The First Baseball Card?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I guess that is my confusion. Why would it bring more money? Why do people care if it is called a "card" or not.

Would you rather have something called the first baseball card or a cricket ticket. Just doesn't have the same effect. Definitely a big difference in owning one over another. It's like asking why are rookie cards worth more than other cards, especially for newer cards if they made the same amount.

Here is a personal example. I like Carlton Fisk, his rookie card has a tiny picture with two other players in the 72 Topps set. Why is that better than his solo 1973 card with a trophy on it or his 74 Topps, which has a great action shot and is my favorite looking card of him. There is a big % difference in price, but they are all easy to find cards. People like firsts and being the first baseball card ever is a huge first.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Would you rather have something called the first baseball card or a cricket ticket. Just doesn't have the same effect. Definitely a big difference in owning one over another. It's like asking why are rookie cards worth more than other cards, especially for newer cards if they made the same amount. .

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I don't care about a card being a rookie unless I am selling it. I really don't get the craze of owing someone's "first" card over owning their second. Apparently many other's agree since they would rather own Mantle's 52 topps over his 51 bowman.

Back to the subject though. I don't see how it matters in THIS case the picture of a significant person in baseball history is important to the hobby no matter if it is called a "card" or not. If you must have a "rookie" of Harry Wright then I assume it depends on if you own this piece or not.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I don't care about a card being a rookie unless I am selling it. I really don't get the craze of owing someone's "first" card over owning their second. Apparently many other's agree since they would rather own Mantle's 52 topps over his 51 bowman.

Back to the subject though. I don't see how it matters in THIS case the picture of a significant person in baseball history is important to the hobby no matter if it is called a "card" or not. If you must have a "rookie" of Harry Wright then I assume it depends on if you own this piece or not.

You are obviously in the minority because there are plenty of examples of a rookie card being worth more than a 2nd year card

There are also many more baseball card collectors than there are baseball photo collectors, and obviously some don't agree that this is a baseball item as indicated above.

While a rookie baseball card appeals to a huge mass of the collecting population, an item like this, whatever you want to call it besides the "first baseball card"(for argument sake) would not appeal to the same huge group of people. When you have less serious bidders vying for the item, chances are the price would be lower.

Basically, a baseball rookie card has mass appeal in the hobby, so it would obviously go for more money. You can't always get people to go outside their collecting zone with question marks surrounding the item, in this case, what to call it exactly. That alone will likely scare off potential bidders.

I don't have the money to spend on this, but if I did have those kind of funds, I'd be much more interested in the item if it was the first baseball card, because I mainly collect cards and that would be a significant one to own.

[bcbgcbrcb]

As I have mentioned a number of times before, when discussing "Rookies" of different players, when you have an item such as an 8 3/4" X 11" supplement that is obviously not a "card", let's just call it a Rookie (earliest item picturing the player in a major league baseball uniform) and move on. The term "Rookie" does not have to be followed by the word "Card" when it is not appropriate. If the "Rookie" also happens to be a "card", all the better to use the term "Rookie Card" then.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

You are obviously in the minority because there are plenty of examples of a rookie card being worth more than a 2nd year card

There are also many more baseball card collectors than there are baseball photo collectors, and obviously some don't agree that this is a baseball item as indicated above.

While a rookie baseball card appeals to a huge mass of the collecting population, an item like this, whatever you want to call it besides the "first baseball card"(for argument sake) would not appeal to the same huge group of people. When you have less serious bidders vying for the item, chances are the price would be lower.

Basically, a baseball rookie card has mass appeal in the hobby, so it would obviously go for more money. You can't always get people to go outside their collecting zone with question marks surrounding the item, in this case, what to call it exactly. That alone will likely scare off potential bidders.

I don't have the money to spend on this, but if I did have those kind of funds, I'd be much more interested in the item if it was the first baseball card, because I mainly collect cards and that would be a significant one to own.

I know I am in the minority. I didn't claim I wasn't. I also don't care about paying more for a HOF if I can have a minor player for less expensive from a set. My point is why would you let a designation determine what you will buy? If you like the item should it matter if someone else calls it a RC or not or even a card? Why do you allow your collecting be dictated by semantics?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I know I am in the minority. I didn't claim I wasn't. I also don't care about paying more for a HOF if I can have a minor player for less expensive from a set. My point is why would you let a designation determine what you will buy? If you like the item should it matter if someone else calls it a RC or not or even a card? Why do you allow your collecting be dictated by semantics?

If you're investing/spending as much as this card will cost, you will want to know what other people think before you buy it.

Going buy your logic, if what you like/want is the first baseball card, then wouldn't you want to be sure this is it before you buy it? I can guarantee that there are people out there who want the first baseball card in their collection and those people are likely the ones that are going to be bidding on this, as long as they believe it is the first card.

