Importance of Provenance

[drcy]

I look at the topic of provenance and cards differently. I bet all here would be, at the least, hesitant to buy a mint card from a well-known card doctor, or that can be traced to a well-known card doctor. This is an example of assessing and purchasing cards using provenance, and has nothing to with a card having once been by Mickey Mantle or being traced to its original owner. When someone says the the provenance of cards makes no matter to them, I say "Sure it does."

When you get into more esoteric baseball memorabilia-- such as a early 1905 Yale team trophy ball or unique proof--, then where it came from, such as a well respected and honest seller who knows his stuff, obviously becomes more important, because you're dealing with identity and authenticity. And most people know that when you turn to resell it, that it was obtained from a respected dealer who knows his stuff is an important and sometimes even essential selling point.

[Snapolit1]

If I can buy the same card at 25% less, I'll happily pass on the "Lionel Carter" or anyone else for that matter owned this card. If you knew the guy, sure. A way to pay homage to a nice guy. But I could care less if the card was owned by Lionel Carter, Lionel Hampton or Lionel Schmutz.

[packs]

People keep bringing up art. If we're talking about the provenance behind pre-war cards like a T206, there were so many of them issued it doesn't matter who owned an individual copy. Provenance matters in art because there is only one and paintings are a medium that can be copied by any skilled painter. So proving you have the original is important. That's not the case with a baseball card. There are cards that there are only one known copy of, but without looking it up, can anyone name the person who owned the Allegheny set? It was part of the Copeland collection, but who owned it before Copeland? Copeland's name is the only one I ever see mentioned in write ups. Copeland was not the original owner though.

[drcy]

Artworks are often unique pieces, and traditionally provenance has been used to help establish the age. Even merely establishing that's it been around a long time is useful information. Seeing that a "Rembrandt" was exhibited or sold in 1890 doesn't prove it authentic or from Rembrandt's lifetime, but at least proves that it wasn't made yesterday.

So, yes, mass produced cards and an oil painting or sculpture are different in ways provenance-wise. You don't need provenance to authenticate a T206 or 1955 Topps. And a painting having been exhibited in a museum, owned by a famous collector or auctioned by Sotheby's will enhance its 'prestige.' Those things work both as authenticity evidence and prestige.

Some people do like famous ownership of cards-- find it neat that card belonged to Mickey Mantle or Sandy Koufax--, and that, of course, is fine. In fact, I bet everyone here would think it cool to have a T206 Cobb that actually belonged to Cobb. The $$ worth of that provenance will vary from collector to collector, but I wager that everyone here would find it neat.

[packs]

Provenance also protects what's authentic from what's not in the art world because there is only one painting. Other artwork not originally attributed to an artist can be attributed through provenance and other techniques as well. But those issues aren't issues commonly encountered in the pre-war card market.

[Leon]

When I was thinking of provenance I was thinking more the story behind where the card came from, not necessarily a famous person, only the history of the card. I almost always ask the backstory of any significant acquisition. I love the histories of cards and will pay more for new to the hobby stuff, sometimes.
And then there is idiotic lineage that dissuades me from bidding....

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1941-Play-B...wAAOSwDmBY4D-Z

.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by Griffins

Have to be careful, I heard about a guy that bought the wrong Jon Voights car. Turned out to belong to a dentist, not the actor.

Best deadpan answer in a long time. Love the reference.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If I can buy the same card at 25% less, I'll happily pass on the "Lionel Carter" or anyone else for that matter owned this card. If you knew the guy, sure. A way to pay homage to a nice guy. But I could care less if the card was owned by Lionel Carter, Lionel Hampton or Lionel Schmutz.

What about Lionel Richie? You wouldn't pay extra for a card that he used to own?