Photo section?

[Fandom0610]

Just curious but with the rising popularity of photo collecting why hasn't there been a separate photo section added?

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Fandom0610

Just curious but with the rising popularity of photo collecting why hasn't there been a separate photo section added?

I asked recently and it was quickly rejected.

Guessing that many of the long term board members are strictly card guys and have little or no interest in photos.

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I asked recently and it was quickly rejected.

Guessing that many of the long term board members are strictly card guys and have little or no interest in photos.

Wow really? Really surprised to hear that. Sports photography seems like a big part of this hobby and there's tons of passionate collectors

[Snapolit1]

There are a ton of photo collectors here and some of them are among the leading authorities in the field. But I assume many others who never got on the bandwagon.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Fandom0610

Just curious but with the rising popularity of photo collecting why hasn't there been a separate photo section added?

Just curious why the memorabilia section can't be used? Photos are memorabilia. Also, you might consider being here at least 1 month, on a 23 yrs old forum, before you suggest changes.

So if we make another section, for the millionth time, we will get a post every other day. Great.

Steve- definitely not true. How about we make a dedicated photo section, and when it's dead, you can say I told you so? Seriously, we just had 2 new sections everyone seemed to want concerning game used. They were put out here and approximately 2 people responded in several days to a week. Is that good?
.

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just curious why the memorabilia section can't be used? Photos are memorabilia. Also, you might consider being here at least 1 month, on a 23 yrs old forum, before you suggest changes.

So if we make another section, for the millionth time, we will get a post every other day. Great.

Steve- definitely not true. How about we make a dedicated photo section, and when it's dead, you can say I told you so? Seriously, we just had 2 new sections everyone seemed to want concerning game used. They were put out here and approximately 2 people responded in several days to a week. Is that good?
.

It doesn't matter if I've been here for 1 day or 10 years. This should be a place where people can make harmless suggestions to try and better this forum. The hobby is ALWAYS evolving and there is NOTHING wrong with trying to improve something. You sound like you're almost threatened by change. I was simply asking a question and my question was very legitimate considering the growing popularity of photo collecting. Don't be stuck in the past man.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Fandom0610

It doesn't matter if I've been here for 1 day or 10 years. This should be a place where people can make harmless suggestions to try and better this forum. The hobby is ALWAYS evolving and there is NOTHING wrong with trying to improve something. You sound like you're almost threatened by change. I was simply asking a question and my question was very legitimate considering the growing popularity of photo collecting. Don't be stuck in the past man.

Welcome to Net54 Fandom, my name is Doug, and I'm occasionally grumpy in an old man shouting at the clouds kind of way, which is kind of funny because I've been that way since well before I was an old man. Unless younger than 10 is considered old.

You're right it doesn't matter how long you have been here before you can make suggestions, but it's bad form at the very least to walk into somebody's house and ask if they have ever thought about rearranging the furniture, then being offended when they say they like it they way it is.

There are photo threads in the memorabilia section, just as there are pin threads and pennant threads, one of the pennant threads is approaching TWO MILLION views, yet neither pins not pennants have their own section.

We could have separate sections for every individual thing that we collect, but most of us think things work pretty well as they are, and occasionally changes are made.

You sound more threatened by the past than Leon is stuck in it, if searching the forum for your interests is too complicated for you, then take a deep breath, relax, and dive in, I'm confident that you will enjoy your time here.

Take care,
Doug


PS - that Aaron ball is pretty cool, but I will need more convincing that Guy Morton was only in camp (and happened to play) for one day. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, I'm just saying I need more info. Either way it's a neat ball.

PPS - there are people on here who have been researching specific thing for years if not decades, so while I appreciate the time and effort you put into researching that ball, two weeks isn't a time frame that I would acknowledge as "relentless".

PPS - welcome again, and I look forward to seeing more of your finds and conversing about the stuff that interests all of us.

PPPS - please don't take my attempts at constructive criticism the wrong way, I tend to be pretty blunt with my thoughts, while meaning no ill will (unless you're a Giants fan, hahahaha. (Sorry Rob, I had to go there)

[doug.goodman]

And as long as we're talking about photos, here is one that I like. I mentioned Hank Aaron in my previous post, but none of my Aaron stuff is a photo, so here's a Braves pic in honor of Mr. Aaron.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

And as long as we're talking about photos, here is one that I like. I mentioned Hank Aaron in my previous post, but none of my Aaron stuff is a photo, so here's a Braves pic in honor of Mr. Aaron.

I think a separate photo page would be great, but I get Leon’s point about creating sub headings, etc.

Judging by the number of photo related posts on the main page, photos are a lot more popular these days than pennants and some other stuff.

The primary issue I see, and it’s been discussed before many times, is that 75% of everything seems to end up on the first page. And I’m as guilty of that as anyone. It’s just easier and that’s where the eyeballs go. No one wants to post something on a page that doesn’t get the foot traffic.

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Welcome to Net54 Fandom, my name is Doug, and I'm occasionally grumpy in an old man shouting at the clouds kind of way, which is kind of funny because I've been that way since well before I was an old man. Unless younger than 10 is considered old.

You're right it doesn't matter how long you have been here before you can make suggestions, but it's bad form at the very least to walk into somebody's house and ask if they have ever thought about rearranging the furniture, then being offended when they say they like it they way it is.

There are photo threads in the memorabilia section, just as there are pin threads and pennant threads, one of the pennant threads is approaching TWO MILLION views, yet neither pins not pennants have their own section.

We could have separate sections for every individual thing that we collect, but most of us think things work pretty well as they are, and occasionally changes are made.

You sound more threatened by the past than Leon is stuck in it, if searching the forum for your interests is too complicated for you, then take a deep breath, relax, and dive in, I'm confident that you will enjoy your time here.

Take care,
Doug


PS - that Aaron ball is pretty cool, but I will need more convincing that Guy Morton was only in camp (and happened to play) for one day. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, I'm just saying I need more info. Either way it's a neat ball.

PPS - there are people on here who have been researching specific thing for years if not decades, so while I appreciate the time and effort you put into researching that ball, two weeks isn't a time frame that I would acknowledge as "relentless".

PPS - welcome again, and I look forward to seeing more of your finds and conversing about the stuff that interests all of us.

PPPS - please don't take my attempts at constructive criticism the wrong way, I tend to be pretty blunt with my thoughts, while meaning no ill will (unless you're a Giants fan, hahahaha. (Sorry Rob, I had to go there)

Hi Doug appreciate your response and I can see your point. Thanks for the welcome and I hope to gain alot more knowledge on here and see all the cool things people collect.

About the Braves/Red Sox ball. I was able to pull up articles/rosters on all the spring training games that the Braves faced the Red Sox. There was only 1 game in Florida (March 10th) where Ben Flowers and Guy Morton were on the roster and played in the game. Both were quickly sent down to the minors. Guy Morton, who was invited by the red sox to sprint training in Florida, confirmed by his daughter never went to any other cities with the red sox as he had a ankle injury and was sent down to the minors in North Carolina until September when the red sox called him back up. He played 1 single game for the red sox and his career was over in the majors.

[Fandom0610]

Doug- Amazingly I was able to find newspaper dated March 25th 1954 that talks about Guy Morton being sent to the minors. Which was 15 days after Hank's first start. The Braves didn't play the Red sox again until early April and none of those games were in Florida so Guy Morton wouldn't of been there. He was the key to dating the ball. Along with the Ben flowers.

[Fandom0610]

Guy morton

[doug.goodman]

Good work. Looks fairly conclusive, and I would tend to agree with your conclusion, but I'm curious if there were other days the teams crossed paths, the playing in the game part isn't relevant, it's all about being in camp (which doesn't necessarily mean being printed on the roster or playing in the game).

