a little more focus

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Hey Folks,
It looks like we are getting some new people coming onto the board that don't realize what this board is about. I let one autograph thread go and all of the sudden it's like rabbits around here. I strongly suggest that before anyone posts anything on this board they read the FAQ's (frequently asked questions) at the top of the front page. This will avoid disappointment after your well thought out post disappears for no reason....well, the reason is that you are not an everyday participant and you posted stuff that is not pre-wwII baseball card related....Let's be a little careful of how many scam threads we post too. Like I always say most stuff in moderation, as long as it is card related, is ok.......best regards ..moderator dude....

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

Hi Leon--
As someone who has been doing this for such a long, long time, I have come across one question that seems to be almost without answer. What is "vintage"? The definition on this board seems to be "pre World War II" and I wonder why this is. Does this mean "before the United States entered the war"? If so then Play Balls qualify. Does it mean "before the War in Europe"? Oops, then Play Balls are no longer vintage just as some Goudeys are not. Does it mean "before the boomers arrived"? Well then, Topps and Bowman are out, but all Goudeys and Play Balls are in. As I look at eBay and the chat that goes on about baseball cards, it seems to me that vintage means old. And what is "old"? I still feel very young but, I'm sure to many, I am old.
And, over the course of my life, many things that seemed pretty new when I was a boy have become very old as seven decades have passed. When I was writing about baseball cards so many years ago, I identified collecting interest by particular sets of cards. I considered these to be ground-breaking issues although I'm sure the issuers didn't consider them as such. Old Judge, T206, 1933 Goudey, 1949 Bowman, 1952 Topps and 1958 Topps. These, it always seemed to me, were ground-breaking issues. Why, well they seemed to advance collecting to some new level. Old Judge--the first(maybe only) attempt to cover all of baseball through cards. T206--the next attempt at a comprehensive look at all of baseball in probably the first of baseball's golden ages. 1933 Goudey--the next attempt at a comprehensive look at major league baseball and a derpresion-era diversion for the young. 1949 Bowman--the first boomer big set. 1952 Topps--Topps first foray into a comprehensive set. 1958 Topps--the major leagues move west and card distribution becomes truly nationwide(and with such an ugly set!!) Some might add 1981 to that list as it was the year Topps lost its lock on the major leagues.
It seems to me that when you call vintage pre World War II, you are really just saying before Topps and Bowman came along. Vintage, to me, simply means the thing really came out when it purported to come out. So, vintage really just means real. While this forum is supposed to be about "old" cards, it has moved into knocking ebay sellers, exploring grading idiosyncracies and, many times, flexing egos, and much more.
But the discussion about "old" cards is really great.
Being the moderator of this diverse discussion must be fun, but it must also be very difficult. So, Leon, I applaud you, and I'd like to ask "Is an original 1949 Bowman a vintage card?"

[Archive]

Posted By: leonl

Since I am not sure you were here when I took over this was my first day on the job, so to speak. I cut and pasted a post that day, from this forum's founder, Ellliot- with his permission. I think pre-WWII means pre-'45, btw......so bring on the Playball and Goudey questions....but you are correct, not Topps and no Bowman....though they are "off topic" they can be talked about ocassionally by regular board participants (such as yourself)per the board FAQ's. But this might be good for new folks to see....the BST threads were still being re-formed....so here is the excerpt...............................





March 20 2005 at 12:38 PM leon (Premier Login leonl)
Forum Owner


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Folks,
I am rewriting this to try to get the columning correct. I don't usually do this but I am going to cut and paste our founders response (Elliot) from the Board Direction thread. From Elliot:
************************************************** *************************
My 2 cents March 17 2005, 11:46 PM

I can see the pros and cons of going with a compartmentalized forum vs. a one board suits all forum. I think either one is workable, and in any event is not irreversible.

However, I do feel strongly that the topic area should be restricted to pre WWII (with the odd off topic conversation, of course). There are plenty of other forums that deal with the newer cards, and this forum was set up so us vintage collectors would have a discussion place. For as many of us that collect newer cards there as just as many (if not more) that collect hockey cards (for example). If we are going to have a sub-forum for newer cards, could we also have a sub-forum for discussing pre-Shakespearean English (the original forum members will know what this refers to) so I don't have to run around to a lot of different forums and I can find all my interests in one place. Also, could we add a stock market ticker, so when I'm on the board, i can check to see what's happening. Obviously, I know these are silly requests, but my point is where do we draw the line. My opinion is we stay with the original focus of the board, which is what drew us all to become regulars here....that is "pre WWII cards, primarily".
************************************************** *************************

from me.....(leon)

With that being said I would like to tell a very brief account of the history of the board and how it started. About 5-6 years ago (and please don't hold my feet to the fire on time lines as I am getting old) I participated on a Pre-WWII Baseball card chatboard called "Fullcount Baseball". It was run by two current board members John Spencer and Mike Williams. It was a great place to talk about our Pre-WWII baseball cards but was somewhat rudimentary in it's functionality compared to the sites today and the current one we use. There was no required log in and it was a free for all. About 90% of the time it was all good but the other 10% was plagued with childish 4 letter words and poor content. Eventually John Spencer said he didn't want to do it anymore so about 3-4 years ago there were 2 boards formed. They were formed immediately after the demise of the Fullcount Board so there could still be a place to talk about Pre-WWII baseball cards. One was this one and one was formed by Mike Williams on Yahoo. I was a fairly major contributor to the Fullcount Board and looked at both of the brand new boards and decided this one was best because of functionality and "look". Even at that time I believed one board was better than two, as I do today. Both Mike and Elliot were, and are still, good hobby friends. My decision was based purely on functionality. I spoke with Mike and he agreed one board was better and abandoned the Yahoo board for this one. If I am not mistaking I was the first poster on this board, whether that thread is still there or not is irrelevant but I am just showing that I have been a long time contributor. I remember Tbob trying to get me to go to the Yahoo board but I felt this forum was better, operationally. I also realized that I was a total of 1 vote and the folks in our space are, for the most part, very intelligent, and can make their own minds up. I still tried to sway folks to this board though. I have gone back about 5 times and re-read the recent Direction thread about what everyone wants. It is obvious I am not going to make everyone happy and that's ok at this point.

About a month ago the Board had a name change to what it is today, Vintage Baseball Collecting, to more accurately reflect what it has become. Bill has made many positive changes to the board and has carried the torch well. It's appreciated by almost everyone, including me. It's time for change though. We are going back to why the board was originally formed, and what I think about 97% of us want, a place to talk about Pre-WWII Baseball cards, primarily. Bill was being his normal nice self and trying to make everyone happy. He did pretty good at it too. I, on the other hand, have been a little more outspoken about having the board be a little more focused. With that being said we are going to go back to one board only. The new board, that I and Brian McQueen created, will be done away with today. The name of this board is going to go back to "Pre-WWII Vintage Baseball Cards" or something very close to that. It will have "cards" in it though. It will be moderated as such too. I feel that ONE board and ONE forum is best for the future health of the site. It was founded on that premise and it's going back to that premise. If you don't like that well..."sorry" about it. In speaking with Elliot, yesterday on the phone, he told me he left the address/url as a number because, quite honestly, he didn't want everyone in the world finding it. This is a "not for profit" site (except my 6 figure moderator salary) so who cares if it grows as long as we keep the core Pre-WWII CARD addicts.

I know I come here to talk about cards and lately there have been a lot of other topics too. What I am going to implement is a "getting back to the basics" strategy and also allow occasional off topic posts. What is "occasional"? Well, it's sort of relative. If you are a lurker and have a question about a glove and post about it...then that's almost too much. You need to be contributing to the boards focus to get leniency on the off topic posts. If regular contributors (Jay, Julie, Adam etc...) post an off topic every few days or so then that will be permitted. The leniency will be in proportion to how much you contribute or join in discussions. I believe I was given the reins of this forum as I am known as being a somewhat fair (debatable) person and for my love of the hobby (cards). I will use my judgement on what and who to allow to post off topic stuff. Again, if you a frequent contributor you get more leniency than a lurker. For instance I WOULD have let the Bushing/Dimaggio bat thread continue as it was major hobby news and it brought to light very good info. As for someone posting a boxing card, a bat, or a glove, those posts will be moderated a bit more heavily and will only be permitted by regular contributors and occasionally. There are other forums for that stuff.

