![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Rhett Yeakley
Personally, I agree that with early photographic images the larger the better. However, the strict baseball card collectors are not prone thinking of this in the same way many of us do. They tend to want things that are as close to an "ideal baseball card" as possible. Whatever the ideal is determined to be (it is generally what one would envision in their mind as to what a baseball card should be.) For many of us growing up on Topps cards, something betweeen the size of a t206 and a 1952 Topps happens to be what one envisions when thinking of a baseball card. It is the same reason that many do not choose to collect items such as M101-1 Sporting News or National Copper Plate's, or even more particular are those that say Exhibits are not "true cards" because of their size (they really aren't that much bigger!). |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1912 Boston Red Sox Photographic Display | Archive | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 09-30-2008 09:40 AM |
Impact of the Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 45 | 07-17-2007 02:17 PM |
a Wisconsin ballgame in 1912? : The Process of a Photographic Investigation | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 05-01-2007 09:20 PM |
Does The Auctioneer Impact The Price? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 12-09-2006 10:07 AM |
Photographic Foxing | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 08-19-2005 04:50 PM |