With no disrespect meant towards the daughter of Mr. Morton, her opinion on the happenings years before her birth are not something I put much weight on.

When asked about wearing different numbers during his career, Stan Musial himself had no memory of ever wearing anything other than #6, yet there is documented evidence of him wearing #19.

https://thecardinalnation.com/now-ba...tanley-musial/


Unrelated to your quest, I just realized that Guy and Stan both played their ML debut games on Sept 17, which is kind of weird, but not completely since I would guess that a large percentage of debut games happen in September.

Also, did you know that Guy Morton's father Guy Sr. played 11 years for the Indians?

Last in the dumb trivia department : your Guy Morton, also know as "Moose", was according to his Retrosheet stats 1/2 an inch shorter than I am, while being 5 pounds heavier. I have NEVER been referred to as "Moose" so if I want to be, I guess I need to gain those extra pounds.

[Fandom0610]

Hey Doug! That's funny. I would hate to have a nickname "moose". I'd always feel like I needed to wear a antler hat and crawl around on all fours.

So Guy's daughter got all this information from her mother (guys widow) who is still alive surprisingly. The only time the red sox and braves crossed paths was during spring training/exhibition games. But the games after March 10th that the red sox and braves would've played against eachother did not have "moose" . He was playing in North Carolina in the minors and wouldn't of played with the red sox until September when he was called back up. And the fact that the ball is PSA certified as a braves/Red Sox Spring Training Signed ball is pretty cool. Moose was only in Florida until March 25th and the Braves were busy playing other teams on the road then. I have alot of articles from 1954 to back up my research. I looked through tons of articles and rosters and March 10th was the only game Ben flowers was pitching against Hank (who's name is on the ball) and the only game Guy was catching during that exact game which Guy's daughter and widow confirmed he was playing that game that Hank hit his first homerun (have emails from his daughter)

[Fandom0610]

A couple emails from Valerie Morton (Guys daughter)

[Fandom0610]

Article from March 19th 1954

[Snapolit1]

Cool stuff.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Cool stuff.

Agreed

[bigfanNY]

I owned this ball for a few years purchased from Sig Auctions. The Original Owner of the ball would travel to spring training looking to obtain mostly rookie sigs. He coded the balls in red pen and would keep them in their red spalding bags ..also coded. And add others over the course of the spring.
Morton was in Spring training briefly but when sent down he went north to NC.
The Braves and Red Sox played a series of games in North and South Carolina (reliving the cross town Boston rivalry) where minor league players were available from both teams. I was not able to find rosters from all of those games. In fact I found conflicting accounts on how many games were played.
Anyway nice Ball Definitely preseason 1954 Aaron. And might be from the first Fla. Game but not many regular roster player sigs on ball. One that stood out to me was Mel Parnell from Sox who pitched very well in a SC game. I thought that it was another possible game. The code would tell us but I am not sure if the code was passed down to any other collectors.

As for being new and asking for changes.. easy dose it. Many times Single threads contain a ton of knowledge I use a few often. Tickets Scorecards etc.

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

I owned this ball for a few years purchased from Sig Auctions. The Original Owner of the ball would travel to spring training looking to obtain mostly rookie sigs. He coded the balls in red pen and would keep them in their red spalding bags ..also coded. And add others over the course of the spring.
Morton was in Spring training briefly but when sent down he went north to NC.
The Braves and Red Sox played a series of games in North and South Carolina (reliving the cross town Boston rivalry) where minor league players were available from both teams. I was not able to find rosters from all of those games. In fact I found conflicting accounts on how many games were played.
Anyway nice Ball Definitely preseason 1954 Aaron. And might be from the first Fla. Game but not many regular roster player sigs on ball. One that stood out to me was Mel Parnell from Sox who pitched very well in a SC game. I thought that it was another possible game. The code would tell us but I am not sure if the code was passed down to any other collectors.