So to summarize we are going back to one board (this one) that will focus on Pre-WWII baseball cards. It is not personal that I am not starting all kinds of other links, forums, and threads to talk about other stuff, it's mainly because our roots are known, I prefer to manage only one site, and I don't give a rat's ass about a lot of the other junk that gets posted on the board. There will continue to be a "links" section where memorabelia and other stuff can be talked about in full. Brian McQueen, (my right hand person and moderator), nor myself, will be moderating those other sites. I hope everyone here will continue posting in an orderly manner and remember....if you LOVE PRE-WWII VINTAGE BASEBALL CARDS then this is THE place to be. If you don't then I would strongly recommend going somewhere else because you won't be happy here. regards....your collecting buddy....ps.....still not sure about the B/S/T thread....there will be one just no final decision yet...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

We've had some very good post-1945 discussions too, among them the 1947 Bond Bread issue and the 1949 Leaf Jackie Robinson card. They were good threads because they elicited thoughtful discussion. I think those are the times that the rules can be bent a little.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

What about the 1943 MP and company cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Some things are clear, and others less so. For example: "I think pre-WWII means pre-'45" seems clear to me. And since the viewpoint is expressed by our owner, who tolerates a lot of shennagins, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that discussion of MP&Co. cards are on topic. While Bowman and Topps as well as the never mentioned shiney (Donruss, UD, Score, Pinnacle, etc.) are not on topic. However, it seems like Leaf, blue tint and other pre-'50 cards are tolerated.

But none of this refutes Bill's observation of the vagueness of the term "vintage". This observation is certainly true, since everything which exists has a vintage. Of course a name change would clear up this vagueness.

But then the real ugliness of our board would be apparent. The facts are that the term "card" in "VBC" forum is ill defined; and the collective term "baseball card" even more so.

Now a standard could be established relating to the rigidity of an item to be considered a "card". But such a standard could impact items called Recissus or Mello-Mint Wagners, as well as other "cards".

And once a rigidity standard was established, I have serious doubts whether a consensus could be reached regarding the definition of a baseball card.

So, I propose that we leave bad enuff alone. Abandon effort to clear anything up, employ CWYWC philosophy, and string up anyone who seriously proposes any clarification. We know it when we see it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Is it possible to create an Off Topic discussion link next to the B/S/T link? Not sure if this would solve the problem of too much off topic stuff in the main thread but people here have more interest than just cards, such as autographs or photos of vintage players. There really isn't anywhere to discuss them. This may be far fetched and it does seem rather rediculous to go to a vintage baseball card board to intentionally discuss issues other than vintage cards but it is an idea.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

And when all else fails, I'll attack :-p

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Bryan: there is an off topic discussion link right next to the B/S/T link. Look. It is called "Vintage Links", and includes such topics as game used equipment and other O/T stuff.

Edited for typos and to add:

There is also the chat room perhaps available for spontaneous O/T conversations.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Gil - Those forums are dead. I visit the game used forum on a daily basis and you are lucky to see a handful of posts a day. This forum seems to be the place where people visit. And as far as a chatroom, no thanks. Not interested.

I don't have a problem with the off topic conversations such as the Upper Deck thread. In fact I think it is a nice change of pace from scam warnings and such. However, I understand it is not the purpose of the board and would abide by such. If it was up to me I would say the board needs to change with the times and the members but it isn't so I won't. I will take what the people in charge give me and be happy with it.

It was just a suggestion. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

"the board needs to change with the times and the members"

Hey Bryan - I think that is precisely the reason that Leon reigned in the off-topic subjects. I dont recall if you participated at the time, but the off topic subjects (game used, autos, etc) got to be too numerous and it actually caused Leon to create an entirely new board and many contributors to this Board left. The two boards were then "reunited" when leon became the moderator and the focus of this board was reestablished. In short, I dont think more off topic postings is what the majority of members want.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

OK - I'm going to be a little careful here, since I've only recently found a voice and stopped lurking.

If there are boards for other topics that aren't active, then it suggests that there is not enough interest to sustain them. If the desire is to attach those topics to this board because this is where the people are, then it may dilute the value of this board by creating clutter/noise/extra navigating for what may be marginal topics. (Again, going with no knowledge, and strictly by the comment that the other boards aren't active, I'm inferring that maybe the topic is marginal.)

I often see - in life/work, etc - that once something starts working well, people want to hitchhike on it to accomplish other things. If a manufacturing order ticket is the only thing that is known to reliably make it's way into the hands of a production foreman, then people want to start adding all kinds of things onto the ticket - special instructions, inspections, notes about shipping, etc. So the things ends up being far less effective at what it started out to be because people used its reliability, its effectiveness, to try to do other things.

That analogy may be a little off, but if there is desire to include posts on other topics, none as universally desired as the core topic, and none quite able to sustain an independent forum, then to me it would cause the effectiveness of the whole thing to deteriorate.

I'm avoiding stating an outright opinion on more vs less topics, although I do have one. I'm only pointing out that if this board is used to help prop up less broadly popular topics, it may damage this board.

