Spalding, Reach and other cut outs sold on our BST

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

It's more ridiculous when someone tells us how we should discuss things in a discussion forum. Next time you post and it's not a direct, clear and concise response to the exact question the OP posted, I'll be sure to let you know that you are ridiculous.

What's even more ridiculous is when one doesn't know the difference between a discussion and a poll.

In other words, vote and move on. No need to impose your views on everybody else (especially 11 times in the same thread).

[freakhappy]

Cutting up magazines gets me amped!!!

I can see why people wouldn't like others cutting up old magazines and would rather see them preserved, but it's okay if they want to do so. Just like it's okay if someone chooses to trim a baseball card...it's theirs to do so! Do I like it, absolutely not, but that's not my decision.

I do believe they should be allowed to sell it here if they wish...there is obviously a market for them and they look great. I love the looks of these magazines and don't believe I would ever cut them out unless the mag was falling apart. I don't blame anyone if they decide to frame a page or cut anything out in it because unless you reprint the page, how else are you going to display some of these wonderful pics? I think there are much bigger issues in this hobby than worrying about some magazines getting cut up.

[Jeffrompa]

How about cutting up T202's and selling them as 3 pieces ?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's even more ridiculous is when one doesn't know the difference between a discussion and a poll.

In other words, vote and move on. No need to impose your views on everybody else (especially 11 times in the same thread).

David, I enjoy your discussions, but you are not moderator material.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Jeffrompa

How about cutting up T202's and selling them as 3 pieces ?

A Walter Johnson did this past week. Sorry you missed it

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=182501

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's even more ridiculous is when one doesn't know the difference between a discussion and a poll.

In other words, vote and move on. No need to impose your views on everybody else (especially 11 times in the same thread).

I believe this is both a discussion AND a poll (or a discussion WITH a poll, if you prefer). Yes, there is a poll at the top of the page, but Leon also asked for "Any thoughts?" in the initial post. I believe all of the subsequent posts qualify as thoughts, whether they agree with my own thoughts on the subject or not.

[nolemmings]

I voted no, and agree with the comments of those who find it distressing that books and periodicals are hacked so that pics may be harvested. I would very much prefer that such monstrosities be kept off the B/S/T and that those who wish to collect them be required to look elsewhere.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Jeffrompa

How about cutting up T202's and selling them as 3 pieces ?

Actually, I've had a few of them over the years. Ditto a 4-on-1 exhibit cut. If I can get a major HOFer end piece from a T202 for a few bucks I'd pick it up just for the novelty of it.

The items we are discussing are not singular works of art; despite their often aesthetically pleasing graphics, they are essentially mass-produced low cost items. Treating a Reach guide that can be had for well under fifty bucks with the same reverence as a 1,300 year old hand-illuminated manuscript is a false equivalence. There is a hierarchy of preservation-worthiness to everything in the art and collectibles sphere. An old magazine falls pretty low down that spectrum.

I find the idea that refusing to allow these items somehow strikes a blow for preservation of baseball history to be rather silly. Even assuming for the sake of discussion that a beater Reach guide is worth preserving, whether or not cuts from them are sold here will not 'save' one item from the cutting shears. As is the case with many other things [like paper conservation techniques], I think our hobby is once again debating whether to try to close the barn door as the horse runs down the road. People have been cutting up books and magazines for a very long time; illustration sales are a normal and accepted part of every vintage paper fair I've ever attended. Designers and decorators have been framing and using them for years. Cut materials are found throughout the National as well; just take a look around at the Harper's woodcuts.

I am not comfortable banning items solely based on origin as long as they were accurately described. It is too difficult to do without making judgment calls that simply are not appropriate for an ostensibly free market. Is it OK to sell a Harper's woodcut? How about a page from a Police Gazette? If so, why is that "better" than an illustration from a Reach guide? All were removed from publications they were intended to be part of. I really don't want N54 to make that judgment call for me. I am also confident that if the market is allowed to work, it will work. If you believe that the customers will dictate whether an item is worth buying, then let the items be sold with proper disclosures. If no one buys the items here, the sellers will go away.

Finally, I am not a fan of dictating to other collectors what they can collect. Everyone has their own style and desire and budget for collecting. I am not comfortable telling those collectors who value a cut item for whatever reason that they are not welcome here, that their collection sucks, etc. I collect plates removed from old books. It is often the only way to get a career-contemporary [or close to it] item depicting an athlete. I'd hate to think that someone would tell me 'sorry, you can't buy or sell a Tom Molineaux print for your HOF collection because it was once in a book'.

[ullmandds]

I would guess in the past kids would cut up T202's or exhibit 4 in 1's for whatever reasons...but it would be counterintuitive from a value standpoint to do so today.

I used to be very turned off by T202 end panels from a collecting standpoint...but these days I see it is a more reasonable way to collect some really beautiful vintage cards.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's even more ridiculous is when one doesn't know the difference between a discussion and a poll.

In other words, vote and move on. No need to impose your views on everybody else (especially 11 times in the same thread).

Discussion allows people to know why the believe the things they do to support their answers. Including myself there are at least two people that changed their opinion because of this discussion:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The more I think about it I am willing to change my initial vote to no from yes with the correct info.

The poll won't let me change, but I am voicing it here.

Originally Posted by ullmandds

While this concept is appalling to me...similar to cutting a cobb bat or ruth jersey into a million pieces.. I answered the survey based on the premise that this practice cannot be stopped.


but in retrospect I'd like to change my answer to no so as not to promote the buying or selling of this "Stuff."

Discussion within a poll is expected and promoted as pointed out:

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I believe this is both a discussion AND a poll (or a discussion WITH a poll, if you prefer). Yes, there is a poll at the top of the page, but Leon also asked for "Any thoughts?" in the initial post. I believe all of the subsequent posts qualify as thoughts, whether they agree with my own thoughts on the subject or not.

[slidekellyslide]

I have probably about 10-15 of these Spalding/Reach guide cutouts..all of the Lincoln team or the Nebraska Indians team. It was a cheap way (99 cents + shipping) to get team portraits of the teams I collect without having to buy each Spalding/Reach guide. I hope they came from damaged books, but I doubt it.

I bought this one as a companion piece for the postcard and cabinet photos I have because it named the players.

[tschock]

After reading the discussion and some thinking, my "No" vote really was an easy one to make. And it doesn't even conflict with my beliefs, that...

I abhor cutting up or otherwise destroying almost anything, whether it is 2 years old or 200 years old. Yet...

I totally believe that if you own something you can do with it what you please. And...

What is permissible to cut up and what is not? I have less qualms about cutting up a "1990s magazine where the interior full-page picture of Clemente would look great framed" than a 100 year old guide, though that's not my decision to make for others. But at the same time...

We don't have to allow (or as some would say, promote) that on B/S/T.

Hence my "No" vote.

[bn2cardz]

I would like to hear from any of the 7 people that voted the straight out "yes" without voting for the yes with caveat. Were these just quick votes without reading all the options? Or are there actually people on here that believe it is OK to sell these without full disclosure of what they actually are?

[Rich Klein]

BUT, if the item is legitimate, the seller has a right to do whatever he or she wants to do. I know one dealer (who has passed on) who did nothing but cutting out things from magazines/papers. I know other people do this as well.

We can choose to buy or not buy these, but it is the seller's right. And if you are so upset about this, pay more then they do on EBay and buy the items yourself. If you complain and don't bid to own these, then you really have no say.

And on a modern example -- how about the 1954-55 Sports Illustrated Cards im the 1st 2 issues and then in an 155 issue. Now these are probably more expensive when still in a full magazine;but, if you have a damaged magazine, then taking out these cards are fine. Do you have to disclose these are cutout -- well most collectors know,... My point is no one complains about those items. I think the biggest issue is the TPG but as long as legit and described properly, it *is* a legt collectible.

Someone posted a while back about what TPG's would not grade, yet here is another borderline case.

