Hitler cards graded by PSA
 

I'm not a business man. I am a retired school teacher. Just wanted
your opinion on whether PSA should have graded these cards. I don't want to debate the issue, because it's easy to know the reason why they should, and the reasons why they shouldn't. Just a simple yes or no if possible. Thanks.

Why would you pose the question if you don't want to hear people's opinions on the topic? It's a pretty provocative topic to just simply answer yes or no, isn't it?

Reminds me of that old joke: Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no.

I would say no because they have ruined the hobby for collectors are are completely incompetent. :D:rolleyes:

That's fair enough.
Go ahead and spout away.

:)

There are quite a few of his issues graded.

Yes. They grade many other issues where he appears. I realize this is SGC, but you get my point.

If I owned a grading company I would not grade these. So no is my answer.

I can understand both sides. A man condemned by the vast majority of people around the world but also such a large part of world history regardless of what someone's view on him is. If I had it my way I would say no but I can understand why WWII history buffs may feel differently. I remember seeing someone pull a FDR/Hitler dual auto in the Leaf Oval Office product a few years back on youtube. I think it was probably not the best idea for Leaf to introduce such a controversial card but was still kind of interesting having the two signatures on the same item.

How about Stalin who has a couple of issues, or the Bowman Red Menace Mao?

What about Marcus Garvey? He is in the 2009 Allen & Ginters set. Blatant anti-Semite. Black, but cohorted with the Klan. Wanted Blacks to move back to Africa. I believe he was also convicted of murder and they have a park in his name in NYC.

Unequivocally yes.

Well, obviously this list would go on and on if we're simply considering bad character traits. Roberto Osuna? Aroldis Chapman? Cap Anson, for that matter...

Plenty of people buy OJ Simpson cards. What does the hobby think of that?

I think it's a bad precedent to not grade a card because of the subject, with a few exceptions.

You can't really have a 36 Olympic set with out Hitler. So if you won't grade one card from the set, it's a short trip to not grading the set. Which of course is also incomplete without Jesse Owens, and it's silly to not grade his card.

The alternative is only grading cards of players, public figures you like... Which would lead to some pretty epic arguments when it comes to sets of presidents cards, or the Desert shield cards (Or the non-sports related sets) or....

How many cards in say a 2000 Topps set would you not grade.
Schilling - because his politics are unpopular and he was a lousy videogame ceo?
Bonds - Because... he's Bonds?
Clemens- for similar reasons?
Whatsis name, the guy that hit his wife with a telephone?

Where do you draw that line?

Heck, we don't catalog or grade cards that are believed to be unlicensed. Unless it's Wagner.....

The exception I'd make would be for sets like the one from the early 90's that was all serial killers. When None of the subjects are worthy in any way, it does make some sense.

The cards were issued, so you have to grade them and turn a blind eye, because their job isn't to assess the worthiness of the grading subject, but to give the quality of the card a numbered designation.

The real question is, how do you feel about a person wanting to have their Hitlers graded, or 'showing off' their Nazi cards? Probably not a person I'd have a beer with.

You're a coin collector. Do you pass up a Roman coin featuring Caligula because he wasn't your kind of emperor? The most expensive cards in the Horrors of War set are the Hitler cards. Do you search for "Complete Set Minus Hitler"? I collect exhibit cards. The Exhibit Supply set completely devoted to Mussolini has been on my want list for decades.

My point is if you ONLY collect images of Caligula, Hitler and Mussolini, I'm going to steer clear of you. But that's not the same thing as having a hobby devoted to completing sets of diverse images.

I vote yes; it’s a card with historical value and covers a lot of ground for a cigarette card: the intersection of sports and politics, how Hitler used ceremony and spectacle to increase his popularity and cement his hold on power relatively quickly, and it would be the last Olympics until 1948.

I briefly considered something similar when I was working on my project and a Dixie Walker popped up. Based on his history with Jackie Robinson, I wasn’t sure if I wanted him in my collection, but in the end I figured he’s a part of the set and part of the game’s history, and warranted including.

yes. not even a question.

As long as we're outlawing cards my vote is to stop grading all LA Dodger cards.

Signed,
A Giants Fan

They are authenticators and graders of historical artifacts for historical artifacts collectors. What do you think history is made up of, only Mister Rogers and the birth of Lassie?