OK. Fire away.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

1st.....
Bill Heitman

The answer to your question.."Is an original 1949 Bowman a Vintage card ?"
depends on how old you are and if you consider card sets issued before the
Korean War...."PRE-WAR" vintage. Yes, I am being somewhat frivolous; but,
Bill makes some well-stated points.

Most in the hobby, who have known me for many years, regard me as an expert
(or a "guru") on the 1949 Bowman cards. Yet, far be it from me to initiate a
Thread on this Forum on the topic of the "1949 Bowmans".

2nd.....
Leon

However, I've posted Threads on some of my favorite "PRE-WAR" (that is WWI)
cards, such as N162 Goodwins, other 19th Century items, or T206 set Threads
and the response has been mediocre to non-interest. Yet, the banality of de-
bating whether a card is trimmed (although it has been graded) will generate
responses approaching the triple digit level !

But recently, I did post a Thread on the scarcity of the 1949 LEAF Paige
card and got a tremendous response (over 70 responses).

So. Leon I think you have to re-consider what is O/T and what topics are
acceptable. My guess is that there is a fine line to be drawn; however, in
any event you have the power to curtail them.
Finally, I might add that Barry Sloate's comments are also to the point.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

(see Leon beating head against wall, it hurts)

Ted- why did the '49 thread get so many responses? Because it was ok as per the board rules and it was let go. Why isn't there a thread allowed everyday about '49 sets? Because it's not permitted, as per the board rules. See above posts of mine for further clarification. There is nothing that has been posted in this thread that has changed my mind an iota about what this board is, was, or where it's headed....With that being said I will always entertain ideas and thoughts..but am very slow to fix something that isn't broken, imo....best regards ....moderator dude

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

T-Rex:

I do not think that the conclusions which you draw regarding the posts which you have recently offered, reflect interest in a specific card genre, as much as it indicates a difference in the subject of your posts. Specifically: your post on the 19th century album probably generated far less comments than it did interest. This may in part be attributable to the fact that not everyone wants to say Ooooh and Ahhhh with every explosion of the fireworks. Some just sit back and feel it. By comparison, the subject of rare cards on this board is one close to the hearts of many participants. I do not think that a high level of responsiveness to the subject of rarity necessarilly is an indicator of interest in the set in which the rare card belongs. Similarly, your offering of insight into alternate approaches to t206 collecting is of interest to me, in part, because I am not yet a collector of this set. Perhaps those who have already embarked on their collecting journey in this set are less receptive to alternate approaches.

Please forgive errors in the above presentation. I am too lazy to look up your recent posts. But these three come to mind.

Gil

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Gil

Fine, your comments tell me that you have a pretty accurate
recollection of the posts I was referring to. Well, I really did
not expect "Oohs & Ahhs" regarding some of my posts, just
some intelligent exchange between members on said topics.
Especially, when rare subjects on sets are posted.

I guess my problem is that I am strictly a set collector and
most of my viewpoint is in terms of the total set; whether it
is 19th Century, or early 20th Century.

And, according to Leon's recent poll "Set Collecting" is the
preferred choice of most members of the Forum. So, perhaps
I am not such a "dinosaur" as one might think.

Gil, I recall that you are Giants (NY) fan and I have an inter-
esting early '50s question for you....can I email you ?

[Archive]

Posted By: pete ullman

ted...i thoroughly enjoyed your's and other's discussions on t206 and other pre ww1 sets...and it's nice to have dinosaurs around sometimes...but...i've never been a set collector...i wish i chose that path when i began collecting 27 years ago. i was shocked to see the % of set collectors on this site. i wish i spent all of my bar mitzvah money on caramel cards and a t206 set! these days...it's not financially realistic for me to collect sets so I remain a type collector...first and foremost. therefore some discussions on set collecting doesn't interest me so much.

And while I find some of the "is it real"or "is it trimmed?" posts informative...they are quite excessive!

cordially,

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Certainly Ted. I always welcome e-mail from fellow Net54ers! Please send to identify7@aol.com

And Ted, I recall some discussion about those 19th century offerings particularly about pool vs. billiards.

Further, as far as sets go - I do not collect them. I thought long and hard about what cards to collect before I dove in, and for me, I was right. I collect record holders and players who contributed to the baseball highlights each year. This collection is a source of continued research and new discoveries.

For example: it has recently been determined that two additional players accomplished three hits in an inning. (Oh gosh Gil, don't tell me that you find this interesting! You really gotta get a life!)

