Hobby Newsflash! Re: Top 250 Cards In Hobby

[MattyC]

That's kind of the thing; sure, popularity as it stands is a factor, but with position and the publishing of a book on the topic (that will no doubt be influential, especially to those who collect based purely on PSA's Registry), there comes some responsibility as well.

Thus, I think there was some (unfulfilled) responsibility on the part of the author to illuminate the masses as opposed to pandering. I mean, sure, many people eat McDonald's. But that does not mean that in a Top Restaurant list, I have to list McDonald's-- or fail to point out what Peter Luger's is (even though there is only one Lugers).

I think the author had something of a responsibility to the hobby when undertaking the book, and intimating through the list and the subsequently related Registry Sets that a 1987 Fleer Bonds is a superior card to an e90-2 Wagner is just a major whiff-- at least in my book. I understand the desire to touch all bases, in terms of eras and sports, but the execution of that sentiment resulted in a deeply flawed list, IMO.

I mean, you have sets "competing" on that Registry, and a 1987 Donruss Maddux counts more in their competition than an M101-6 Ruth. That, to me, is a travesty and would keep me from taking that whole endeavor seriously.

[tschock]

These kinds of lists always need qualifiers. So at my age, I always take these kinds of lists with more salt than I put in my jar of Kimchee. Even the "Top x most expensive cards" in the hobby would probably need some kind of qualifiers as well.

Shoot, even something like "most sought after" card in the hobby needs qualification. I do not "seek" a T206 Honus Wagner (since I could never afford it), but given the opportunity to "pick" one from a box load of cards, I would definitely "seek" it.

That said, this list is still way off base, IMO....

[MattyC]

Yeah, it seems anytime people give into the urge to rank things-- as it seems so many publications especially tend to do these days-- some qualifiers and rationale behind the criteria would go a long way.

Instead, so many of these ubiquitous lists are put forth as definitive, with not nearly enough upfront defining of terms and criteria, and that in turn leads to a lot of debate.

Then again, I imagine what many "Top X of Y" lists are out to do is generate debate centered around them, and so in that way they may be successful according to their true aim?

There is definitely a deeper philosophical discussion lurking around this topic, in terms of the need to rank and then compete.