Rich

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

BUT, if the item is legitimate, the seller has a right to do whatever he or she wants to do. I.......

Rich

Not really....This is not a democracy. Jury is still out....

[Exhibitman]

Who is on the jury?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Who is on the jury?

me


and as you know Adam, 99% of the time I fall into your line of thinking. All that rhetoric being regurgitated, I can't imagine the board overwhelmingly not wanting, or wanting, something and us not doing what the vast majority would want. So far it looks like they will be allowed in the correct section and with full disclosure.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Leon

Not really....This is not a democracy. Jury is still out....

I was actually referring more to outside the BST realm. However, once you allow them with a caveat, everyone is going to say they were cutout from old falling apart publications. Thus, the realist in me says, if you allow them with the caveat, then just allow them period.

[ElCabron]

I am 100% against the cutting out and chopping up of vintage pieces. Having said that, I don't see why there should be any issue with them being sold on the BST, providing they are described accurately. VERY accurately. Where it gets sketchy is when pieces are chopped up and then those pieces are slabbed and sold as something being presented just like a card, even if they are not outright described as a "card." That seems very misleading to me and a novice collector could easily get burned.

-Ryan

[barrysloate]

The same way a show promoter is allowed to tell a dealer that only vintage material can be displayed and not shiny stuff, or to say no beanie babies are allowed at the show, Leon is free to prohibit these cutouts from the BST. It has nothing to do with ethics or anyone's right to cut them up, it's how he wants the board to look. It's his board, so he decides. He is simply taking input to help come up with a decision.

[Runscott]

The discussion has been great - you couldn't pick a more appropriate group of collectors to discuss such an issue, unless you were able to get Libertyforall and a couple of old book dealers to join in. I'm surprised that the majority of our group supports this practice, but I do realize that the goal of most is to get their item for their collection, and will do any rationalizing necessary.

My suspicion is that now that this practice is 'Net 54'-approved, we'll see more people purchasing these books with the idea of cutting out pictures for their collections, or for re-sell.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The discussion has been great - you couldn't pick a more appropriate group of collectors to discuss such an issue, unless you were able to get Libertyforall and a couple of old book dealers to join in. I'm surprised that the majority of our group supports this practice, but I do realize that the goal of most is to get their item for their collection, and will do any rationalizing necessary.

My suspicion is that now that this practice is 'Net 54'-approved, we'll see more people purchasing these books with the idea of cutting out pictures for their collections, or for re-sell.

I hope we aren't assisting the support of this practice, but sadly, I agree, that I think we are.. Having said that, I do own a few of these. One is an older woodcut, that I greatly trust was from a "damaged" book. Mostly, I purchased a handful for framing and display, which I'm fairly confident were taken from good books.. Although, I will admit there are a few that I cherish as collectibles(although, I probably shouldn't). The 1893 Cleveland team, with Cy and others, plus a few that are probably the only career contemporary items that my collection will ever see of Sockalexis, Moonlight Graham, and a few negro leaguers.. Another small handful act as placeholders in(or supplemental to) my HOF rookie(pre-rookie) collection(only if they pre-date anything else released of a player).

But like I said, I'm fairly confident that all but 2 or 3 of the dozen or so that I own came from good books, which does make me sad, and perhaps a bit angry.. And it is fairly easy to tell if they came from badly damaged books or not..

[Runscott]

David, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Based on these discussions, I actually feel that maybe I'm overemphasizing the historical value of these books. As Adam says, they are not priceless illuminated books, and on the other end of the spectrum they aren't modern magazines. They are somewhere in-between. Perhaps the best you can do, if it's important to you, is to build your own library of original books. They haven't gone up in price over the last ten years, despite the cut-outs, so it's possible that there are so many of them available that we have an endless supply

[drcy]

It's not a simple topic. My usual rule is 'as long as it is described accurately.' However, I'm against the destruction of books and similar. However, many cutouts pictures and such are found in old albums and on old autographed index cards, and I don't think should ban the sale of those things cut out 100 years ago. If you look at a kid's Victorian album you'll see all sorts of cutouts and long ago handmade 'diecuts' mixed in with the trade cards and scraps.