As for being new and asking for changes.. easy dose it. Many times Single threads contain a ton of knowledge I use a few often. Tickets Scorecards etc.

I was able to find articles on all the spring training games against the red sox. I don't recall seeing any played in North Carolina
Morton wouldn't of been playing for the red sox after mid to late March. Even if for some reason he just happened to be there watching it wouldn't make sense to me for him to sign the ball if he wasn't playing or participating with the team. Also Ben Flowers is on there who was also sent to the minors. The ONLY roster with Ben flowers and Guy Morton playing a spring training game Braves vs Red Sox is March 10th 1954

[Fandom0610]

Here's a list of the games during spring season Braves vs red sox (Confirmed by NY times articles). None were played in North Carolina. The very last match up between Braves/Red Sox was April 11th until the regular season. Guy Morton was not a member of the Red sox after the game he played against Hank March 10th 1954. This is all confirmed from the official new york times website (Yes I paid for a membership for this information)

* April 6th Braves vs Red Sox Chattanooga, TN

[Fandom0610]

Dick Sinovic is also on the ball. He was invited ONE single year (1954) to spring training with the Braves but was quickly sent down to play with the Toledo Sox. Ben Flowers and Guy Morton were the key players I researched. The Red Sox did not have Morton on their team or practicing with their team from Mid March all the way until September 1954. It would make no sense for Guy Morton to be on that ball anytime after March. The games I found were not played in North Carolina and Guy wouldn't of been a member of Boston. He would've been playing in the minors against other teams. Also just pulled up the Article dated April 11 1954. The article states this was their last and final game against eachother that spring.

[Fandom0610]

Mel Parnell was a Boston Red Sox player from 1947-56. In 1954 he had a collar bone injury.

[Fandom0610]

7 total games played between the Braves/Red Sox. April 11th was their last. Guy Morton was NOT playing with the Red Sox after the March 10th game. He was sent to the minors in Greensboro, NC. April 6th Yankees faced that Greensboro team and Morton was on their roster (Confirmed by newspaper article). Braves DID NOT play Greensboro during spring training nor did they play in North Carolina. The ONLY time Morton was playing against the Braves was March 10th.

March 10- Florida
April 6- Tennessee
April 7- West Virginia
April 8- Kentucky
April 9- milwaukee
April 10- Milwaukee
April 11- Milwaukee

[SyrNy1960]

Research is one of my favorite things about collecting. Thanks for sharing. Enjoyed it!

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

Research is one of my favorite things about collecting. Thanks for sharing. Enjoyed it!

I agree. Love doing research!

[bigfanNY]

I agree research is both fun and educational. But part of research is context. The Ball was originally part of a very large collection of balls put together by a collector who would travel to spring training and collect mostly rookies and prospects. I know this because when Sig Auctions sold the collection I bid on a few lots winning this ball and a few other items.
Many of the balls contained no star players because he wanted everyone on the roster anyone who collects autos knows it's the obscure guys that prove the most challenging this ball had a Henry Aaron. I owned a few Aaron Autographs but never a Henry. I fid some research and found both Red Sox and Braves on the ball. I later found that the Braves and Sox had played a 7 game series.

https://www.bdtonline.com/sports/bra...80a4b7f3a.html

So he had lots of opportunities to add to his ball. But my experience tells me that is is tough trying to get both teams as players from one team group together. It has been argued that the ball could ONLY be signed on one day March 10th... I would disagree as hanging around spring training you grab what you can when you can. If a game is going on you can get from 2 teams. But if you vist Red Sox camp on a non game day you can still add. And to me the definition of a spring training ball means signatures were added over the course of the spring. So maybe Morton was added on March 10th ...maybe.

