Quote:
Originally Posted by Anish
The original is infinitely better, at least to me, because it was produced during the respective player’s career and with the tools and materials available at the time. Accordingly, it’s a piece of history rather than just an attractive image. A vintage card or other artifact, I would argue, is as close a thing to a time machine as we’ll ever have.
I don’t think there’s anything illogical in that.
|
First off, I agree with you completely...so I'm not trying to be a contrarian. An original Ruth is coveted by me because it does feel historically significant, and owning one would feel like owning something that should be in a museum. Looking at my reprint doesn't really bring me joy, it just makes me think about how I don't have an original
But the counterpoint that I come back to in my head from time to time is why the perceived value for certain cards is so high. Paintings are a different thing, because an original painting has been produced by the artist. WHO paints the picture is just as important as what the picture looks like. But an original Ruth? The Babe didn't print those cards. So if the value of an original over a reprint is the "oldness" then shouldn't I be almost as happy to own ANY original 1933 Goudey (of which I do own a few commons and whatnot). They are historical baseball artifacts printed in the time of the Babe, on the same sheet as the Babe, printed with same ink at the exact same time....they just happen to have another players picture printed on it.
So the illogical part comes down to this:
If I had the extra cash, would I spend $3000 on a reprint card with Ruth's picture? Of course not.
Would I spend it on an original mid-grade 1933 Goudey of a common player? Of course not.
But if you put those two together with Ruth's image on an original card? Yes, I'm all in.
Illogical.