I'm Sick And Tired

[Gorditadogg]

I will set the over/under on James' next post at 4 hours.

James, are you still with us? Walk back from the ledge, my friend.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[wazoo]

Generalizations are dangerous in all cases

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by wazoo

Generalizations are dangerous in all cases

Is that not, in and of itself, a generalization?

[wazoo]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Is that not, in and of itself, a generalization?

Exactly my point

[Bobbycee]

Nice tantrum. Find something new in your life. Get out side more. Stop watching the news.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Bobbycee

Nice tantrum. Find something new in your life. Get out side more. Stop watching the news.

+1

I stepped out on my back porch this afternoon and read a chapter in a book on Charles Bender. Beautiful weather...left Dogs...especially the loud one...inside.

Drank some ice-cold water and didn't touch my phone once.

[Tabe]

Anytime someone rues the state of the hobby and the greed of the companies, just remember that one of the hobby's most iconic cards (Goudey Lajoie) is only that way because Goudey was being dishonest with the public.

[G1911]

Technically, "generalizations are dangerous in all cases" is an absolute statement, not a generalization.

[parkplace33]

James,

There are plenty of way to collect, outside of what you mentioned. You can still do it raw and on a budget.

But to your point, the hobby is tied up with everything you mentioned. I have accepted it. It is what it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Technically, "generalizations are dangerous in all cases" is an absolute statement, not a generalization.

Generally speaking, I avoid generalizations. Is this actually logical or is it a Yogi-ism type statement?

[ALR-bishop]

Yes

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Generally speaking, I avoid generalizations. Is this actually logical or is it a Yogi-ism type statement?

To play the straight man in the joke here...

A statement that is a claim to fact is true or false. To be true, it must be true in all instances it declares. A generalization usually differs from an absolute statement in that the speaker knows it is not actually true and so removes the "all". "All police cars have sirens" is an absolute statement to fact (and a false one), "police cars have sirens" is its generalized form that removes the direct declarative, because it isn't always true and thus, technically, is false, but would be true in most solitary cases and thus it is implied to be "all" while leaving the speaker the wiggle room to not have to account for those that do not.

"I don't use generalizations" would be a claim to fact.

"I avoid generalizations" is a statement that essentially means nothing from an Aristotelian perspective, as a generalization. "Avoid" signifies an opinion that the speaker does not like them and prefers a choice, rather than a real claim to fact, and it's meaning directly leaves room to still use them sometimes. "I avoid generalizations" is a carefully phrased expression of a generalization that has shifted from a formulation that is a claim of fact to an opinion that can be neither right nor wrong.

As it is a generalization in its structure already, the "generally speaking" prefix serves no purpose beyond the comedic, and thus creates a yogi-ism, a line defined by its absurdity and not meant to be taken seriously.

You are all welcome for the most boring post of the day.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Technically, "generalizations are dangerous in all cases" is an absolute statement, not a generalization.

I practice moderation with a fervor...

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Is that not, in and of itself, a generalization?

“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” — Obi-Wan

[Mark17]

I was feeling the same way about collecting cards (I prefer collecting flannels.) I gave a lot of thought to which set of my childhood might be fun to work on (the 1960s.)

My main problems were:

1. Expensive cards in the set, that I'd eventually need to pony up for if I wanted to complete the set. The Mantle for starters, then the rookies.

2. I couldn't see spending a lot for floating head rookies like Uecker (1962 T high number,) Rose (1963,) or half card rookies like Morgan (1965,) Carew and Seaver (1967,) Bench and Ryan (1968) and so on.

3. I would want cards that looked nice, but there's the trimming/doctoring issue.

All of these things just made the whole idea not fun, like the OP says.

Then I came up with a solution - the 1962 Post Cereal set. I remember, vaguely, getting panels of cards on the back of those cereal boxes and cutting them out. Free baseball cards! I have good memories of those days.

1. I've recently picked up 2 decent Mantles for $70 and $46. Easily the cheapest 1960s major set Mantles, and it's an attractive card too.

2. With 200 cards in the set, I don't think there are any rookies.

3. Trimming is no issue since they were supposed to be hand cut. And if you see the black borders of the cards, you know they haven't been "over-trimmed."

I ordered the definitive book on 1962 Post baseball from Dan Mabey, and plan to make a study of the set. Meanwhile, after about 2 weeks of collecting these, I've gotten past the halfway point for about $500. So, the set should be easy to complete for less than the cost of a mid-grade floating head '63 Rose.

It's a lot of fun to not be constricted by grading/trimming issues, high prices, chasing rookie cards, etc. There are some minor challenges with a handful of short prints, but they are all available and can be had in the $50 range or much less. Mabey's book tells which cards were on which cereal boxes, and that's fun to know.

So, not counting the occasional T202 purchase, I'm back into card collecting again, and having a lot of fun with it.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by wazoo

Generalizations are dangerous in all cases

In general, I agree.

[G1911]

Just do it your way. It is indeed nothing more than an investment brokerage and good old boy club of like-minded investors, but that's for other people and a small part of the hobby. They can't affect your enjoyment of your collection. Just do it your way, nobody else dictates what you do or how you enjoy it.

[Tyruscobb]

Relax, Jimmy. It's just a hobby.

Well, its only just a hobby unless you make your living from cards, use them as investment vehicles, or are addicted.

Oxford Languages states that a hobby is "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure."

Your rant doesn't sound like your having leisure or enjoyment. I recommend taking a step back, and a deep breath.

[2dueces]

Before grading eBay was the wild Wild West. Today it’s just wild. One man’s NM was another man’s good. Not saying graded cards brought stability but 90% of the time if you purchase a graded card from a photo you will get what you paid for. As far as well loved cards, who doesn’t love a card that seen history. Too bad you feel that way but you really didn’t have to announce you were leaving.

[brianp-beme]

There are a bunch of fun-ass vintage cards in the current Brockelman Auction that would not be considered part of a portfolio, unless that is the type of folder you use to physically store the cards. How do I know? I consigned some of the fun-assery up for grabs.

Enjoy your version of the hobby. Brush off what bugs you like you would dandruff on the shoulders, and carry onward with a smile on your face.

Brian