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

I agree research is both fun and educational. But part of research is context. The Ball was originally part of a very large collection of balls put together by a collector who would travel to spring training and collect mostly rookies and prospects. I know this because when Sig Auctions sold the collection I bid on a few lots winning this ball and a few other items.
Many of the balls contained no star players because he wanted everyone on the roster anyone who collects autos knows it's the obscure guys that prove the most challenging this ball had a Henry Aaron. I owned a few Aaron Autographs but never a Henry. I fid some research and found both Red Sox and Braves on the ball. I later found that the Braves and Sox had played a 7 game series.

https://www.bdtonline.com/sports/bra...80a4b7f3a.html

So he had lots of opportunities to add to his ball. But my experience tells me that is is tough trying to get both teams as players from one team group together. It has been argued that the ball could ONLY be signed on one day March 10th... I would disagree as hanging around spring training you grab what you can when you can. If a game is going on you can get from 2 teams. But if you vist Red Sox camp on a non game day you can still add. And to me the definition of a spring training ball means signatures were added over the course of the spring. So maybe Morton was added on March 10th ...maybe.

My point was Guy Morton was sent down to the minors after the March 10th game. He played for North Carolina. He was playing other teams while the Red Sox carried on and played major league teams. Ben Flowers, Henry Aaron, Guy Morton and dick Sinovic were all active on the roster during March 10th 1954. After that Ben flowers and Guy Morton were sent down to the minors. Your interpretation of what a spring training signed ball isn't written in stone. All these players were accessible March 10th as they all played together during that game, after that some players were sent down or continued on. PSA states this as " RED SOX VS BRAVES SPRING TRAINING " . To me that means a game against eachother during spring training

[Fandom0610]

I respect what you're saying and let's say he traveled to all these different states to get autographs, why would he seek out or have Guy Morton sign the ball after he was sent to the minors (March 1954) when all the other players on the ball were active red sox or braves players March 10th 1954???

The only players I'm concerned with on that ball is Henry Aaron, Ben Flowers and Guy Morton. They only played ONCE together. MARCH 10TH. After that they all went separate ways. They were all accessible that game. After that 2 were sent to different minor league teams while Henry carried on with the Braves.

[bigfanNY]

Well if PSA are the Experts here.. let's remember they Originally certified this ball as a 1954 Braves team ball. But lets look at what they call the ball Now
A 1954 Braves and Red Sox Spring training ball
... pretty much what I am calling it. What Sig Auctions called it.. and what it is.
Morton could have signed it any time he was in camp with the Red Sox. Same with all the other signatures on the ball. That's how it goes when collecting autographs during spring training. You get em when you can.

I fully understand that dating the ball to a specific game might increase the value.again ....might..maybe. But everything we know says this is a spring training ball. Will more research prove that all the signatures were applied to the ball on March 10 1954......no it will not even prove that Guy Mortan signed it on March 10th.
The original collector coded the balls and those codes might tell us more if you can track down some autograph collectors who purchased some of the large lots from Sig.. But I think the codes are gonna say 1954 Spring training Braves and Red Sox. But good luck with any future research.

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Well if PSA are the Experts here.. let's remember they Originally certified this ball as a 1954 Braves team ball. But lets look at what they call the ball Now
A 1954 Braves and Red Sox Spring training ball
... pretty much what I am calling it. What Sig Auctions called it.. and what it is.
Morton could have signed it any time he was in camp with the Red Sox. Same with all the other signatures on the ball. That's how it goes when collecting autographs during spring training. You get em when you can.

I fully understand that dating the ball to a specific game might increase the value.again ....might..maybe. But everything we know says this is a spring training ball. Will more research prove that all the signatures were applied to the ball on March 10 1954......no it will not even prove that Guy Mortan signed it on March 10th.
The original collector coded the balls and those codes might tell us more if you can track down some autograph collectors who purchased some of the large lots from Sig..