If you just wanted a Harry Wright CDV because that is what you like, well you have a lot of cheaper items to choose from. I assume if someone is paying what this will eventually go for, then they're not just doing it because they like it. This is in a different category.

I can't figure out why people pay so much more for a psa10 than a psa9, they both look great and the difference may just be who submitted it. Yet if someone wants a psa10 based on number only, they will pay that difference. Still the same card, could look exactly the same, but if everyone agrees that psa is a legit grading company and the one graded 10 is therefore better, that makes it worth xx amount more. On the other hand, you're not going to pay the psa10 price for the psa9, just because you like it.

Not everyone spends their life on this board, they don't have time to do the research but they want to know what they are buying. If you leave the question/answer open on this, it won't go for the same price as if it is agreed upon to be the first card.

I'm not saying it is right, but being sure about something is what drives the market. If you were buying a painting you liked and someone said it might be a Picasso, you would probably want to know it is before you paid what they go for. You wouldn't just say eh I like it so I'm buying it anyway and if it is a Picasso, then great. Other people made great paintings during his era, why are his worth more? It's the name attached to it and if you attach "first baseball card" to this, it becomes historically significant

I think the difference here is that significance aspect and that is what will drive this price. I seriously doubt the winner here just wants a Harry Wright card and doesn't care what they call it because if it finishes in that price range, I'll be the one winning it and you can call it whatever you want then.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

If you were buying a painting you liked and someone said it might be a Picasso, you would probably want to know it is before you paid what they go for. You wouldn't just say eh I like it so I'm buying it anyway and if it is a Picasso, then great. Other people made great paintings during his era, why are his worth more? It's the name attached to it and if you attach "first baseball card" to this, it becomes historically significant

I still don't get why it being a card makes a difference. What you call it doesn't change the size or the way it was distributed. So you are saying that it needs to be called a card by your peers before it is worth a certain amount of money? Again it comes down to semantics. Who is the official that gets to make the claim of when it is a card or not and how did that person get the authority?

Your example of Picasso here doesn't work. If you collect Picasso and you aren't sure it really is a Picasso that would be a better comparison to whether the person on this piece was really Harry Wright. Whether the Picasso painting was really a painting or sketch may be a better analogy, but even then it is more about the looks of the piece some people prefer paint over sketch. Or maybe if you were to discuss what phase of Picasso it was. That would be a better comparison. Though I would still say it doesn't matter what phase it was, if you like Picasso and you like the art, then buy it.

What you are talking about is whether something is worth your time because someone else told you it was. Again you are debating semantics to decide your collecting tendencies instead of enjoying the piece for what it is in cold hard facts. We know what the item was used for, you know who is pictured, you know what year it was distributed. If you can't decide you want it in your collection until someone else designates it with a certain word to describe it then so be it, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

[oldjudge]

Everyone has a different opinion, but mine is that this is a ticket and not a card. It is also a cricket ticket as, per the REA write-up, Wright had resigned from the Knickerbockers at the time of the Grand Match but was still an active cricket player. Look at the Sam Wright/Harry Wright CdV in Legendary and compare what it will realize to the $50K minimum that REA has on the Wright ticket. That is the value of convincing someone that it is a baseball card. The minimum is a safeguard against the card going for a CdV or Ticket price which would certainly be a LOT less than the REA minimum bid. It will be interesting to see if it gets a bid at that level.
Would anyone consider the tickets that many MLB teams now issue with players images on them to be baseball cards? Of course not, they are tickets. The same, in my opinion, goes for this item.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I still don't get why it being a card makes a difference. What you call it doesn't change the size or the way it was distributed. So you are saying that it needs to be called a card by your peers before it is worth a certain amount of money? Again it comes down to semantics. Who is the official that gets to make the claim of when it is a card or not and how did that person get the authority?

Your example of Picasso here doesn't work. If you collect Picasso and you aren't sure it really is a Picasso that would be a better comparison to whether the person on this piece was really Harry Wright. Whether the Picasso painting was really a painting or sketch may be a better analogy, but even then it is more about the looks of the piece some people prefer paint over sketch. Or maybe if you were to discuss what phase of Picasso it was. That would be a better comparison. Though I would still say it doesn't matter what phase it was, if you like Picasso and you like the art, then buy it.

What you are talking about is whether something is worth your time because someone else told you it was. Again you are debating semantics to decide your collecting tendencies instead of enjoying the piece for what it is in cold hard facts. We know what the item was used for, you know who is pictured, you know what year it was distributed. If you can't decide you want it in your collection until someone else designates it with a certain word to describe it then so be it, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm just trying to tell you what people think based on my knowledge of collecting since I was five. I'm not an economy major and I'm done playing one. Think what you want about it, I honestly have no opinion as to whether it is a card or not. Sorry if you didn't get the analogy either, I used about ten for you, so pick another.