Showing off a custom cut signature booklet - Steinbrenner

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Cfern023

This Polaroid is an example of that "Instant Collectible" world we live in. Those old photos of the Babe and Gehrig are the antithesis of that.

Is that so?

Tell me... In what respect does the signed Polaroid snapshot of Steinbrenner--preserving a chance meeting with a fan--differ from this snapshot of Ruth?



Or this blurry snapshot of Gehrig and Ruth? (It's so blurry--if it were mine I'd cut off the signatures and have a card made.)

[Exhibitman]

Let's see: value, rarity, desirability.

David, you take a fanatic's position of absolutism, that there is no difference between a vintage Ruth signed snapshot and a modern polaroid signed by the Boss. If you cannot see the difference between the two then there is no point discussing this any further with you.

Some items--like the Steinbrenner photo--can be transformed into more enjoyable items for the fan who owns them with no great loss to the history of the sport, and that is what a hobby should be all about. If you can't see that then maybe you need to take a step or two back from collecting and follow the advice below.

[David Atkatz]

Rarity and value, huh?
At the time those two snapshots I showed were signed, they were no big deal--they had essentially no monetary value. And they were common--Ruth spent hours signing anything and everything presented to him. Does that mean they should have been cut up?
I'm sure many, many such photos, though, were destroyed--that's why they're (relatively) rare today.
I guarantee you this, though. There are far fewer signed photos of Steinbrenner than of Ruth. That's not to say that they ever will have the value of a Ruth-signed photo--they won't. But they still should not be destroyed.

And just so you know, I don't live in a studio apartment, I'm married to a real, live woman (and we talk all the time), and I don't give a damn about baseball cards. And disagreeing with you certainly does not mean that I need to "grow the hell up."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

And disagreeing with you certainly does not mean that I need to "grow the hell up."

No it doesn't but you still do.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by Leon

No it doesn't but you still do.

This brought a smile to my face!!!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by whitehse

This brought a smile to my face!!!

I shouldn't have said that as I was acting the way I was making fun of. At times I think we are all just big kids.

[Cfern023]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Rarity and value, huh?
At the time those two snapshots I showed were signed, they were no big deal--they had essentially no monetary value. And they were common--Ruth spent hours signing anything and everything presented to him. Does that mean they should have been cut up?
I'm sure many, many such photos, though, were destroyed--that's why they're (relatively) rare today.
I guarantee you this, though. There are far fewer signed photos of Steinbrenner than of Ruth. That's not to say that they ever will have the value of a Ruth-signed photo--they won't. But they still should not be destroyed.

And just so you know, I don't live in a studio apartment, I'm married to a real, live woman (and we talk all the time), and I don't give a damn about baseball cards. And disagreeing with you certainly does not mean that I need to "grow the hell up."

You do realize that grow the hell up part is his signature, right?

http://net54baseball.com/member.php?u=148

You strike me as the type of guy who will argue Mitt Romney is the best, until someone agrees with you and flip to say that Obama is.

[Cfern023]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Is that so?

Tell me... In what respect does the signed Polaroid snapshot of Steinbrenner--preserving a chance meeting with a fan--differ from this snapshot of Ruth?



Or this blurry snapshot of Gehrig and Ruth? (It's so blurry--if it were mine I'd cut off the signatures and have a card made.)

Lets see, in the time Ruth played I'm sure getting your picture taken was sometimes a big deal. These days, you get your picture taken every day and don't even know it.

The ruths are great pieces, in great settings in great era appropriate clothing. The Steinbrenner poloroid strikes me as instant TMZ.

Feel how you may, but you can't deny how much crap is produced since the 1960's, this polaroid included.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Cfern023

Lets see, in the time Ruth played I'm sure getting your picture taken was sometimes a big deal.

You're only off by about a century. In the 1840s, getting your picture taken was a big deal. In the 1930s, Kodak was selling millions of cameras a year.

People collect snapshots because they are unique, and nothing at all like the mass-produced "collectibles" you keep comparing them to.

[Jlighter]

Holy crap your comparing Babe Ruth to the Boss, there not synonymous.

[David Atkatz]

No, they're not.

[packs]

With such a delicate worldview it must be hard to throw anything away. Each creation being so unique and a part of historical record.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

With such a delicate worldview it must be hard to throw anything away. Each creation being so unique and a part of historical record.

Nah. I'd throw that manufactured card away in a heartbeat.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

No, they're not.

You sure showed me.

[David Atkatz]

Any time, Jake.

You're welcome.