I think there's a miscommunication from what I'm saying. Guy Morton was not in camp with the red sox after that March 10th game. He was sent to North Carolina to play in the Minors. And PSA isn't calling it a "Braves AND Red sox" ball. They're calling it a "Braves VS Red Sox" ball. There is absolutely no dates or places you provided that Guy Morton was to sign the ball. I have provided a Date, roster and place that Ben flowers (who pitched that game, Guy Morton (who was the catcher that game) , Henry Aaron (Who hit that day) were all together in the same place to sign the ball. After that they all went their separate ways. I can understand now that I have the ball why you would be reluctant to refute the evidence knowing the value it would carry. Wouldn't make sense for the collector to go to a random North Carolina patriots game just to get Guy Mortons signature after he was sent down.

[Fandom0610]

But none of us were there to know 100% and in this hobby alot of things get authenticated with what the most evidence points to. March 10th 1954 was the game that all those players were there and accessible. The players in question were all playing together that day. Red sox VS Braves in Florida. I think it's highly likely it was signed that day at least by Henry, Ben flowers and Guy Morton.

[Fandom0610]

Psa

[bigfanNY]

The old....Other memorabilia items have been certified with less...

COMBINED WITH ...Your words

"Almost everybody who signed the ball was at the game March 10th"]

So other soulless shit slingers have tossed less crap on a wall and some of it stuck...so why shouldn't I belive my crap will stick?

Why not lead with not everyone who signed the ball was there on March 10th 1954?

[bigfanNY]

I see you edited your post from today at 4:04 to remove your quote. Nice..

This is 2022 Letter from PSA calling it a 1954 Milwaukee team ball. Despite me saying it was a spring training ball with Braves and Red Sox.


But again you have this letter..

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

The old....Other memorabilia items have been certified with less...

COMBINED WITH ...Your words

"Almost everybody who signed the ball was at the game March 10th"]

So other soulless shit slingers have tossed less crap on a wall and some of it stuck...so why shouldn't I belive my crap will stick?

Why not lead with not everyone who signed the ball was there on March 10th 1954?

Ok here it goes "EVERYONE WHO SIGNED THE BALL WAS THERE ON MARCH 10TH 1954".

I seriously doubt the collector got Guy Morton's signature after that March 10th game when he was playing in North Carolina with the patriots when everyone on that ball was a active red sox/braves players. If you had ANYTHING to back up your claims I would be all ears, but I haven't seen one shred of evidence to back up what you're saying. Is it that you don't want it be from that date? There is a very high probability it was signed March 10th with all the evidence I have found. Of course I don't know 100% because I wasn't there obviously but with the evidence I do have its highly likely

[GoCubsGo32]

Welcome to NET54!

Awesome research & sweet early Aaron auto baseball!

On the topic of the Aaron ball, based on info above and some research on my own...

During the 1954 Spring Training & Exhib, Braves played Red Sox 8 times. x2 in March x6 in April
https://www.ebay.com/itm/38702336173...Bk9SR_Tr67L1Yw

Probably the dates I would focus most on is March 10th Braves vs. Red Sox Sarasota,FL & March 22nd Red Sox vs. Braves Bradenton, FL

Did Morton play in the March 22nd game? Even if wasn't he might of still been in camp based on what you mention from a March 25 newspaper he was sent down.

To me, as of now, hard to prove Aaron sign the ball on March 10th or March 22nd?

The side auto panel that has Aaron order goes...
Floyd Baker-Sox,
Jim Pendleton- Braves,
Bob Buhl- Braves
Henry Aaron-Braves
Bill Henry- Sox

With auto team style balls based on my experience, it's tough to catch and get everyone to sign in one day(hard, but not impossible for 24 players). I don't know where the original owner lived (local) or what they did, but Sarasota,FL & Bradenton, FL is only roughly 30 mins apart. Could of gotten some autographs from the March 10th game, then finished it up March 22nd.

Overall, it's a super nice very early Aaron and I would agree the ball is highly likely from March 1954.


