Narrow-minded Collectors

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by tschock

In 1998, it was a very good year,
Filled with hotdogs and juiced balls and many steroids so near,
It was a very good year.

Well done sir!

[jchcollins]

The hobby is in many ways different than the sport(s) from which it's subjects are drawn, and as was insinuated earlier - the history of the hobby and especially the mainstream, self-aware hobby (IMHO, after about 1980) of course exerts its own influence - and in many cases this is based on sometimes random preferences derived from hobbyists - many of whom are indeed old white guys. I digress:

I collect mostly postwar vintage, simply because while I could choose to pour significantly more financial resources into things like prewar or modern speculation - at some point I stop because I can't get past what I perceive as ridiculous prices to pay for single pieces of cardboard, when in my heart of hearts I realize that anything "old" related to baseball instantly seems cool to me and makes me feel like a kid again. But even with postwar, the general theme of the OP's post rings true. If you followed only whose cards were hot, you would miss out most of the time on players like Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Steve Carlton, and a host of others. To me this is where it seems my grass roots collecting background was in many cases more helpful back in the day (late 80's, early 90's) - I didn't know much of the organized "hobby" and it's existence outside of each month's Beckett arriving at my door. So I based my preferences for what I wanted to collect in vintage cards (again, mostly 50's and 60's - prewar cards weren't unheard of when I was a kid, but they were more expensive than drugs...) on what I read of baseball history. An example that I think ties in well here - and nothing today against this player - but when I was like 11 or 12, I would have put Duke Snider at the top of the list in terms of famous '50's players. I had his book, met him and got his autograph at a card show. In my mind he was every bit Mantle's equal. Popular sentiment today would say otherwise, of course, and that is very much borne out in the price of The Duke's cards. But that's what you miss if you go only on what is only popular in the hobby vs. what you might have read about history.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

If you followed only whose cards were hot, you would miss out most of the time on players like Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Steve Carlton, and a host of others.

Willie McCovey.

Guy was the most feared hitter of the '60s, in a league that had Aaron and Mays. Spent his best years protecting Mays in the Giants' lineup and was pitched around like crazy, yet still managed to hit over 500 HRs. Despite missing an average of a few dozen games per season, too.

And other than his rookie, his cards cost pocket change

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Willie McCovey.

Guy was the most feared hitter of the '60s, in a league that had Aaron and Mays. Spent his best years protecting Mays in the Giants' lineup and was pitched around like crazy, yet still managed to hit over 500 HRs. Despite missing an average of a few dozen games per season, too.

And other than his rookie, his cards cost pocket change

Agreed. SF fans respected Mays, but worshipped McCovey. Yastrzemski is another - besides his RC, his other cards even in super nice shape aren't expensive at all. First AL player with over 3,000 hits and 400 home runs - triple crown winner? Seems silly.

Bob Gibson is another at least in comparison to Koufax and Ryan and Seaver. His RC is pricey, everything else not so much. Dude was a certified badass and first ballot HOF'er. Makes no sense to me.

[BabyRuth]

oldeboo was looking for a Ty Cobb card for this thread. My doctor told me to get more fiber in my diet so I've been enjoying this Cobb salad.

[ValKehl]

When I read the OP's title for this thread, I thought he was referring to collectors of this set of cards:

[skelly423]

This is a great thread. I think I wear the label of narrow minded collector. For me it’s a question of budget. I am fortunate enough to have some decent disposable income, but my budget isn’t unlimited. For example I love the t206 set but have no hope of ever owning it in its entirety. So how do I decide who to buy? With respect to their collectors, I will pass on the Shag Shaughnessy’s and Ambrose Puttman’s and get the names that I learned as a kid, Cobb, Young, Johnson. It’s not a case that I don’t appreciate the “lesser” players, I simply can’t afford them all.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The hobby is in many ways different than the sport(s) from which it's subjects are drawn, and as was insinuated earlier - the history of the hobby and especially the mainstream, self-aware hobby (IMHO, after about 1980) of course exerts its own influence - and in many cases this is based on sometimes random preferences derived from hobbyists - many of whom are indeed old white guys. I digress:

I collect mostly postwar vintage, simply because while I could choose to pour significantly more financial resources into things like prewar or modern speculation - at some point I stop because I can't get past what I perceive as ridiculous prices to pay for single pieces of cardboard, when in my heart of hearts I realize that anything "old" related to baseball instantly seems cool to me and makes me feel like a kid again. But even with postwar, the general theme of the OP's post rings true. If you followed only whose cards were hot, you would miss out most of the time on players like Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Steve Carlton, and a host of others. To me this is where it seems my grass roots collecting background was in many cases more helpful back in the day (late 80's, early 90's) - I didn't know much of the organized "hobby" and it's existence outside of each month's Beckett arriving at my door. So I based my preferences for what I wanted to collect in vintage cards (again, mostly 50's and 60's - prewar cards weren't unheard of when I was a kid, but they were more expensive than drugs...) on what I read of baseball history. An example that I think ties in well here - and nothing today against this player - but when I was like 11 or 12, I would have put Duke Snider at the top of the list in terms of famous '50's players. I had his book, met him and got his autograph at a card show. In my mind he was every bit Mantle's equal. Popular sentiment today would say otherwise, of course, and that is very much borne out in the price of The Duke's cards. But that's what you miss if you go only on what is only popular in the hobby vs. what you might have read about history.

Like John, I am a postwar collector. I am absolutely eaten up with the 1950s, particularly the first half or so of the decade, and more particularly still with Bowman. I am a set builder at heart. I have a few graded cards, but I much prefer low to mid grade cards in a binder. Another part of my collecting life is reading. Again 1950s baseball, particularly all things New York, is my focus. My reading drives my collecting, and when I am putting together sets I am pumped when I can add cards of players like Ralph Branca, Bobby Thomson, Carl Furillo, Billy Cox, Sal Maglie, etc. These are the larger than life characters who live on in the books that I read from what must have been such an awesome time to be alive and see baseball at places like the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. Sure, I also enjoy collecting cards of Mantle, Mays, Jackie, etc., but that whole era has a flavor that would be missed (IMO) if I only collected those stars.