Looks like he got the ball rolling...

Nice discussion, but all very subjective. I like N172's and T/E cards for different reasons, but I agree that in today's market, the 19th century stuff seems to be undervalued relative to how the scarcer deadball era stuff is selling.

OJ's have an almost mythical status considering the sheer size of the set as a whole. People are gaga for t206's but in reality, N172 is the mastadon to t206's elephant. In terms of aesthetics, there's something about a crisp OJ Kelly or Radbourn portrait that no lithographic T/E card can even come close to IMO. Hard to put into words but they just have a more distinguished feel to them.

But on the other hand, the color and aesthetics of a horizontal e92 Matty or E102 Cobb leaning on bat cannot by equaled by any sepia toned issue either. Again, all very subjective....others see them as flat and cartoonish. I guess I'm just a less discerning collector because I love them all

This thread has taken an interesting turn. I'll withhold my comments on the gonad/dairy product/fine art slant, but I will try to respond in kind.

I know it is difficult at times to publicly voice your opinions especially when they may contradict conventional thoughts. Jamie, I think you've touched on some interesting points though.

I'm surprised others have not commented on the merits of set collecting or type collecting. I am not either. There are definitely sets that I would be interested in collecting: T207, D304, etc. but I cannot justify the cost incurred acquiring some of the difficult common cards found in those sets. From my limited experience, the most cost effective way of putting together a set nowadays is by buying the complete set or buy a large lot of cards outright in an auction. Obviously this detracts from the attraction of assembling the set piece by piece and doesn't offer the same reward for your persistence, but I think in most cases it is cheaper monetarily.

Type collecting is an interesting choice and not one for the faint of heart or light of wallet. I can appreciate type collectors for their pursuit of the historical aspects of our hobby. The plethora of available issues makes this very daunting. I am constantly amazed by the cards that Leon posts; having acquired even the most desirable card of a set for his type collection. I'm not sure how you can suggest type collectors are responsible for the bidding wars present in auctions. As we all know, high quality popular pieces are always going to bring a lot of interest.

In regard to the absurd prices that some pieces bring, it's a very subjective matter. We all have friends who think we are unbalanced for even spending $100 on old cardboard. I have to agree with you wholeheartedly, the prices for rare backs etc seem grossly inflated. I think T206 collectors who have finished the set and haven't moved on to another set naturally gravitate toward more and more specific subsets of T206. I also think the Sporting Life cabinets are not very appealing. I have to disagree on T3s as I have a few. I think the Cobb is a good representation and one of the most beautiful cards in the hobby. I hope to have one someday. Now the Rube Waddell, I'd have to say his face looks like he has leprosy; not a good portrayal. I don't think the Dahlen you posted is the best representative of the set. The background colors of the Cobb and the grandstrand adds to its appeal in my opinion. Now if you want a poor representation, the T227 Ty "Telly Savalas" Cobb is the reigning champion in my opinion.

I am fond of Old Judges. I would definitely like to add more to my collection, but they seem to only trickle in at a slow rate. You mentioned the spotted tie series, which is cool. I can't offhand remember seeing any on eBay; I can only remember a significant portion of the subset being auctioned off recently. As I previously mentioned, the cost and difficulty of the pieces are going to be prohibitive to the majority of collectors. If I only picked up one card every 6 months or so, I would be okay but others would feel their interest wane over that time. Either way, we all like what we like. I definitely would like to pick up members of my subsets at softer prices.

I appreciate your thoughts gentlemen.

Bicem wrote:

ullmandds wrote:

But to call T3's ugly...and crude may be blasphemous to some!!!!!!

agreed... think this is the first time in the hobby I have ever heard someone call T3's ugly (and no I don't collect them, but can still appreciate their beauty).

Another ditto here - I always loved T3s but thought the prices on them were completely out of hand. In recent times, the prices have fallen to the point where I've picked up a few (still far from a T3 collector). Some of the T3s I find stunning, though I accept that aesthetics are subjective. Just picked up the Fred Clarke, which I find fantastic:



Jamie is never shy about stating his opinion, which I respect. I also have no interest in detracting in any way from his collection, which I like very much. But I like mine more...that's why I have it. I have almost zero interest in 19th century baseball. Why? Tough to say, but a major part of it is that I'm a huge fan of A.L. baseball - and my team the Red Sox. Both my team and its league did not exist in the 19th century. So I'm not drawn to it. Also I have a preference for players who toiled under more modern rules of baseball - to me (just my opinion) the 19th century game was a different game.

But thank God we all like different things, otherwise I could never afford to build a collection!

