topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[Kutcher55]

It's kind of a leading, biased question, isn't it? Who is to say they are underrated? The images are nice, but the main reason I don't collect them is that they aren't what I could consider to be baseball cards. Also, as a general rule of thumb, I find cards with blank backs to be disappointing, almost without exception.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Also, as a general rule of thumb, I find cards with blank backs to be disappointing, almost without exception.

The backs aren't all blank!

But I also agree with all of the drawbacks that others have mentioned.

One more to add - I think they mostly/entirely came from vending machines, rather than packs? And so therefore, that's another black mark against them.

[Exhibitman]

Oh boy, where do I start? I wrote a damn book on them, after all. I will stick to the initial question for now. I think the lag in interest in Exhibit cards stems from some early decisions on cataloging. The ACC assigned catalog numbers to cards but Beckett and Eckes put out their much more comprehensive but much narrower guides in the 1980s. Exhibit cards, postcards and quite a few other ACC-catalogued cards were omitted entirely and then lumped together in their baseball collectibles guide with things like pins and coins. That persisted for quite some time until Krause put out its Standard Catalog and folded many more ACC-listed cards into it, including Exhibits. As these cards came back into the main card catalog, collectors began to understand that the earliest major league cards of many players were postcards, Exhibit cards, etc. It was a gradual awareness that really kicked into gear in the 1990s with the 1925 Gehrig. There's also a bit of reluctance to acknowledge them on the part of incumbents who are invested (monetarily and emotionally) in other issues as the earliest or rookie issues. Very similar to the 1949 Leaf supporters who deride the 1947 Bond Bread Robinson when debating rookie cards.

On the issue of counterfeits, once you know what you are looking at, the bad ones stick out like sore thumbs. It is a problem confined to postwar cards. Where people get confused is with the company's late 1960s-last gasp 1970s print runs of a few sets, which were on different stock. Again, when you know what they are, differentiating them is easy.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Oh boy, where do I start? I wrote a damn book on them, after all. I will stick to the initial question for now. I think the lag in interest in Exhibit cards stems from some early decisions on cataloging. The ACC assigned catalog numbers to cards but Beckett and Eckes put out their much more comprehensive but much narrower guides in the 1980s. Exhibit cards, postcards and quite a few other ACC-catalogued cards were omitted entirely and then lumped together in their baseball collectibles guide with things like pins and coins. That persisted for quite some time until Krause put out its Standard Catalog and folded many more ACC-listed cards into it, including Exhibits. As these cards came back into the main card catalog, collectors began to understand that the earliest major league cards of many players were postcards, Exhibit cards, etc. It was a gradual awareness that really kicked into gear in the 1990s with the 1925 Gehrig. There's also a bit of reluctance to acknowledge them on the part of incumbents who are invested (monetarily and emotionally) in other issues as the earliest or rookie issues. Very similar to the 1949 Leaf supporters who deride the 1947 Bond Bread Robinson when debating rookie cards.

On the issue of counterfeits, once you know what you are looking at, the bad ones stick out like sore thumbs. It is a problem confined to postwar cards. Where people get confused is with the company's late 1960s-last gasp 1970s print runs of a few sets, which were on different stock. Again, when you know what they are, differentiating them is easy.

Wow Adam... it sounds like I need to get your book! This is really powerful stuff. I find that when it comes to things like truth things like emotional investment and financial investment in perceived ideas/realities can get in the way of seeing clearly. It's a shame, but I understand why it happens. I'm a baseball historian + archivist so I'm not interested in preserving anything other than reality and things how they are and were. It seems pretty clear to me that they are essential to the unfolding of card history over decades; were a persistent and essential presence in shaping the landscape of American collectible and democratically owned baseball images.

Thanks for sharing; off to research your book...
My best,
David

[ALBB]

have never been a fan, always felt they were not " real " baseball cards

[Rickyy]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

Wow Adam... it sounds like I need to get your book! This is really powerful stuff. I find that when it comes to things like truth things like emotional investment and financial investment in perceived ideas/realities can get in the way of seeing clearly. It's a shame, but I understand why it happens. I'm a baseball historian + archivist so I'm not interested in preserving anything other than reality and things how they are and were. It seems pretty clear to me that they are essential to the unfolding of card history over decades; were a persistent and essential presence in shaping the landscape of American collectible and democratically owned baseball images.

Thanks for sharing; off to research your book...
My best,
David

Yes get Adam's book! I highly recommend it.

Ricky Y

[Casey2296]

-
I enjoy collecting postcards and pre-war exhibits, the size is a plus when you have them in hand, some great images. And would agree with Howard the 21 Ruth is fantastic.
-

[Exhibitman]

Thanks for the kind words, guys. I think size is a plus when the images are classic: