Ebayer 'collectors' ripe for plucking

[glynparson]

the Andre the giant is not the same as the nolan ryan. The Andre the giant is labeled as a collectible photo on the magazine cover and was clearlyy intended to be cut out. Just because you may not particularly like it does not make it a non collectible. I agree with those ripping the Ryan from the sporting news as it was not intended to be a collectible on its own, but the Andre the giant is clearly meant to be cut out, despite being on a magazine page, and is labeed as such on the front cover. Yes i understand they are refered to as wallet size photos on the 1973 cover, later issues say trading cards (1978 & 1981), they were still meant to be cut out and collected, a completely different animal from the Ryan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

the Andre the giant is not the same as the nolan ryan. The Andre the giant is labeled as a collectible photo on the magazine cover and was clearlyy intended to be cut out. Just because you may not particularly like it does not make it a non collectible. I agree with those ripping the Ryan from the sporting news as it was not intended to be a collectible on its own, but the Andre the giant is clearly meant to be cut out, despite being on a magazine page, and is labeed as such on the front cover. Yes i understand they are refered to as wallet size photos on the 1973 cover, later issues say trading cards (1978 & 1981), they were still meant to be cut out and collected, a completely different animal from the Ryan.

Were Swedish Rekord Peles and Clays intended to be collectibles, they are just cut off the magazine covers?

[glynparson]

I am pretty confident they were. I have seen copies that appeared to have been cut out in year of issue. Now the hemmets journal I do not think we're meant to be cut into 4s.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

I am pretty confident they were. I have seen copies that appeared to have been cut out in year of issue. Now the hemmets journal I do not think we're meant to be cut into 4s.

How would you know when they were cut? Agree on the Hemmets and I don't know why the full sheets don't go for more of a premium.

[begsu1013]

Originally Posted by glynparson

the Andre the giant is not the same as the nolan ryan. The Andre the giant is labeled as a collectible photo on the magazine cover and was clearlyy intended to be cut out. Just because you may not particularly like it does not make it a non collectible. I agree with those ripping the Ryan from the sporting news as it was not intended to be a collectible on its own, but the Andre the giant is clearly meant to be cut out, despite being on a magazine page, and is labeed as such on the front cover. Yes i understand they are refered to as wallet size photos on the 1973 cover, later issues say trading cards (1978 & 1981), they were still meant to be cut out and collected, a completely different animal from the Ryan.

i agree 100% with this and while i haven't looked in a while, i believe the giant to have had actual "clipping" or a perforated type border around the photo or "card" and it even has a back.

the nolan ryan is a completely different animal. its more along the lines of finding his old year book and clipping out his senior picture and sending it in to get slabbed where as the back of it would be half a pic of the debate team that holds no association w/ ryan whatsoever!