So I'll say they can be sold as long as they are accurately described. But I'll voice my opinion (I said opinion not rule) that books shouldn't be destroyed in modern times.

And, realize, that if you ban book and magazine cutout pictures, you'd have to ban the sale of cutout Harper's Woodcuts to be consistent. I'm pretty sure even the purists don't mean to ban the sale of Harper's Woodcuts and have even sold them. As I said, it's not a black and white topic. Some Police Gazette 'supplements' are full page pictures from the magazine with article text on the back, though I suspect the publisher half expected, or even intended, that many would cut them out. Likely, most on the market were removed from the magazine when the magazine came out.

Though the woodcuts can be removed as part of the whole pages without scissors, as the magazine pages were loose and folded like the standard newspaper. No staples or binding involved. On the other hand, some might argue that removing loose pages from the rest of the magazine is still a sort of destruction. The famous Leslie's Illustrated James Creighton woodcut is a middle two page spread with a fold line down the middle. It's not cut out, but was removed from the publication.

For the record, I'm not against the selling of Harper's Woodcuts.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

And, realize, that if you ban book and magazine cutout pictures, you'd have to ban the sale of cutout Harper's Woodcuts to be consistent.

David, I don't understand this logic at all. Reach Guides were sold with photos as support for the text. Harper's woodcuts were sold with full-page woodcuts that were sometimes even hand-painted at the time, the publishers creating a product that was more appealing because it had pages that images that could be removed. Plus, it was a newspaper, not a book. I frequently tear articles, etc., out of my daily newspaper without thinking twice about it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by drcy

It's not a simple topic. My usual rule is 'as long as it is described accurately.' However, I'm against the destruction of books and similar. However, many cutouts pictures and such are found in old albums and on old autographed index cards, and I don't think should ban the sale of those things cut out 100 years ago. If you look at a kid's Victorian album you'll see all sorts of cutouts and long ago handmade 'diecuts' mixed in with the trade cards and scraps. Plus, Harper's Woodcuts were cut out of the magazines, sometimes long ago and sometimes just recently.

So I'll say they can be sold as long as they are accurately described. But I'll voice my opinion (I said opinion not rule) that books shouldn't be destroyed in modern times.

And, realize, that if you ban book and magazine cutout pictures, you'd have to ban the sale of cutout Harper's Woodcuts to be consistent. I'm pretty sure even the purists don't mean to ban the sale of Harper's Woodcuts and have even sold them. As I said, it's not a black and white topic. Some Police Gazette 'supplements' are full page pictures from the magazine with article text on the back, though I suspect the publisher half expected, or even intended, that many would cut them out. Likely, most on the market were removed from the magazine when the magazine came out.

For the record, I'm not against the selling of Harper's Woodcuts.

Though the woodcuts can be removed as part of the whole pages without scissors, as the magazine pages were loose and folded as with a modern newspaper. No staples or binding involved. On the other hand, some might argue that removing loose pages from the rest of the magazine is still a sort of destruction. The famous Leslie's Illustrated James Creighton woodcut is a middle two page spread with a fold line down the middle. It's not cut out, but was removed from the publication.

That's sort of what I'm thinking.

If they're banned outright, then there's a whole list of stuff that also could be or should be.
The "cards" published in newspapers.
1910 orange borders
70's Hostess card singles.
The 6 card panels from Dynamite magazine, either cut or just removed.
partial Topps AD panels

All of those were intended to be cut out, which makes a bit of a difference.


And on the opposite end of things......
One of the things in the huge magazine and book batch was a book that would actually be pretty valuable in good condition. A book with a little text, and I think 12 or so plates of women done by one of the famous artists like Christy or Gibson(I forget exactly who) What I got was a water damaged copy with none of the plates. But since the plates are available from other people that remove them, I could eventually reassemble the book. I haven't pursued it because the cost of plates while less than a nice copy is more than a crummy one.

