topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Your observation has perplexed me for many years. I have also heard the "size" reasoning. My problem with that is then why the exception for the 1925 Gehrig exhibit which took off for the moon not too many years ago?

I think there are some INCREDIBLE exhibit cards that have not come close to being price respected compared to their card counterparts. The 1921 Ruth is the one that tops the list for me. Low pop, unique (great) pose, early in his Yankees career..... what gives? The earlier 1920's issues in general I would say arguably have nicer more appreciable images than many of their card counterparts of the day.

howard!! i don't know if you remember but we talked a long time at the chantilly show. my name is david + was there with my dad. late 20s early 30s, tall, shaved head. we got into a super spirited discussion about proofs and you showed some of the really beautiful and awesome stuff you had in terms of RGBY proofing of a 60s set.

i am 1000% in agreement with you. i approach things from the perspective of a historian/more of a philosophical angle, so a lot of 'card market' stuff so to speak doesn't make any sense to me. the images on those early exhibits, particularly the 21s and definitely including some of if not all of the big HOF/star level poses in the 39-46 are just wonderful. some of them have such deep clarity, print quality, and chiaroscuro of light and darkness; the mays nyg seated in the 47-66 set, if properly researched for date of print, is a rookie card directly aligned to his first year of play. its a really profound set and an essential part of american and baseball history to me. its a shame it doesn't get its due!!

my best; hoping to see you again at the next chantilly show come the summer.
david