Do you pay extra for a card from a famous collector?

[blackandgold]

Just curious. I was looking at some cards today, and one was from the Buck Barker collection.

Thanks!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm no expert with the search tool, but if you can find them, there have been multiple threads on this topic with a lot of opinions. Personally, I would not.

[blackandgold]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm no expert with the search tool, but if you can find them, there have been multiple threads on this topic with a lot of opinions. Personally, I would not.

Thanks Peter. I’ll try searching for those threads.

[chalupacollects]

No, maybe a famous celeb depending but otherwise no…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brian1961]

Yes, most assuredly, IF I either personally knew the collector, or had enjoyed his hobby articles. --- Brian Powell

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by blackandgold

Just curious. I was looking at some cards today, and one was from the Buck Barker collection.

Thanks!

It would be cool to own something from a collection of that type, but it would still be mostly about the card for me.

Along the same lines, in my m114 collection I have a number of signed ones, but this weekend I was able to "upgrade" one of my Carl Hubbells to an unsigned one.

[Jobu]

I think it depends. Things purportedly owned by F Scott Fitzgerald bring a premium. Cards with Jefferson Burdick stamps also bring premiums, but he was arguably the most important collector and cards from his collection are difficult to find because he donated his collection to the Met so only stuff that he traded/sold (and stamped before the transaction) during his lifetime is out there. I think Charlie Sheen's cards might also bring a little bit of a premium. I don't know that I have seen cards from any other collector's collection go for anything more than they would as a regular old card.

[kcohen]

No, definitely not. Unless it comes from the Dan McKee collection.

[Rich Klein]

You will know this hobby is getting towards being a long-term hobby when provenance becomes an important part of your potential buying. In future generations, that will become even more important in my opinion.

Rich

[Casey2296]

All things being equal in card condition I would pay a small premium for provenance from old time collectors.

[kailes2872]

One of my biggest collecting regrets is not going harder for a complete '33 Delong Lionel Carter set in REA a few years ago (2016/2017?).

I can't remember what it sold for, but it was substantially cheaper than the Gehrig goes for now and the entire set was SGC. It would have been awesome to have that set with Lionel's name on all of the slabs. But, alas, I couldn't pull the trigger and will now probably never own the set, let alone that specific one.

[GasHouseGang]

Here is one of the threads that talked about this:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=336414

[mrreality68]

For me it would not be a famous collector but the card or item from a players personal collection

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

You will know this hobby is getting towards being a long-term hobby when provenance becomes an important part of your potential buying. In future generations, that will become even more important in my opinion.

Rich

+1

[calvindog]

I think one of the main reasons I’d be interested in a card owned by an old time hobby leader is the decreased likelihood of alteration.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

On the autograph side of things, I definitely always like to know a piece's chain of ownership. It's often much easier to tell if a vintage 3x5 was in the hands of a certain collector by their old notations, usually handwritten. Some knowledgeable collectors appreciate this type of info, and I always let them know the links in the chain of ownership upon request, provided I have such insight. I find that fascinating, and a nice bonus to collecting.

[steve B]

I would maybe pay a slight premium. Or if two cards were equal the one from a well known collector might be the one I buy.

I have other stuff from the collections of well known collectors, and it's cool, knowing for instance that FDR owned and collected it.

[DCJayhawk]

I would say it would depend on the card and set in question. I Personally have paid a premium for a famous card, but also a regular price for a different collectors card.

I also enjoy having cards with the provenance from a famous find/collector in my collection.

I have Lionel Carter's T 206 Harry Pattee, Zappala's Bill Shipke, Charles Bray's Jimmy Burke, and cards from the Sky dash, Endicott, and one other find.

[Huck]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

On the autograph side of things, I definitely always like to know a piece's chain of ownership.

+1

[LEHR]

I personally wouldn't pay a premium for an item owned by a famous collector; but I would pay a small premium for items coming directly from a players estate.

[brianp-beme]

I always view my Buck Barker cards (quite often from Zeenut sets, his frequent target for his player research scribbles) as part of the history and development of the hobby, and value them quite a bit more than I would the same Zeenut in better condition with just a plain old blank back.

Brian

[parkplace33]

Unless Burdick or Barker, no.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think one of the main reasons I’d be interested in a card owned by an old time hobby leader is the decreased likelihood of alteration.

Conversely, I have E93 cards that were owned by long-time and respected hobbyist Don McPherson that I know had their tops and/or bottoms sliced down by him so that they would fit better into sheets. Don's collection of similarly trimmed early candy card sets were eventually auctioned by Lew Lipset with this trimming noted. I smile knowing their history.

Brian

[darkhorse9]

You could argue that it hurts if it came from someone like Keith Olbermann.

Although he is a renowned collector, his polarizing politics might keep a lot of people away.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by LEHR

I personally wouldn't pay a premium for an item owned by a famous collector; but I would pay a small premium for items coming directly from a players estate.

How about Dmitri Young?

[Kco]

My high grade Ruth Single comes with provenance from the family of the original owner and was one of several high grade baseballs he had personally acquired from a young age until he passed. He was from an affluent family with access throughout his life and the ball(s) were in his possession until he passed. So I definitely err on the side of provenance where I can. Did I pay slightly more for that vs a "mystery" single signed Ruth single? probably a little but the little bit more I paid would come back in multiples should I decide to sell so I am ok with the added element of authenticity.

I will say, I feel this rule applies MORE with autographs than it does with cards unless the cards are part of a very prominent find or collection.

[oldjudge]

Yes, but I'm not sure what the premium would be. I am proud to have cards once owned by Keith Mitchell, Lew Lipset, Jim Blumenthal, Buck Barker and Keith Olbermann, among others. They mean more to me than just the comparable card from another source.

[Kco]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think one of the main reasons I’d be interested in a card owned by an old time hobby leader is the decreased likelihood of alteration.

I second this, and on the autograph side I feel it adds a huge layer of history behind any premium item vs a random non-descript item of similar quality. I happen to be a GPC collector and paid a premium on a few tough ones from the Long Beach collection that was sold off via Lelands last year.

[Yoda]

One of my most prized pieces is a Pinkerton T3 Cobb with Buck Barker's printed name and address on the back. I probably will be buried with it.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Kco

I second this, and on the autograph side I feel it adds a huge layer of history behind any premium item vs a random non-descript item of similar quality. I happen to be a GPC collector and paid a premium on a few tough ones from the Long Beach collection that was sold off via Lelands last year.

With familiar collector markings, GPCs and 3X5s can often tell their own histories if you're versed in the various notations and printing styles of earlier collectors.

The first bonus with this is the aforementioned history/provenance.

The second is that, with these autographed items, the value seems unaffected by such markings and may in fact net you a little premium. With cards, a marked card usually takes a big hit. Buck Barker notations pale in comparison to a GEM MINT 10, unfortunately. I'm with the people who would rather have the Buck cards, but we all know how the game is played.

Some collectors were very good about dating the backs of their 3X5s. Roy Pitts, Roger Harris and Jim Rogge come to mind. They obtained most of their collections TTM. Harold Esch used to get 3X5s signed in person during spring training and would also date them in a lower corner. This is a tradition I've always upheld with the 3X5s I personally obtained, but keep my writing to light pencil on the backs. Dating these items helps us and the future generations have a better grasp of the evolution of every player's signature, so I always take the time to date mine, just as old T. Roy Pitts liked to do for all those years. I'd advise anyone else to do the same! In time, and to people perhaps yet to be born, our notations will be of equal interest as those earlier collectors.

The third wonderful aspect is that I have yet to see any forger attempt to replicate any of the collector's handwritten notations. I'm racking my memory bank long and hard to think of any instance and am coming up empty. You'd just think that this would have happened a time or three.

[Al C.risafulli]

I think it depends on who the collector is.

