Interesting topic. I was curious as to what most hard core vintage collectors thought of "memorabilia cards" of pre-war players. I definitely can understand the viewpoint that they are basically destroying important artifacts in order to produce these cards.
But personally, I like them...because I think they allow me to experience a connection to these players that I otherwise could not.
I don't own many vintage cards, and I don't own many memorabilia cards. However I do own a modern card (2001) that has a piece of Babe Ruth's bat....and I love it. My logic breaks down like this:
1. I think pretty much 100% of us could agree that we prefer authenticate vintage cards to reprints, right? An authentic 1933 Goudey card of Babe Ruth provides more value and joy to me as a collector than a reprint of that same card...even though it has the exact same picture. Why? Because a 1933 Goudey card was created and pulled out of a pack of gum during the exact same time that Babe Ruth himself was playing. There is a "connection" there to the Babe, the time, the place. That's cool.
2. So to me, the same thing applies to a card that has a small piece of his bat. That card contains an actual piece of lumber that Babe used to swing and maybe hit home runs with. That bat card provides me a "connection" to the Babe, the time, the place.
Would I prefer to have an actual bat instead of just a piece? Obviously. But a Ruth bat would cost me $100,000. The bat card? i got it for about $100 bucks. I keep it in a magnetic holder so I can easily take it out, and touch the bat piece.
These memorabilia cards allow us to physically interact with the uniforms and equipment of our favorite old players without spending the big bucks necessary to buy a full item, and often times the price is a fraction of what even an authentic vintage card would be...and to me, that's pretty cool.
I know most of you don't like shiny new cards, but I'm gonna put a picture of it here anyway
ruth front.JPG
ruthback.JPG
03-05-2019, 12:53 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode