Hi
I never said people were stashing Ruth balls away for monetary future value. Here is what I am trying to say for the third time, and I am 100% correct and have researched this extensively.
1. People in general were saving things like Ruth signed balls more in the late 1940's because they recognized them as a keepsakes/heirloom etc more than they were in the 1920's. Absolutely 100% true. Not because "they were going to be worth something someday" but because they recognized that they were collectible items. I am NOT saying everyone did this, but more people were keeping things like this in sock drawers and trying to keep them nice because they were special items by 1947 then they were in 1927. This is an absolute fact and if you dispute this you dont know autograph collecting history.
2. Autographs WERE being collected by the 1940's by larger numbers of people who viewed them as "valuable" but not in the same way we do today. While there was no set value, there are recorded events where things like Babe Ruth signed baseballs sold for money or traded at a premium for other items and this is 100% true as well. Whether you want to admit it or not, there were small groups of people who were buying and selling and trading autographs in clubs by the 1930's and there were lots of them by the 1940's. If you want an education on the autograph clubs of this time period and how they operated I would be happy to give you one, but you are wrong to state that nobody placed monetary value on autographs in the 1940's because SOME people did, the same way they did baseball cards in this era. Maybe only 10 people in the world wanted a T206 Wagner in 1949 but the facts are there to prove that SOME people did even though baseball cards were worthless to 99.9% of America. Just because some Wagners were being sold at yard sales and thrown away in 1950 does not mean they did not already have monetary value to SOME PEOPLE!
Were people getting Ruth to signed baseballs so they could sell them? No. Were people by the 1940's getting Ruth to sign baseballs because they were highly prized collectibles that did have value and should be kept nice and in nice condition? 100% YES and this is the point I was trying to make.
You are speaking in way too many absolutes. All it takes is 1 person that thought their Ruth ball was worth money in 1947 to prove your statement wrong.
Not trying to start something here, but I am right and I have spoken to people who were members of autograph clubs in the 1940's when I bought their collections who have explained to me first hand how they worked and how they would sell some of their autographs (yes for money in the 1940's including Ruth). They did have some monetary value to some people by the 1940's and to deny this entirely is not knowing the history of autograph collecting in America.
|