To each his own!

I agree, Blair, thank you for not collecting 19th Century material!

i love that t206 fred clarke pose, but the t3 really makes it pop! (like a hairy euro with too much 'logne POPPING the collar of his pink polo with the big-ass horse on it)

fisherboy7 wrote:

OJ's have an almost mythical status considering the sheer size of the set as a whole. People are gaga for t206's but in reality, N172 is the mastadon to t206's elephant. In terms of aesthetics, there's something about a crisp OJ Kelly or Radbourn portrait that no lithographic T/E card can even come close to IMO. Hard to put into words but they just have a more distinguished feel to them.

Thanks Ben, well put - I agree completely with this. I also like your description for the E-cards (and also T3's imo) that they can seem cartoonish. The 19th century sepia cards feel much more serious to me. To each his own!

Khartik,

The spotted ties are really expensive and they do come up occasionally, but since two or three are very rare, it is often as a partial set, like 13/16 cards. Then you are stuck because some of the veteran collectors possess the very rare ones and aren't going to sell.

If/when they do sell, it would probably be as one lot for the entire set so an interested collector might as well just wait then... and wait... and wait... and I hope you have an extra 75-100k lying around.

I will be very excited when a Cap in Uniform finally comes up for auction, just to see what it will really go for.

I love T3s because unlike their t206 counterparts, the background is still intact and makes them look that much better. That's why I've liked Obaks over t206s. Better backgrounds.

jbonie wrote:

The spotted ties are really expensive and they do come up occasionally, but since two or three are very rare, it is often as a partial set, like 13/16 cards. Then you are stuck because some of the veteran collectors possess the very rare ones and aren't going to sell.

Ahhh, if that's the case, I'd better get one of those rare ones for my type set.

Just kidding bro...

seablaster wrote:

jbonie wrote:

The spotted ties are really expensive and they do come up occasionally, but since two or three are very rare, it is often as a partial set, like 13/16 cards. Then you are stuck because some of the veteran collectors possess the very rare ones and aren't going to sell.

Ahhh, if that's the case, I'd better get one of those rare ones for my type set.

Just kidding bro...

Hehehehehe....

Seems like no one agrees with me on T3's, which is okay. At least it got everyone on the board going a little bit. Things had gotten slow around here.

Hey Jamie,
Are you trying to surpass Romney, who has dissed the 47% of non-working Americans (of whom I am one, as I am retired), by dissing a greater % of the vintage bb card collectors?!!

Being an enthusiastic type-card collector, it has never dawned on me that my "entire collection looks ridiculous" to some other collectors. I guess I'd best keep my collection in the closet to avoid the risk of being ridiculed!

Also, it has never dawned on me that I "steal cards from set collectors and start bidding wars." FYI, I try to help set collectors by being willing to trade any of my type cards to another collector who needs it for his set in return for a replacement type card, unless my type card is WaJo, Sam Rice, or another member of the 1924 World Series champs. For example, another collector wants my 1916 Holmes to Homes type card (one of the very, very few that I have ever seen w/o back damage) for his team collection, and I've told him it's his just as soon as he finds me a replacement H to H type card of any player.

I say, "live and let live" and "collect and let collect!"
Val

Wow, you just compared me to Mitt Romney... that is a burn!

I'm sure you have a great collection, Val. More power to you.

Guys, have any of you looked at Jamie's title?

sabrjay wrote:Guys, have any of you looked at Jamie's title?

How about yours, Jay?

Haha, well I'm sure you all like to poke fun at me, and I admit that I deserve it, I even like to poke fun at myself (and everyone else around me). But it's really just my way of getting everyone's knickers in a twist, because otherwise the board would be too boring, we need a positive tension to keep things interesting.... so really all this was done in the public interest... like pissing off half the forum... just keeping things light around here.

Agreed Jamie, things have been slow around here lately. Expressing your opinion is what this forum is for. If we all collected the same way, it would be awfully boring. I admire your particular collecting focus.

On the subject of 19th century sepia, do you foresee yourself ever adding cards from the tougher sets like Yum Yum/G&B/Kbats/GQ? Or sticking to N172/N173?

fisherboy7 wrote:Agreed Jamie, things have been slow around here lately. Expressing your opinion is what this forum is for. If we all collected the same way, it would be awfully boring. I admire your particular collecting focus.

On the subject of 19th century sepia, do you foresee yourself ever adding cards from the tougher sets like Yum Yum/G&B/Kbats/GQ? Or sticking to N172/N173?