Steve B

[drcy]

I agree that the Harper's publisher may have assumed many of the woodcuts would be removed and may have even printed the full page spreads for people to put on their walls. Irrelevant to publisher's intent (which I don't know), it was reader fashion to remove the woodcuts. I also agree that cutting up a hardbound book is commonly perceived differently than cutting out clippings from yesterday's newspaper. But many would say taking a scissors today to a complete Harper's Weekly is destruction and the magazine should be left in whole-- irrelevant to what the original publisher intended or subscribers thought.

It's not a black and white topic and things can be viewed from different angles and sentiments.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Runscott

...my daily newspaper...

They still make those?

[drcy]

I add that I also understand that the Reach and other guides are thick information and statistical sources for historians and researchers, such as Scott, and cutting them apart hinders research. If I bought a Reach guide for research and found 20 pages removed, I'd be pissed-- irrelevant to how the destruction effects the market value of the book. Same as if I got Catcher in the Rye and discovered halfway through that pages 115 and 210-12 are missing. That copy would be a waste of money if I got it for free.

[MW1]

Absolutely no. Cutouts should not be allowed to be sold either her or on eBay for two compelling reasons:

1. A "cut out" picture is an alteration of the original page it come from. Like an altered sports card, it should not be given a numerical grade, much less encapsulated at all (see below).

2. "Cut outs" are typically produced on thin paper and usually involve rudimentary printing methods. As such, they would be much easier to counterfeit or duplicate than actual sports cards. Allowing these types of items to be sold is like opening Pandora's box. If there's a legitimate demand for such things, collectors would be better off buying the publication and doing the cutting themselves. Sports cards that were produced to be collected and traded are an entirely different entity than paper cut-outs. It's like the difference between a studio portrait and a polaroid.

Edited to add:

I have one other thought on this subject. Many of the cut-outs, particularly those from Spalding and other similar baseball guides, are usually seen in graded holders of some kind. If cut-outs were a legitimate, stand-alone collectible, you would see similar quantities available for sale that were "raw" or ungraded. But you don't. That, to me, is clear evidence that there is an effort on the part of sellers to deceive and that cut-outs themselves, are a contrived collectible.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

Absolutely no. Cutouts should not be allowed to be sold either her or on eBay for two compelling reasons:

..... Sports cards that were produced to be collected and traded are an entirely different entity than paper cut-outs. It's like the difference between a studio portrait and a polaroid.

Really Mike? There can't be any "tweeners?"

[packs]

I don't think they should be sold here only because they could be misleading. Perhaps not to the initial buyer on the board, but I'm thinking of the next buyer.

eBay is a fine enough venue in my opinion. This board has more of a generally advanced collector community.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Leon

Really Mike? There can't be any "tweeners?"

Leon,

Please see my additional comment above. Also, I don't view those items as "tweeners." Clearly, they were produced to be collected, clipped, or traded in some fashion. That's why many of them have labels like "baseball cards" or "sports stamps." A cut out picture of Babe Ruth or Joe Jackson from a 1916 Reach Baseball guide is something totally different.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

Leon,

Please see my additional comment above. Also, I don't view those items as "tweeners." Clearly, they were produced to be collected, clipped, or traded in some fashion. That's why many of them have labels like "baseball cards" or "sports stamps." A cut out picture of Babe Ruth or Joe Jackson from a 1916 Reach Baseball guide is something totally different.

Fair enough, I guess I missed the additional comment. That being said I have a cut out or two in my collection to go with cards or other pieces. They are true cut outs from mags and I like them.

I am mostly, strongly against cutting up "good" vintage anything. I know I have a smaller Pelicans team cut out with Jackson on it and it goes with a larger piece I have. I think I paid about $8 for it. I am happy with it.

The voting is about 2-1 in favor of (including not caring) letting them be sold on the BST with mandatory transparency and in the correct section. So far I haven't been convinced or have reasoning to go against that overwhelming majority.