Some of the hobby pioneers mentioned in this thread, I'd be proud to own one of their cards, with the knowledge that it was, at least in part, that person's dedication to the hobby that has helped keep it alive all these years. I like the chain of custody that goes back that far, as well.

There are a few more recent collectors who are/were personal friends of mine, like Jim Blumenthal or Chris Stufflestreet, that the idea of owning a card that was once part of their collection would have a personal meaning to me, and I'd probably pay a little extra.

I'm not really impressed by cards once owned by actual players, though I do have some N300 HOFers that came from Casey Stengel's collection, which I'm proud to own, and for which I paid strongly ten or fifteen years ago. Aside from that, though, I don't think I'd give any level of priority to a player's own cards.

-Al

[raulus]

Not really??

As it turns out, a handful of the best pieces in my collection can be traced back to some previous collectors, like Copeland or Lew Lipset.

But quite honestly, I don't feel like that really motivated me to buy them, or to pay extra. I just wanted the piece because it was an amazing piece. The fact that it has the provenance is a nice bonus, but on its own, it certainly wasn't a motivating factor.

[vansaad]

I think a small premium would be in order for the 1958 Mantle that Bob Costas has carried in his wallet for a million years. That card has seen more stuff than Large Ass Herzog.

[LEHR]

Originally Posted by EddieP

How about Dmitri Young?

Nope, not at all.

A Cobb photo coming directly from the Cobb estate; yes, I'd pay a premium for that. But a PSA 10 card that some modern sports figure just decided to collect; I wouldn't pay an extra dime.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think one of the main reasons I’d be interested in a card owned by an old time hobby leader is the decreased likelihood of alteration.

LOL. Now THAT was funny. Good one Jeff!

How much would you pay for a Marshall Fogel card?

[Kco]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

With familiar collector markings, GPCs and 3X5s can often tell their own histories if you're versed in the various notations and printing styles of earlier collectors.

The first bonus with this is the aforementioned history/provenance.

The second is that, with these autographed items, the value seems unaffected by such markings and may in fact net you a little premium. With cards, a marked card usually takes a big hit. Buck Barker notations pale in comparison to a GEM MINT 10, unfortunately. I'm with the people who would rather have the Buck cards, but we all know how the game is played.

Some collectors were very good about dating the backs of their 3X5s. Roy Pitts, Roger Harris and Jim Rogge come to mind. They obtained most of their collections TTM. Harold Esch used to get 3X5s signed in person during spring training and would also date them in a lower corner. This is a tradition I've always upheld with the 3X5s I personally obtained, but keep my writing to light pencil on the backs. Dating these items helps us and the future generations have a better grasp of the evolution of every player's signature, so I always take the time to date mine, just as old T. Roy Pitts liked to do for all those years. I'd advise anyone else to do the same! In time, and to people perhaps yet to be born, our notations will be of equal interest as those earlier collectors.

The third wonderful aspect is that I have yet to see any forger attempt to replicate any of the collector's handwritten notations. I'm racking my memory bank long and hard to think of any instance and am coming up empty. You'd just think that this would have happened a time or three.

Its really funny you mentioned Roy Pitts, I picked up an absolutely incredible Roberto Clemente from 1957 that was part of his collection, and it's the best Clemente GPC (of which I've seen fewer than 10 or so in 20+ years) I've ever seen. I paid two premiums on that one, first the high grade nature and the rarity of Clemente on a GPC and second for provenance.

Of course it's dated neatly (3-23-57) on the back like most all of his are.

[Harliduck]

The old saying, it's worth what people are willing to spend...and I would have to imagine if a celebrity had proven provenance on a card, or a player as mentioned, I guarantee it will sell for a bit more.

I collect classic car's more seriously than cards, and I can tell you when a car has any type of celebrity provenance, it certainly sells for a premium. I can recall a 1956 Chevy Bell Air owned by Reggie Jackson and a 1964 VW Bus owned by Jerry Seinfeld were recently auctioned off, and both went for twice the car's worth. I would think the same would be for ANY collectable.

As for any collectors that are well known to the hobby like many mentioned here, probably only a value to those hard core enough to know who they are, and that list has to be pretty small. I wouldn't invest in those names...but all it takes is two people in an auction who value that name...and boom.

[Fall1963]

No.

[bnorth]

I paid a premium for some Ted Williams cards of himself from his collection that come with a signed COA from his daughter.

A long time collector friend I have done countless buy/sell/trades with decided to get out of the hobby because of age. None of his kids/grandkids wanted anything to do with it so he slowly sold it off. He had a card I had been trying to get for many years. It was a counterfeit card in a GEM holder. I paid more for it than if it was a real card in a PSA 10 slab. I still have many cards I got from Jerry but this one means by far the most to me.

Otherwise no unless I can find a card Wade Boggs owned.

[TMKenKen]

I bought the Lot of what is supposed to be an original photo (and related magazine cover) owned by Ty Cobb of a hunting venture by him in 1927. Have it still. Probably paid more than I should have. But it was quite a while back.

The following link shows the photo.

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...cobb-416393988

Also have some presentation copies of the old Spading Guides owned by several different sport writers back in the golden age, and Joe McCarthy when he was managing the Yanks.

Anyway, I guess that while not cards, it shows you what I likely would do.

[Chris-Counts]

I have a 1933 Tattoo Orbit of Lefty Grove from the Lionel Carter collection that is trimmed.

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think one of the main reasons I’d be interested in a card owned by an old time hobby leader is the decreased likelihood of alteration.

[The Nasty Nati]

I didn't know the whole '33 Delong set was sold to one winner. No wonder I don't see any Lionel Carter Delongs up for auction. I've always REALLY wanted a '33 Delong Lionel Carter card because that was the set the got him into collecting, and that's the earliest confirmed set that he pack pulled.

Originally Posted by kailes2872

One of my biggest collecting regrets is not going harder for a complete '33 Delong Lionel Carter set in REA a few years ago (2016/2017?).

I can't remember what it sold for, but it was substantially cheaper than the Gehrig goes for now and the entire set was SGC. It would have been awesome to have that set with Lionel's name on all of the slabs. But, alas, I couldn't pull the trigger and will now probably never own the set, let alone that specific one.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

I didn't know the whole '33 Delong set was sold to one winner. No wonder I don't see any Lionel Carter Delongs up for auction. I've always REALLY wanted a '33 Delong Lionel Carter card because that was the set the got him into collecting, and that's the earliest confirmed set that he pack pulled.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=39829

I still can't believe how cheap it went. The Gehrig was a 40/3 and the whole set went for 6k

[Exhibitman]

Maybe for Jon Voight's LeBaron...

Actually, I paid well over market for this one:



Doesn't get much bigger than Burdick...

[EddieP]

I was able to pick up some Burdick’s that the Metropolitan Museum of Art were discarding because they were duplicates ( it pays to be a Member)

[drcy]

I will be as bold as to say I think everyone would.

[StraightRaceCards]

Pre War Players Estate, Burdick, F Scott Fitzgerald…absolutely

Charlie Sheen- I would ask for a discount

[MVSNYC]

Originally Posted by LEHR

I personally wouldn't pay a premium for an item owned by a famous collector; but I would pay a small premium for items coming directly from a players estate.

I'm probably in this camp, but would pay a premium for a card that belonged to Jim B, as he was a friend of mine.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

I'm probably in this camp, but would pay a premium for a card that belonged to Jim B, as he was a friend of mine.

For me. I would pay a very small premium for a pedigreed card that was from an old timer.

I probably overpaid for these 2 but they are the plate specimens for Lew's Encycolepedia of Baseball Cards...



.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I would pay a slight premium for a Frank Nagy or Lionel Carter card, but not anything crazy above market. I like having cards from the old hobby guys in my personal collection. I could care less about some modern athlete's cards though.



.