This *KILLS* me

[Archive]

Posted By: James Verrill

I see this kind of "impractical desecration" - and I want to drop to my knees and weep.

Whether you collect these cards or not (M116s) - it's horrible to have to witness this kind of abuse.

Maybe I'm dramatic. In fact, yes - yes I am, dramatic.

But, as a person that collects cards from this era because he appreciates the beauty - not just the value, of each of these cards - I must not attempt to conceal how it absolutely destroys me to have to see that "could have been".

Oh - you wonder which cards, right?

Well - take a peek at this, and some of his others, and be sure to inspect the backs of the cards. Seeing it is like seeing an enormous gemstone at the center of a bed of killer black snakes.

These cards have phenomenal eye appeal, and they possess an artistic presence superior to many of the mass-produced cards during that decade in the very beginning of the early twentieth century.

Anyway - it's good to have a place to vent, isn't it?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2750534971&category=31719

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Cornell

No card was safe from Buck's bios...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Let's not be too hasty here. Stan's shopping list may have some value.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H.

At least its not the Covaleskie in the HOF -- its his older brother (I think).

[Archive]

Posted By: julie

He printed, fairly neatly, across the back of the card.
My McMullin with Barker writing has every detail of his career on a separate line, beginning with his height, weight and first name. Had a hard time reading the next-to-last line "1920: inel." someone finally told me, followed by, on last one, BLACKSOX.

[Archive]

Posted By: julie

It probably IS Barker. The McMullin is a Zeenut, with a blank back, so it was easy to write neatly and evenly. The M116 has printing all over the back. But the information the writer tried to squeeze around the printing is the same sort of thing: first name, vital statistics, career details. Sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[Archive]

Posted By: julie

I'm proud of my Barker writing on the back of my (fair) McMullin Zeenut. A memorable collector, he leaves evidence of a time when all cards didn't have to be pristine to be worth something (not much!), and people didn't treat them like crown jewels.

I know it lowers the value of the card somewhat, but I also like my OJ Mickey Welch with his w-l record all over the back. It doesn't quite match the w-l record in the Baseball Encyclopedia, and I always wonder which is closer to the truth...

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Pictures are great, but as a kid it was the stats on the back that I really had fun with. I hated the cards that had totals and one line of "previous year" stats. If I was a 9-yr old in 1911 and had access to stats, I probably would have written them on the back as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

If you are going to write on the back of a vintage card, please make it an m116

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I hated cards that only had last years stats. I wanted to look at the whole career. It was also interesting to see the minor league numbers too

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

Just to confirm Julie's reassessment, this is a Buck Barker back, as I own dozens of them. Once you realize this fact, you actually might appreciate the fact that this card is directly linked to one of the pioneers of our hobby. It's not desecration--I feel the writing is more like a badge of honor.

As I asked before in a previous thread about Buck Barker (and received no response), can anyone tell us all that he did for the hobby? All I have been able to figure out is that he perhaps helped research and identify the players pictured in vintage baseball issues, especially those depicting minor league players.

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

James--Your whining says alot about your lack of knowledge of the history of the hobby. Without Buck Barker's work, and work done by a handful of other cartophilic pioneers, the hobby that we love today might not exist.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Let's not get testy here. I can definitely see James' point on the writing. If I was (were?) working a set and needed a specific card that I'd had trouble finding in acceptable condition, the fact that Buck Barker wrote all over the back of an otherwise suitable card would definitely inspire a moment of mourning. However, Jay, I can also see how some collectors would consider an item with provenance from a major collector to be desirable to own. I probably would get a kick out of it too. As far as cards for a set, though, I am a condition bug and generally prefer no writing on the card unless it is the depicted person's autograph, in which case I am usually happy as a clam to receive it and put it into my set.

Say, here is an interesting question: should we be collecting collector memorabilia and autographs? Or is that too creepy?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Adam--Interesting point. I haven't really seen it in cards but the practice is common in coins. There it is really desireable to own a coin from a famous collection. Although I have several N172s with Buck's notes on the back, the best Buck Barker card I have is an Old Judge with his name and address stamped on the back. Although several old time collectors were prolific with their name stamps this is the only one I've ever seen from Buck.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

I think it is great a hobby legend owned them and they have provenance and all that but the simple truth is I bought the M116s because of the scarcity of the cards from the rare series, not because Buck once owned them. When I upgrade, they'll be on ebay, just like the Obaks I owned, which once belonged to Buck, were sold when upgrades became available...

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Baxter

This one was stamped by a collector named George Mayer.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2753127566&category=31719

[Archive]

Posted By: James Verrill

Jay,

Regarding your comment, earlier in this thread:

"Your whining says alot about your lack of knowledge of the history of the hobby. Without Buck Barker's work, and work done by a handful of other cartophilic pioneers, the hobby that we love today might not exist"

Have a bad hair day, Jay?

Rarely do I have the privilege to see this much sarcasm in one message.

So - I guess I owe you a thanks for providing this rare opportunity for me.

I was speaking in a more general sense - about the habit for young collector's to have defaced and abused their cards. I have seen alot of cards that, without ugly black script all over them, would be considered true high-end pieces.

It is an opinion, and I have a right to it. Regardless of your attempt to convince me otherwise.

James

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

From an opposite collecting viewpoint, one of my pet collecting areas is items (sublime to everyday to bizzarre) that belonged to famous people. As long as the overall aesthetics are preserved, some handwriting or marks raise the value. For example, I once owned several Ronald Reagan family photo albums, and Nancy Reagan had handwritten humorous camptions on the back of many of the snapshots (Hadn't realized she had a sense of humor). I owned two boxing books that belonged to the famed trainer Mannie Seamon (Joe Louis' trainer). In each book he underlined his name in ink every time it appeared, then created a front page index titled 'Mannie Seamon appears on' followed by the page numbers where his name appeared. Mannie was obviously very proud of himself.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

I would have to go back to my McMullin and (perhaps!) my OJ Welch--mainly the McMullin,though. Every sigle organized ball team Fred MCMullin played for is on the back of that card. I'm sure this kind of information was not easy to come by in those days. Teams, dates, position. The White Sox were his only major league team--and there must be 5 or six teams listed. So yes, I guess Barker treated every new acquisition of a player card like a research project.