Help! The Hobby is DYYYINNGGGGG!!!!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Jayworld

I collected "new" product from 1975 to 1983, with the "apex" of my collection in the 1977-79 range; i.e. collecting and building sets from packs. I remember attending my first local baseball card show in 1979 at the Twin 60s Inn in Dallas and was introduced to 1933 Goudey cards and 1951 Bowman cards. I remember being fascinated with the artwork of those cards and have slowly over time started to collect those (especially the Bowman "art" cards of 1950, 1951, 1952) over the years. By 1984, I was essentially "out" of the hobby, and did not start back until 1989-90, in which I tried to buy one set for each year for the years I had missed (1985-90). I have since sold those sets.

Regarding adult vs. kids hobby, I think it is mostly for adults now. I don't see a lot of kids into the hobby. Heaven knows I can't really get my sons interested in baseball cards (the Pokemon and Star Wars craze is still big for them) other than a pack here or there. In fact, I was in the local baseball card shop this week on a Wednesday, which happens to be "trade" day at the shop. It was the first time I had been there on a Wednesday, and there were four gentlemen crowded around a table trading and talking. They were older than me (I'm 48), and as I perused the shop, I listened in on the conversation. They were busy trading/buying new product, with an emphasis on Topps Allen & Ginter cards. They were also buying cases/boxes of product, and the emphasis was on the "pulls." My mind went back to the early days of Baseball Card magazine in 1981 which contained the first articles of baseball cards as an investment, and each issue devoted a section to "what's hot, what's not" in terms of rookie cards and investments. I think that may have been the point (early-to-mid 1980s) that baseball cards became an adult hobby rather than geared towards kids, at least in my mind.

I don't buy modern product anymore. I tried it on and off for a few years in an effort to get back into the hobby. I come from the old way of collecting by building sets, but I found that set building is cost prohibitive now, what with inserts, parallels, etc., etc. And now I just collect vintage, and if I want the thrill of opening up packs or a box of cards, I collect new Japanese baseball cards. It's all about the hobby to me. With few exceptions (counted on one hand), every card or set I've sold from my collection over the years has been at a loss, so to me, it's a hobby.

I agree.....hits a hobby.....can also buy lottery tickets and lose a dollar for nothing instead of paying 8 dollars for pack trying to get a 200 dollar card.......at least you get some cards......lots of hobbys involve buying things that you can only resale and a small fraction of the cost .....not sure why everyone is arguing about younger kids being interested....all in all its an aging hobby for sure.......what the true problem is about most of the cards is problems with cards in general.. though baseball is becoming less and less popular..even the real popular sports like football and basketball do not have kids interested in cards so its not just baseball....its the hobby in general


-sucks that now get a blown save...(no longer the last post but maybe can get the 'w')

[ALR-bishop]

Arthur-- coming from you, that is no more bizarre than the other stuff you say

[mrmopar]

it seems like every couple of days or weeks, I see someone proclaim that they collect new but have recently discovered the joy of vintage and will start to collect it as well. I don't think the hobby ever dies. I was oblivious to the sport and collecting in general when I started, but it got me interested in baseball and the history as well. I was buying packs of 1978 Topps, but i was also learning about the 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond as well. It didn't hurt that there were an abundance of collector sets from TCMA, Renata Galasso, CCC and others to open my young eyes to players who had long since retired.

Now days, you got younger collectors pulling long retired players out of their packs of retro-type issues and those names become familiar to them, but they are usually the best of the best players in these sets and the new collectors may not know the middle and lower tier players from the same era, but eventually they may take that leap and start to learn.

To me it is funny to see someone say they collect cards and maybe have never heard of a player like Herb Pennock or Bill Mazeroski, but then I have to remember that maybe they have not made that step yet to learn about players who came before Ripken, Griffey, Jeter, Pujols and Trout. Of course, i am the opposite now. I know the older players, but you can read a thread about some new touted prospect and I'll say"WHO?".

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

it seems like every couple of days or weeks, I see someone proclaim that they collect new but have recently discovered the joy of vintage and will start to collect it as well. I don't think the hobby ever dies. I was oblivious to the sport and collecting in general when I started, but it got me interested in baseball and the history as well. I was buying packs of 1978 Topps, but i was also learning about the 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond as well. It didn't hurt that there were an abundance of collector sets from TCMA, Renata Galasso, CCC and others to open my young eyes to players who had long since retired.

Now days, you got younger collectors pulling long retired players out of their packs of retro-type issues and those names become familiar to them, but they are usually the best of the best players in these sets and the new collectors may not know the middle and lower tier players from the same era, but eventually they may take that leap and start to learn.



To me it is funny to see someone say they collect cards and maybe have never heard of a player like Herb Pennock or Bill Mazeroski, but then I have to remember that maybe they have not made that step yet to learn about players who came before Ripken, Griffey, Jeter, Pujols and Trout. Of course, i am the opposite now. I know the older players, but you can read a thread about some new touted prospect and I'll say"WHO?".

right those middle guys none HOFs ...as the generations that collect them don't know who they are..the names don't really matter much anymore..its the POP.....I bought a bunch fo 1952s and once in awhile there would be a high pop for the grade with more bidding then I expected...id look up the player and see that player was a real good popular player (like Smoky Burgess), but know full well that the high bidders grew up watching that player......other popular players in the 70s are already commons like George Foster....its all about POP...doesnt matter if it was George Foster or John Jones (just made up a name) you will see the bidding on ebay reflect POP count more than popularity of that player who was an all star in their day but since they aren't an upper tier player/HOF nobody will pay the preimium as the years go by...learning about that type of player 30 years later isn't going to make those buyers pay a premium..

..

[mrmopar]

I think grading is a whole other discussion that parallels collecting, but really stands alone as well. I don't buy graded cards specifically, so I am probably not best qualified to comment. However, it seems to be about building sets and if a card is difficult for whatever reason (shorter printing, difficult to find w/o a print flaw, popular player), then it will always sell for more regardless and people will be looking for it. Doesn't matter if it is Smokey Burgess, Dick Kryhoski or Willie Mays.

Back to collecting and the common man vs the well know HOFers: I know that me personally, I have little interest in plain commons unless they are part of a category that I like. That might be a team set (Dodgers, for example) or a special subset card like a league leader, playoff, multi-player , turn back the clock, etc. Although they may be commons in everyone else's eyes, I will always look at a card of someone like Tony Oliva or George Foster (to use your example) as something better than a common. I learned of these players through watching them play, reading about them in books or newspapers or sometimes just reviewing statistics on the back of cards or on baseball reference. I've been doing it since I started collecting, as I remember sifting through boxes of 1950s cards looking for key stats to indicate a player I may not have otherwise heard of was an OK player, like maybe he hit 30+ home runs or batted .300 that year. Gus Triandos makes a fine example of that type of method for me. He was a 3 time AS and hit 30 home runs once. Certainly not a household name, but to me, he is not a common.

When it comes to autographs, which is what I currently enjoy collecting the most, the only way I will add a "true" common to my collection is if he is on one of those special cards I mentioned before or on rare occasions has some great photo that catches my eye. Shooty Babbit and Stubby Clapp are two examples. How can I not have them represented in my collection with names like those? However, I will always seek out guys who are middle ground players because they were better than the average career substitute/bench warmer player.

When I dump boxes of commons, you can bet they are stripped and scrubbed so well that nobody is finding anything worthwhile in there.