To those that would say "well, if they are sold here, no worries but what about the next sale?" That is another fair question and my answer is I hope people are honest and transparent. And I don't think by "allowing" them to be sold on the BST we are necessarily asking for the pubs to be cut up. But by allowing their sale I know it is debatable.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

Absolutely no. Cutouts should not be allowed to be sold either her or on eBay for two compelling reasons:

1. A "cut out" picture is an alteration of the original page it come from. Like an altered sports card, it should not be given a numerical grade, much less encapsulated at all (see below).

2. "Cut outs" are typically produced on thin paper and usually involve rudimentary printing methods. As such, they would be much easier to counterfeit or duplicate than actual sports cards. Allowing these types of items to be sold is like opening Pandora's box. If there's a legitimate demand for such things, collectors would be better off buying the publication and doing the cutting themselves. Sports cards that were produced to be collected and traded are an entirely different entity than paper cut-outs. It's like the difference between a studio portrait and a polaroid.

Edited to add:

I have one other thought on this subject. Many of the cut-outs, particularly those from Spalding and other similar baseball guides, are usually seen in graded holders of some kind. If cut-outs were a legitimate, stand-alone collectible, you would see similar quantities available for sale that were "raw" or ungraded. But you don't. That, to me, is clear evidence that there is an effort on the part of sellers to deceive and that cut-outs themselves, are a contrived collectible.

Someone sells a cut out that is described as a cut out and I buy it as such, is contrived?

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Leon

Someone sells a cut out that is described as a cut out and I buy it as such, is contrived?

If it is graded like a baseball card with a "1 to 10" rating, then yes.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

If it is graded like a baseball card with a "1 to 10" rating, then yes.

Who brought up all of that? I was just talking about a cut out, not other aspects of the argument. (grading, ethics etc...)

I do see where you mention the grading ....but I wasn't referring to that. I probably didn't communicate that very well.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Leon

Someone sells a cut out that is described as a cut out and I buy it as such, is contrived?

I would also add that perception is key here. Allowing the sale of cut-outs as a type of sports collectible opens the door to many items being termed legitimate, including pieces cut from pennants, logos cut from jerseys, etc.

If one third of a T202 or one half of a T201 isn't an authentic baseball card by itself, then how can a photo cut from a baseball guide be construed as a stand-alone collectible as legitimate as a baseball card?

I have no issue with ungraded pieces of paper exchanging hands for money, but when you see these same scraps, quite often with unrelated text on their reverses, selling for $50, $100, or even more in holders where a 1 to 10 grade is assigned, you're implicitly telling the customer that they are receiving a sports collectible/card meant to be marketed as such. And the fact that a disclaimer even has to be attached to such an item should tell us something about what is being sold.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

I would also add that perception is key here. Allowing the sale of cut-outs as a type of sports collectible opens the door to many items being termed legitimate, including pieces cut from pennants, logos cut from jerseys, etc.

If one third of a T202 or one half of a T201 isn't an authentic baseball card by itself, then how can a photo cut from a baseball guide be construed as a stand-alone collectible as legitimate as a baseball card?

I have no issue with ungraded pieces of paper exchanging hands for money, but when you see these same scraps, quite often with unrelated text on their reverses, selling $50, $100, or even more in holders where a 1 to 10 grade is assigned, you're implicitly telling the customer that they are receiving a sports collectible/card meant to be marketed as such. And the fact that a disclaimer even has to be attached to such an item should tell us something about what is being sold.

I am not really an "it opens the door" kind of guy on most things. I feel we should analyze things one at a time on their own merits.

We both agree on the grading of them. I have long argued against giving numeric grades to hand cut cards, especially with no caveat. I agree with you on that. However, as for the disclaimers they are there for a reason and can warn against danger. I like them on flips.

[drcy]

I'm generally not in favor of banning the sale of items (that's not an absolute rule, and I'm sure I could think of exceptions). I do think things must be accurately described so the buyer understands what is being purchased (I don't accept the usual eBay scammer's "Technically, I didn't lie. I never said it was a card" lines. You can lie via omission, such as omitting the fact that you yourself cut the picture out of a magazine). However, while I'm not for banning things and am not for telling people what they should or should not collect, I would support rules about in which categories they can be sold. As has already been mentioned, there can be the rule that they can't be sold in the card sections. If someone put an autographed baseball in the Post-War card section, Leon might move it to the autographs collection and there would be no complaints.

