What cards present you with a moral quandary?

[calvindog]

Lololol

[BlueDevil89]

I simply can't collect OJ cards any longer. I just can't.

I don't have a problem with Pete Rose cards. I personally don't believe he ever threw a game (would need to see some evidence), even though I'm quite confident he bet on the Reds to win while he was managing games. Then again, I have no problem collecting players from the Black Sox scandal, so why should I hesitate to buy a Pete Rose card?

Not interested in collecting the steriod-player cards. I think of them as cheaters.

The German issue is one I haven't given a lot thought. I guess if I knew that the company issuing the cards was directly responsible for atrocities, I would avoid those cards. However, just because a German company existed and operated during the WWII period, I wouldn't necessarily make an assumption about its politics. I'd have to know there was documentation of direct involvement in or support for the atrocities by the company issuing the cards to make the decision to drop them from my collection.

[E93]

For a long time I resisted Cap Anson because of his role in segregating the game.
JimB

[fkw]

Ive had this 1937 Lou Gehrig Tijuana Bible bookmarked for a couple months now, but cant really see buying it....

Ive seen a dozen over the years FOR SALE, but never seen the inside of one (Leon you have one right?)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=150535569688

[geor952]

Originally Posted by E93

For a long time I resisted Cap Anson because of his role in segregating the game.
JimB

JimB,
As soon as I saw this thread I immediately thought of Mr. Anson. From what I have read his racism was more than just being a product of his times.

[abothebear]

Being so distant from the game of 80+ years ago sometimes it is the historical character of a player's career that sets them apart and gives a card a story. When I see a card for sale for someone like Ben Chapman for instance, I can't really conceptualize his game in the same way I can for someone like Jim Edmonds or Alan Trammell. But I do recall what I've read of his racism. And in that case, it makes me more interested in his card than I would otherwise be... not because I approve of racism, but because it gives the card a story. It doesn't matter how ugly the story may be, a card that is "common" to me becomes uncommon.

That being said, for players I do know from my own experience, their extra-curricular story sometimes dissuade me from pursuing their cards. I wouldn't refuse a good deal on an A-Rod or Bonds or Clemens card, but I don't look for them either. But in 25 years I might think differently, when their place in the history of the game becomes more permanently engraved in the grand story.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by E93

For a long time I resisted Cap Anson because of his role in segregating the game.
JimB

Hmmm interesting Jim. I agree with you and based off that I can’t begin to imagine how those horrible Cobb cards you own must make you feel knowing how openly racist he was as well. As a fellow board member and good soul the least I could do is take those off your hands, so you can rest at ease. Let me know if you need my address, as a final gesture I’ll cover the shipping.

Cheers,

John

[abothebear]

As I continue to think about it, guys like OJ, Rose, Bonds, and the like, still are in the process of being judged by history. This may make associating with them via collecting their cards awkward for some. But go back 50 years and judgement has been passed and virtually fixed on those guys. By associating with them via collecting their cards the judgement is included, accounted for, and can add to the collecting value.