetic appeal is a common, though rarely sole, criterion buying a card. Of course there are many instances were aesthetics is not a consideration when purchasing a card. For example, many popular rookie cards are ugly, and even the purchasers will agree.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

and then there is art that are baseball cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith Lentz

That, and more!

Remember your first day of buying a Topps 1952, with bubble gum, for a penny? You chewed the gum, threw away the wrapper, and traded cards with your schoolmates!

Then, admiring the beautiful cards, you branched out into trying to collect the whole set. Then, you decided to collect Topps Wings, Scoop, etc.

You got pennies from your dad to buy more. You got a paper route and made $2 a week! Then, you were truley addicted! As all the money went into buying cards!

So, for me, it was the beauty of the cards, and my primordial instinct to collect as much as possible!

I wish I could have been born old, and aged back to my youth.