Wait. On September 6, 1883 in a game against the Detroit Wolverines both Pfeffer and Williamson got three hits in the same inning - the seventh inning. The final score of the game was 26-6 Chicago. Id love to see a play by play of that inning. I don't even know how many runs were scored. A box score would be nice too. I just found out about this several days ago.

And yes, I do have getting a life on my schedule. But it is not moving up the list very fast.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff J

Guys, My bad. of the 3 posts I made, two were about W-517's and one was about autographed exhibits. Since what I have were from 39 and up, I thought it qualified. Also sis know that this is seen and used every day by the same group of guys. Also noticed that someone said there is no logical or designated area for autographed cards sooooo that's why I put it on the main area.

If there is another chat place on the net where quality autograph people exchange ideas, I will gladly go away.

Sorry for the bother,

Jeff J

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Jeff - I dont think anyone was singling you out for this.

Now to really get off topic - are you in NC?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Josh - That was before my time. Wish I would have know that had already happened. I wouldn't have bothered posting my suggestion.

Thanks for the info.

Bryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

No problem whatsoever.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff J

Josh, I am in PA but have weekly rental homes in Duck, NC.
E-mail me and I'll give you my website with video tours etc..
The Outer Banks (OBX) is a great family vacation spot with many activities.
Jeff J

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

i think that was a gratuitous plug.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Pete - dont blame Jeff for the plug - I asked if he was from NC specifically b/c of his user id which started with OBX which is short for the outer banks of NC - and they are a great place to vacation - I go there every summer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob S

Hi All,

Perhaps surpisingly, because of its focus, this thread, I believe, represents one of the finest I have read here at VBC in my roughly 5 months of membership.

Nearly all, if not all of the reponses were well thought out, on point, and extremely well expressed, bought within the grammar and syntax context.

This is high praise, indeed, for a board of "cardboard collectors" <wink>

I have rarely seen a more cogent presentation of ideas on my Philosophy board out of the UK.

As to the issue, I think it becomes a matter for Leon to determine if tradition, "purity of purpose", and practical implications for board management, after reflection, indicate to him that the original "bylaws should be retained or not.

I support any decision that is made.

Also, I want to apologize for the "autograh authentication" thread, which seems to have brought this to a head.

I innocently posted that thread, not thinking for a second, that it was in violation of board rules.

I know that I am going to read all the bylaws tonight,and I think that it would be a good idea if all members, especially we relatively new members, do the same.

Sincerely,

Bob S

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

I support Leon keeping the board focused and a bigger more noticable "rules and bylaws" link and bigger "new to the board" link to aquaint newbie to the board and it's focus. We seem to have to go thru this at least twice a year.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob S

But a critical thread like this would be "pinned" on other forums.

Sincerely,

Bob S

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Delete

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob S

Josh, If you were referring to my posts just before yours, I can tell you that I intended absolutely no sarcasm whatsoever.

I meant every word just as I wrote it, and if you reread it, you'll see that nowhere in my post did I make any inference that long term members not be a part of the decision making process.

I was simply deferring (and speaking only for myself) to whatever Leon decides to do, and encouraging the relatively new members to familiarize themselves with the board rules.

Frankly, your post completely puzzles me,

Sincerely,

Bob S

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Bob - if I misinterpreted your intent, I apologize. Reading the post in combination with the beginning of the first post you left made it come off as a bit sarcastic. My mistake.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob S

Thanks, Josh, i didn't want anyone to get the wrong impression. This is the finest forum to which I belong on the web, and at 60ish, with a wide variety of interests, I've accumulated quite a few forum memberships.

Bob

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

This is a rare moment, but I agree with my brother. The FAQ should be in the highlighted box with big letters instead of the poll. The poll is a neat feature, but the FAQ is far more important than the poll is.

jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

What about what has become the vintage fish chat in the "Stoopid is . . ." thread. Really on point. Come on guys, the last good fish issue was Allen $ Ginter back in the 1880's. So I guess it is on point. Well, of course. 1959 Fleer Ted Williams had some stuff about fish in it. Woops post 1945.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

straying OT once in awhile and having some fun isn't so bad. It gives all a chance to learn more about each other. If you want on the point discussion, try the SABR lists. I love SABR, but man, those lists get stuffy and boring at times because there is no straying.

We are a community of friends here, not dry and stuffy academians. In the normal course of a discussion, the topic will wonder a bit. I think Leon has a done great job so far of balancing the amount of OT posts. Not allowing anything OT would make for a pretty boring board.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.


Jay- I agree about a little O/T....makes it better and less stuffy (leon)

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

And this board can make things a lot of fun.