Collecting 19th Century Woodcuts vs. 20th Century Original Photos

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by mcap100176

"The bottom line here is that I am trying to decide whether to keep my 19th Century woodcuts as my player representations for my HOF collection or replace them with cards or something else more widely accepted within the hobby? Keep in mind, my objective for my collection is to own the earliest image of each HOF'er and in many cases my woodcuts pre-date the player's earliest card by several years. "

Why not just collect the cards while keeping the woodcuts?

Michael

PS - I'll gladly take your woodcut collection for free if you want to give it up!

I'm with Michael on this one...but I'll have to one-up him (since I'm later to the post) by actually "paying" for your woodcut collection if you do decide to part with it...I'm guessing it'll be the HOF "rookie" collectors out there who are most interested in your woodcut collection.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks guys, tempting offers......... I think that you're right, Derek. It seems that only HOF Rookie collectors or at least "one-time" HOF Rookie collectors have an opinion on this subject. No one else has chimed in yet.

[oldjudge]

Do what you enjoy, but something cut out of a newspaper is not a card.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Do what you enjoy, but something cut out of a newspaper is not a card.

I almost always agree, with regard to cut-outs NOT being cards. But in the case of the NY Clipper and Harper's woodcuts - doesn't the collecting custom of the time matter? In other words, if people in the 19th century routinely cut the woodcuts out, and then collected and displayed them, perhaps even traded them, does this not impart a card-like quality? What did the publishers intend? I'm on the fence. Sure would save the modern collector money, haha!

[novakjr]

Ken, I completely agree. Just because "cards" eventually became the standard, it shouldn't lead us to automatically discredit or diminish any significant equivalent that came before.

[oldjudge]

Ken-When I was a kid i cut baseball pictures out of the newspaper and glued then in a scrapbook. They were newspaper clippings, not cards, and I never thought of them as cards. BTW, we never traded these, and I doubt people in the 19th century traded them either. They are fine to collect and interesting images. However, they are not cards. This doesn't diminish them or elevate them, they are what they are which is cut outs from a newspaper. The same goes for those who cut team pictures out of guides and have them graded. This is fine, but they are not cards either. Good business for the grading companies, but crazy if you ask me.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by triwak

I almost always agree, with regard to cut-outs NOT being cards. But in the case of the NY Clipper and Harper's woodcuts - doesn't the collecting custom of the time matter? In other words, if people in the 19th century routinely cut the woodcuts out, and then collected and displayed them, perhaps even traded them, does this not impart a card-like quality? What did the publishers intend? I'm on the fence. Sure would save the modern collector money, haha!

It imparts a collectability, but as Jay eloquently said, it's not a card. And I happen to like woodcuts and think they are underappreciated.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I happen to like woodcuts and think they are underappreciated.

I like them as well, and I appreciate that they are under appreciated.

Doug