Posted By:
identify7Some things are clear, and others less so. For example: "I think pre-WWII means pre-'45" seems clear to me. And since the viewpoint is expressed by our owner, who tolerates a lot of shennagins, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that discussion of MP&Co. cards are on topic. While Bowman and Topps as well as the never mentioned shiney (Donruss, UD, Score, Pinnacle, etc.) are not on topic. However, it seems like Leaf, blue tint and other pre-'50 cards are tolerated.
But none of this refutes Bill's observation of the vagueness of the term "vintage". This observation is certainly true, since everything which exists has a vintage. Of course a name change would clear up this vagueness.
But then the real ugliness of our board would be apparent. The facts are that the term "card" in "VBC" forum is ill defined; and the collective term "baseball card" even more so.
Now a standard could be established relating to the rigidity of an item to be considered a "card". But such a standard could impact items called Recissus or Mello-Mint Wagners, as well as other "cards".
And once a rigidity standard was established, I have serious doubts whether a consensus could be reached regarding the definition of a baseball card.
So, I propose that we leave bad enuff alone. Abandon effort to clear anything up, employ CWYWC philosophy, and string up anyone who seriously proposes any clarification. We know it when we see it.