My problem is collectors often want to ban things based on sentiment or prevailing taste. That someone says Spalding Guide cutouts should be banned but not cutout Harper's Woodcuts is a demonstration of this. Their distinction between the two is sentimental. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with sentiment, and I perceive and value Harper's Woodcuts differently than Spalding Guide cutouts, but the topic here is about banning the sale of.

[Runscott]

....

[drcy]

I'll testify that Scott's a purist. He eats the entire bag of potato chips in one bite, because he thinks it would be unethical to remove one chip from the set. I keep telling him I think its okay to at least remove the chips from the bag first, but he says "No, I want to go to Heaven." All I know is I hope Heaven has an Internist.

[Runscott]

....

[drcy]

It was a joke. I avoid the use of emoticons, so there is sometimes some confusion. I already stated I'm against cutting up books, and, in fact, wouldn't cut out a Harper's Woodcut either. We're disagreeing about philosophy (and psychology) not practice.

Besides, to be candid, I think my points and analogies were sound. I fail to see how someone in 2010 cutting up a Harper's Weekly for its pictures is so different than cutting up a Spalding Guide.

One point is I never used sentimental as a derogatory term. Collecting is a sentimental activity. When some says he thinks Spalding Guides or Babe Ruth bats should be left intact, that's a sentiment I agree with. I merely said I didn't think it was a reason to ban items.

[drcy]

It should be noted that woodcuts are considered different than many Spalding and Reach Guide photos because woodcuts are handmade original works of art, while the guide photos are reproductions of photos or art. The woodcuts were printed from hand carved or engraved woodblocks,-- the way Durer and Picasso did it--, while the guide photos have the dot patterns of modern newspaper photos. For most of the 19th century, newspapers and magazines didn't have the modern reproductive technology and the pictures were made by hand.

That's a point apart from the cutouts debate on this thread, but explains why woodcuts are valued differently than cutouts from 20th century newspapers, magazines and books.

And I was just joking when I called Scott a 'sentimental fool.' I assumed it was obvious, but humor can be lost in translation on a chatboard.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by drcy

Some Police Gazette 'supplements' are full page pictures from the magazine with article text on the back...

While I agree with your thread, and the "grey area / slippery slope" nature of our "discussion" just as a point of fact, all of the PG supplements were separate issues with blank backs, but many of the pictures used were at different times also printed in the newspaper as complete pages.

As an example, in addition to the Home Run Baker supplement issued 12-9-1911, there are at least three different times the same photo was printed as a full page in other issues of Police Gazette, at least one as late as July 1918.

While I'm not a fan of destroying guides for their pages, I do own lots of Police Gazette pages, which is obviously a bit contradictory.

[drcy]

Several years ago I won a collection of PGs and they came in both versions-- the blank back supplements and the pages from the magazine. First time I had ever had any.

[Runscott]

....

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

While I agree with your thread, and the "grey area / slippery slope" nature of our "discussion" just as a point of fact, all of the PG supplements were separate issues with blank backs, but many of the pictures used were at different times also printed in the newspaper as complete pages.

As an example, in addition to the Home Run Baker supplement issued 12-9-1911, there are at least three different times the same photo was printed as a full page in other issues of Police Gazette, at least one as late as July 1918.

While I'm not a fan of destroying guides for their pages, I do own lots of Police Gazette pages, which is obviously a bit contradictory.

I think with the Police Gazette supplements, the only ones that are actually supplements are the ones that actually say supplement on them. All others are nothing more than pages from a magazine. Not much different than the m114 "baseball magazine" premiums, where we see people listing the inside cover photos as the premiums too, when they're not at all the same thing. I will admit that I'm not fully educated on the PG's though, as I only own 1. The 1916 Sisler rookie.