Posted By:
Robert LifsonHi Corey! I did say that “If one defines a card as not being allowed to have a combination of (or all of) these qualities, then it's not a card. That is not how I define a card but I know that different people might think differently.” I don’t know why the combination of qualities that describe the team card, all of which are fine for other cards, would somehow not allow this item to be defined as a card. There are other characteristics of the team card as well, such as picturing an image featuring baseball players, having an advertisement for a business (in this case The Baltimore News) and having a specific reference to being given away specifically to promote the business (Compliments of The Baltimore News), all of which are a lot more card-like than many other card issues. The team card even has a connection to the Baltimore News schedule cards, featuring the same team and issued in the same year. This is not unlike the D317 1945 Remar Bread set that also has a larger team card of the Oakland Oaks that is associated with the set. With reference to the concern that “we do not know if this item was ever distributed to the general public,” if this was not made for distribution to the general public, then who was it made for? The office workers of the paper? I don’t think that sounds reasonable. The card stands on its own merits but the fact that it was accompanied by individual player cards also suggests that it was distributed to the public. I’d recommend Hal taking all of us to a fancy dinner to further discuss this.