Thanks Ben, I appreciate the support. To answer your question, certainly things like Yum Yum, G&B, Hess, etc are fantastic stuff. If you look at the rarity there is nothing that you can do but admire those issues. Kbats, I am lukewarm on, GQ's are nice, especially the large GQ's, and would fit in best with an OJ collection.

I would say all those issues are cost-prohibitive if you want to go after the key HOFers, and really not even available at this point. We saw a Hess Keefe go for 40k at REA. As you probably realize from your recent Bender purchase, for HOFers in sets that rare, you are going to have to make some major condition sacrifices.

Take something like this, http://sgccardregistry.com/set.aspx?cat=1&set=490&userset=1188 or that mid-grade E107 set made available through Legendary, who couldn't admire something like that? But I certainly wouldn't have the resources, and hopefully never will want to apply that type of money to a baseball card collection.

jbonie wrote:
Take something like this, http://sgccardregistry.com/set.aspx?cat=1&set=490&userset=1188 or that mid-grade E107 set made available through Legendary, who couldn't admire something like that? But I certainly wouldn't have the resources, and hopefully never will want to apply that type of money to a baseball card collection.

I was looking at his set registry the other day. The quality and breadth of his collection is unbelievable. Literally un-be-liev-able.

Yeah, it's terrific, but do you really want to be that guy, though? It is too much, imo... even one set like that... let's say you had just the Yum Yum's... even that is almost too much. You can't even participate in a message board like this because you'd run the risk of offending all the other collectors with any little thing you wrote... you are basically alone with the cards... it is you and the cards.

But moreover, just to have people in that level of awe of you... it strikes me as, I don't want to say desperate, but... do you really need to be admired that badly?

Then think of the auctioneers... they would be fawning all over you. If it were me, I would find that terribly, terribly, awkward. I would not like that at all. I've had a few conversations with some auctioneers and I can assure you that they do not take me very seriously. Well, that's much better. How painful it is to be taken seriously!!!

And moreover, another point I was making earlier, how do you even look at all those cards? Too many cards! And if you collect like 50 different sets, it is almost like owning nothing, because you aren't making any real distinguishing statement about what you like and don't like.

So I will go back to a statement I've used before, to great offense - "junk collectors". You can be a multi-millionaire junk collector because if you own everything, or the cards aren't really a reflection of who or what you are, ultimately the entire shebang turns to crap before your very eyes, no matter how much it may be worth on the open market.

Ultimately, just to turn to an existential theme here, I've never heard a collector say, "bury me with my baseball cards". In reality, they are "on loan", as I have heard other collectors refer to them, kind of like our own lives are on loan, with no real way of knowing when exactly the loan term will end. Scary.

I definitely think you raise some valid points Jamie. I agree that the sheer number of cards would make it difficult to enjoy on a daily basis, even ignoring the fact that many of them would have to be securely stored in a safety deposit box, etc.

I don't think any true collector out there would be as impressed by a "new to the hobby" whale that came in and dropped all sorts of cash to acquire a world class collection in a short span of time. I think many of us would give more credit to the fellow that has been part of the hobby for years and built their collection over time.

I don't know and have never been in contact with this gentleman, but I know he co-authored the Old Judge book which I have really enjoyed. The fact that he shared his knowledge and collection in this way impresses me. Clearly, some of those sets must've taken a significant amount of time to assemble as well.

What impresses me most is when advanced collectors interact with the rest of us rubes on an equal basis. I've had contact with Joe G. (as you know, another co-author) and Mark M. and both of them have been more than gracious sharing their knowledge and answering my stupid questions...some that I bet they have heard a hundred times. For that, I will always be grateful.

Stay safe east coasters.

Yes, the OJ book was a terrific contribution, and for all I know, Richard Masson could be a nice guy. I have never met him, couldn't really say. I am just using his collection to demonstrate a point about what cards are and what they may mean to a collector.

To be bought, cards must mean something to the buyer. I have written before (actually, on the old net54 board, before it transitioned over) that it is more like the cards are watching you then you are watching the cards.

Spend enough time watching baseball cards, and metaphorically speaking, you yourself become a baseball card. Not physically, of course, but in the sense of your own perceptions of yourself. So which cards you choose to own hence becomes a form of self-expression.

It is similar to the expression, "you are what you eat" - the food goes in your stomach, the food becomes who you are. It is you. But same for everything in a capitalistic, consumer-based society - purchases become a form of self-identity, whether they be clothes, cars, baseball cards, etc.

I will actually defend this consumerism as a necessary part of human nature, although it can become excessive and does needs controls. Yet the primary form of government designed as a rebellion against it, Communism, failed as an economic system since it did not recognize that innate part of human nature that makes us do things like collect baseball cards in the first place!