Since this turned into an Aaron topic...it's now an Aaron photo section

Hank Aaron March 19th, 1956 New York Yankees vs. Milwaukee Braves in Bradenton, FL

[BigfootIsReal]

Originally Posted by Fandom0610

It doesn't matter if I've been here for 1 day or 10 years. This should be a place where people can make harmless suggestions to try and better this forum. The hobby is ALWAYS evolving and there is NOTHING wrong with trying to improve something. You sound like you're almost threatened by change. I was simply asking a question and my question was very legitimate considering the growing popularity of photo collecting. Don't be stuck in the past man.

Agree! WTF does the length of time being a member have to do with anything? After a "month" you magically become a genius? LMAO, any egos around here?

[Fandom0610]

Lol...I think Leon got PTSD when I mentioned something new.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Fandom0610

Lol...I think Leon got PTSD when I mentioned something new.

We try new things quite often. A seperate photo section just isn't needed. Lets see about 5+ new photo threads a day, in the memorabilia section, and from mostly different members, and we can go from there on making a new section. How about that?

.

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by Leon

We try new things quite often. A seperate photo section just isn't needed. Lets see about 5+ new photo threads a day, in the memorabilia section, and from mostly different members, and we can go from there on making a new section. How about that?

.

Sounds good!

[doug.goodman]

Do we need a photo section?

I refer you both to post #7 in this thread for my thoughts on the subject but, just to make it easier, here is my main point (again) :

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

You're right it doesn't matter how long you have been here before you can make suggestions, but it's bad form at the very least to walk into somebody's house and ask if they have ever thought about rearranging the furniture, then being offended when they say they like it they way it is.

This is Leon's house, he finds it comfortable the way it is arranged, but he has still rearranged things to accommodate requests on occasion, even when some of those requests have not been particularly successful (i.e. game used).

If this thread had hundreds (maybe even dozens) of responses saying "YES! we need a photo section" I'm confident that Leon would consider it.

But sadly (for those hoping for a tidal wave of photo section support), this thread has only 39 responses and 28 of them aren't in regards to your original question, they are about your Aaron ball.

Not including Leon's comment, there are six people who have responded to your thread and three of those only responded in regards to the ball.

Of the three of us who replied to your post asking why there isn't a photo thread, Snapolit1 thinks it's a good idea, BigFoot is concerned about the ability to rearrange furniture but didn't comment on the topic, and I'm not opposed to a photo section, but wouldn't vote in favor if I was asked.

So, it seems to me that the general consensus of the entire Net54 community, from those who have less than 10 posts to those who have multiple thousands of posts is, drum roll please....

"Eh"

[Bicem]

Would selfishly LOVE a photo section, think it would help increase the number of posts about photos, I know I would post more.

That said, I don't know all the time and effort it would take to implement and trust Leon to run the board as he sees fit.

Happy Memorial Day!

[perezfan]

Epic Photo Jeff... The perfect one to celebrate the day!

Sure, a separate Photo Section would be cool. But some of the most popular threads are already devoted to certain segments under the "Memorabilia Umbrella"...

The "Hey Pennant Guys" thread is the longest running of any on Net54, now approaching 2 Million views and exceeding 8,500 responses.

The "Anyone Collect Pins" thread is another monster, approaching 580,000 views and over 1,700 replies.

Then there's the "Ticket Collectors" thread with 532,000 views and nearly 1,100 responses.

So these popular segments do not need to be on the main page, or have their own separate section in order to thrive. Let's defer to Leon, as he has the "trial & error" experience to know what's best for the forum... not to mention he literally owns it!

[Fandom0610]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Do we need a photo section?

I refer you both to post #7 in this thread for my thoughts on the subject but, just to make it easier, here is my main point (again) :


This is Leon's house, he finds it comfortable the way it is arranged, but he has still rearranged things to accommodate requests on occasion, even when some of those requests have not been particularly successful (i.e. game used).

If this thread had hundreds (maybe even dozens) of responses saying "YES! we need a photo section" I'm confident that Leon would consider it.

But sadly (for those hoping for a tidal wave of photo section support), this thread has only 39 responses and 28 of them aren't in regards to your original question, they are about your Aaron ball.

