Posted By:
E, DanielYour concept of a sportscard grand-slam is the kind of metaphor I use when building my collection. In trying to keep costs and card numbers down, I spent a lot of time trying to work out exactly what my collection represents and how to create specific limits to think within.
So this is my 'slam criteria'.
I collect players of all sports, who I feel are not only acclaimed as some of the greatest to have played, but in fact CHANGED THE GAME because of their play and or persona - with the preference where possible that their playing (or in some cases managing) career was early in the history of the sport and thus had enormous impact on the game's evolution. Then again, my 1964 Panini Pele was a super easy decision when it came to my soccer rep. I collect only 1-3 representatives of what I consider the minor collecting sports, eg. tennis, snooker/pool, soccer, golf, australian rules football, athletics, hockey (I know I'll get a caning for grouping hockey in this first group - what can I tell you? I'm a transplanted Aussie who's only been here in Chicago 6 years, and Hockey has seemed like such a languishing sport in that time...) and more comprehensive collections (in ascending order of size) in boxing, basketball, football, and baseball.
Then, I threw in my type caveat.
There can be only one representative type card used from any 1 issue, so all my chosen players must then compete for "types". They do this by my final criteria, which is rookie card where possible, and best card in terms of image, rarity and value the deal breaker where clear rookie is clouded or just an unimpressive card! Oh yes, and of course I had to throw in color variations as well so that my 1908-1921 caramels, strips, and tobaccos looked pretty too, and not all just shades of red, or green, or....
So that's MY slam madness, I'm sure it's way more neurotic than most - but it keeps me happy.
Daniel