One may wonder, why am I, and others, so passionate about baseball cards? I will argue that it is due to the phenomenon mentioned above where cards become an expression of self and being. The card is taken in like a cigarette is smoked.

So why collect if we can't really bring the cards to the grave? Because, while we may die, there is (potentially) a long time between that penultimate moment of death and the present moment. We could spend our lives meditating, but even then, if someone spent all their time meditating and dreaming of enlightenment, then the concept of enlightenment itself becomes, to them, just another form of a baseball card. It is just a vision they have in their minds of what they would like to be - elsewhere from themselves and their present day agonies.

But if cards are merely an escape, than an escape from what, exactly? Real life? But how do we know that that "real" world even exists. In another 24-48 hours, Boston is going to be engulfed in a hurricane. That is a completely different reality than the one I am in now. But the world that I imagine 19th century America being must inherently be far different from the one that once was truly there. Even photos cannot really depict what it felt like to live back then.

If none of this real, or its realness cannot be confirmed, then we must simply follow our passions for what is right and how to live our lives. Whether it be for baseball cards or anything else. Nietzsche was the one who reintroduced the idea of passions being of positive influence in our lives, of it playing a true role of value, not simply a ploy of emotionality to distract from a sort of ultimate truth often conceived of in religion.

So my argument is, don't be reverential to advanced collectors, even the Richard Masson's of the world. Nor to people on message boards with high post counts . The only thing that's really real is what lies within your own heart, so find your own voice in the world as an individual. And I thank Ben and Jay for allowing Full Count Forum to be a place where we all can do that.

jbonie wrote:Yes, the OJ book was a terrific contribution, and for all I know, Richard Masson could be a nice guy. I have never met him, couldn't really say. I am just using his collection to demonstrate a point about what cards are and what they may mean to a collector.

[...]

So my argument is, don't be reverential to advanced collectors, even the Richard Masson's of the world. Nor to people on message boards with high post counts . The only thing that's really real is what lies within your own heart, so find your own voice in the world as an individual. And I thank Ben and Jay for allowing Full Count Forum to be a place where we all can do that.

You've lost me, my friend. I don't know how Richard Masson became a target/example here. I have actually met him - at the National, chatting with many other collectors who share his interests. He took some time to dig out some cards he had that would fit my collection (many "dealers" present could not have bothered). I bought some of them, and enjoyed the interaction with him.

He is not some crazy eccentric with cards stored in a bank vault...he is an active member of the hobby who shares his knowledge (in person and in writing). There are very few people I revere. But there are quite a few that I respect. He's one. I think your post is unnecessarily disrespectful to a fellow collector and hobbyist you have never even met.

Jamie, WOW, just WOW. I can not disagree more with your post from 6:38. Even worse, trying to use Richard Masson as an example for the points that you were trying to make. Richard is approachable and extremely passionate about the sets that he collects.

Just to once again be clear, I have nothing against Richard Masson. In fact, I wrote nothing bad about him. I am just trying to put collecting in a larger context, and generally make the point, I believe that less is more sometimes, and that I personally wouldn't want to be in a position in the hobby where I was that revered and had that type of collection because I would find it awkward.

As far as Richard Masson goes, it's his life, he can do what he wishes, I have no personal vendetta against him, I am just making the point that it is best to be deferential to no one. I'm sorry if stylistically, any of you found the point offensive, but it was really about attacking the concept of a collecting hierarchy, not intended as an assault on any one person.

On the flip side, what's the point of owning just a small handful of cards? That's not really much of a collection regardless of what cards they are and would get boring pretty quickly to me. I have no desire to own thousands of cards either but a nice middle ground seems ideal.

Bicem wrote:On the flip side, what's the point of owning just a small handful of cards? That's not really much of a collection regardless of what cards they are and would get boring pretty quickly to me. I have no desire to own thousands of cards either but a nice middle ground seems ideal.

Personally, I really like owning a small handful of really nice cards. If you have a larger collection, the quality of each card dissipates. You are basically stuck in lower grade material, and you know, those condition problems really do affect the aesthetics.

Right now, my collection mainly consists of five cards, but I am seriously considering lowering it down to three. I've begun to view the other cards as a distraction from my favorite cards. But there is no wrong way to collect - I just lay out what I have chosen to do and why.

Some of those reasons why are inherently critical of different approaches, plus I like to use it as a vehicle to poke fun at those around me But I don't really mean any harm. I just like to have an open conversation about things.