Not including Leon's comment, there are six people who have responded to your thread and three of those only responded in regards to the ball.

Of the three of us who replied to your post asking why there isn't a photo thread, Snapolit1 thinks it's a good idea, BigFoot is concerned about the ability to rearrange furniture but didn't comment on the topic, and I'm not opposed to a photo section, but wouldn't vote in favor if I was asked.

So, it seems to me that the general consensus of the entire Net54 community, from those who have less than 10 posts to those who have multiple thousands of posts is, drum roll please....

"Eh"

Doug no disrespect but you really didn't need to come to Leon's rescue on this one. Houses need to be updated over time to keep things fresh and new. Times have changed since this forum has started I'm sure. It sounds like being stuck in the past is the theme around here. That's too bad. I'm 100% confident if there was a photo section it would gain alot of attention but it sounds like you and Leon are afraid to try something new. If it doesn't gain traction over time then remove it. But I've seen ALOT of posts from people sharing their photos and a section dedicated would hurt how???? Why wouldn't you try something new? I don't get it. Nothing wrong with being old school but you need to recognize that houses need renovation at times. Furniture gets outdated and needs replacement at times. There's a whole new generation of people getting into collecting. Photo collecting has increased exponentially. Would trying it hurt that much or are you that stuck in your ways that change bothers you?

[Fandom0610]

Also Doug I may be new to this forum but I have alot of knowledge and time in this hobby. I'm not speaking like I'm some 18yr old kid who is talking outta my a**. Try something new man. Don't be that guy who is threatened by change. This hobby is evolving everyday and photo collecting is HUGE. Maybe it would draw more future collectors to this forum

[Fandom0610]

But yet there's a section for basketball, cricket and tennis cards? I'd love to compare the number of cricket card Collectors to those who collect sports photography...make it make sense. If sports photography is under Memorabilia then why is their a separate section for basketball cards? Why wouldn't there just be a cards section and you could post any cards in there? You have cards all separated into different sections. Why not do that with memorabilia too?

[Fandom0610]

Ok I'm done complaining...lol...I guess this forum is always going to be a time capsule. Leon I think it's time you give the titanic a makeover

[BigfootIsReal]

Originally Posted by Fandom0610

Doug no disrespect but you really didn't need to come to Leon's rescue on this one. Houses need to be updated over time to keep things fresh and new. Times have changed since this forum has started I'm sure. It sounds like being stuck in the past is the theme around here. That's too bad. I'm 100% confident if there was a photo section it would gain alot of attention but it sounds like you and Leon are afraid to try something new. If it doesn't gain traction over time then remove it. But I've seen ALOT of posts from people sharing their photos and a section dedicated would hurt how???? Why wouldn't you try something new? I don't get it. Nothing wrong with being old school but you need to recognize that houses need renovation at times. Furniture gets outdated and needs replacement at times. There's a whole new generation of people getting into collecting. Photo collecting has increased exponentially. Would trying it hurt that much or are you that stuck in your ways that change bothers you?

Bingo!!! I really never thought about collecting Type 1's until about three weeks ago. I collect Jackie Robinson, now looking at some of his pics.

[doug.goodman]

Brandon -

Maybe you should start your own photo website?

Or, maybe you could start a photo thread on this site?

Or, you could start sharing a lot of your knowledge on whichever threads interest you instead of constantly posting on this thread. You have 32 posts here - 27 on this thread (1 asking a question, 26 complaining (again, your word) about the response) and 5 posts trying to prove the specific date of your cool signed Aaron ball, which is the same amount of cool no matter which day it was signed.

For what it's worth, I recently signed up to the Trading Card Database website. I noticed that their m114 section was small, and missing a bunch of scans. When I sent them the missing scans and attempted to list some other years of the issue I received a note from the site that they do not count m114s as cards. When I pointed out the contradiction of having some m114s but not allowing others, they didn't care, so I cancelled my membership.

Just sayin...