Do you pay extra for a card from a famous collector?

[steve B]

I would maybe pay a slight premium. Or if two cards were equal the one from a well known collector might be the one I buy.

I have other stuff from the collections of well known collectors, and it's cool, knowing for instance that FDR owned and collected it.

[DCJayhawk]

I would say it would depend on the card and set in question. I Personally have paid a premium for a famous card, but also a regular price for a different collectors card.

I also enjoy having cards with the provenance from a famous find/collector in my collection.

I have Lionel Carter's T 206 Harry Pattee, Zappala's Bill Shipke, Charles Bray's Jimmy Burke, and cards from the Sky dash, Endicott, and one other find.

[LEHR]

I personally wouldn't pay a premium for an item owned by a famous collector; but I would pay a small premium for items coming directly from a players estate.

[brianp-beme]

I always view my Buck Barker cards (quite often from Zeenut sets, his frequent target for his player research scribbles) as part of the history and development of the hobby, and value them quite a bit more than I would the same Zeenut in better condition with just a plain old blank back.

Brian

[parkplace33]

Unless Burdick or Barker, no.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by LEHR

I personally wouldn't pay a premium for an item owned by a famous collector; but I would pay a small premium for items coming directly from a players estate.

How about Dmitri Young?

[Kco]

My high grade Ruth Single comes with provenance from the family of the original owner and was one of several high grade baseballs he had personally acquired from a young age until he passed. He was from an affluent family with access throughout his life and the ball(s) were in his possession until he passed. So I definitely err on the side of provenance where I can. Did I pay slightly more for that vs a "mystery" single signed Ruth single? probably a little but the little bit more I paid would come back in multiples should I decide to sell so I am ok with the added element of authenticity.

I will say, I feel this rule applies MORE with autographs than it does with cards unless the cards are part of a very prominent find or collection.

[oldjudge]

Yes, but I'm not sure what the premium would be. I am proud to have cards once owned by Keith Mitchell, Lew Lipset, Jim Blumenthal, Buck Barker and Keith Olbermann, among others. They mean more to me than just the comparable card from another source.

[LEHR]

Originally Posted by EddieP

How about Dmitri Young?

Nope, not at all.

A Cobb photo coming directly from the Cobb estate; yes, I'd pay a premium for that. But a PSA 10 card that some modern sports figure just decided to collect; I wouldn't pay an extra dime.

[MVSNYC]

Originally Posted by LEHR

I personally wouldn't pay a premium for an item owned by a famous collector; but I would pay a small premium for items coming directly from a players estate.

I'm probably in this camp, but would pay a premium for a card that belonged to Jim B, as he was a friend of mine.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

I'm probably in this camp, but would pay a premium for a card that belonged to Jim B, as he was a friend of mine.

For me. I would pay a very small premium for a pedigreed card that was from an old timer.

I probably overpaid for these 2 but they are the plate specimens for Lew's Encycolepedia of Baseball Cards...



.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I would pay a slight premium for a Frank Nagy or Lionel Carter card, but not anything crazy above market. I like having cards from the old hobby guys in my personal collection. I could care less about some modern athlete's cards though.



.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I would pay a slight premium for a Frank Nagy or Lionel Carter card, but not anything crazy above market. I like having cards from the old hobby guys in my personal collection. I could care less about some modern athlete's cards though.

.

True.
I never understood the reasoning for the "Collectors Collection" either....wtf

.