I worked at a Holocaust Museum, and they owned, displayed and had authenticated Nazi items, including a couple of Hitler trading cards and a Nazi flag. Can a Holocaust Museum exist without displaying Nazi items?

I once asked the head archivist, a 70-something Jewish woman, what she felt about her carefully restoring and cleaning a Nazi flag. She said she saw the irony in it.

In a world where elementary schools named for Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson are renamed because they were too offensive, and yes this happened in San Francisco, is there any place it stops and we simply leave history alone to learn from it and not purge it?

I see that argument made a lot but naming a school after someone is not history. It's totally fine to honor someone else after a while. It does not in any way alter the life lived for whoever's name is removed.

The reason given was that these Presidents were too offensive to have a school named after them, Jefferson because he was a slave owner, Lincoln for his participation in the Black Hawk War in the 1830s. It wasn't a question of honoring someone else after a while.

Are those not facts about their lives? It's the name of a school. Nobody changed their biographies.

I don't see your point honestly. Yes, it's obviously a highly symbolic gesture, but one I happen to believe does not speak well of our judgment or priorities.

My point is changing the name of a school in no way changes history. It changes the name of a school.

Also, any good historian interprets history. History is not a fact on a piece of paper. Unless that's all you want it to be.

I think your tautological argument overlooks the importance of symbolism and the value judgments involved in naming institutions. Indeed, that's why these things (some of which I do agree with) are being done.

If a school bans certain books, the books still exist, would that be your response?

Of course that's my response. Who's knowledge is solely limited to what they learned in high school?

incidentally, I was reading about a movement to no longer teach "the Classics" such as Homer in college because they are racist. Presented without comment.

Apparently winning the Super Bowl during Black History Month is racist too. Who knew? Maybe we could move it back to January like it used to be so it won't be as racist? :rolleyes:

Here's the problem with renaming schools (or other buildings), changing team names/logos, removing statues, etc. There are certain people that no matter what you do, they will never be satisfied. In their minds they will always be oppressed and always be the victims no matter what. So why even bother?

Here are just 4 of many tweets. And yes, they are real, before anyone says otherwise.

Monuments are generally for the good things someone did, and often about something specific (Landing on the moon, winning the Super Bowl, inventing the laser).

Thomas Edison was rude etc, but the monuments to him aren't for his personality but his inventions.

Everyone-- everyone-- has less than attractive sides and dimensions. We're humans.

,,

As the phrase goes, there is a lot of virtue signaling these days that masquerades as change.

I don't think everything needs to be nice or whatever but some of this stuff seems okay. For example, why would there be a Fort Bragg?

I don't know. All of those responses seems pretty tongue in cheek to me. :confused:


Also, the sentiment, "So why even bother?".........seems like an excuse to always keep the status quo......simply because a bunch of twitter twits on twitter, say things that could be construed in some way as "that's not enough".

For the record.........sure, grade whatever card, is considered a "card". I'll judge the subject, but not the card itself. I've had plenty of Hitler cards in various German Olympic sets throughout the years. Never had any graded, and never felt comfortable trying to squeeze extra bucks out of marketing them individually, so usually just passed them on in group lots.................but I'm not a fan of erasing history either. Whether it be taking away NCAA titles, or HR's from steroid users. If you keep it front and center, history and individuals will judge how they feel appropriate.

I'll certainly judge somebody who tells me, "yeah, I'm a big fan of that Hitler guy.....I collect everything I can get my hands on from him". Probably be my last conversation with that person.

That's my strong stance of the day, LOL. Hitler bad! Way worse then Marcus Garvey. :D

Ah, whether PSA should grade these cards. The eternal struggle.

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

-- George Orwell, 1984

Not sure of your context in this thread, but Orwell gets misappropriated and misinterpreted on a daily basis (by both the right and the left).

If changing a name of a street from Stonewall Jackson Blvd., to Shirley Chisholm Parkway strikes somebody as "Orwellian", I think they are missing the point of his writings.

Activism that enacts change is the exact opposite of the Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism that exists in "1984". Orwell himself was a Democratic Socialist.

1984 was a treatise against Stalinist Communism.........not general Socialism or Social movements. He would have abhorred "McCarthyism" just as much as the Communism, that McCarthyism was pretending to root out.

“Stupidity got us into this mess, and stupidity will get us out.” -Homer Simpson

You realize those tweets are sarcasm, right?

No, sir. They're not. Re-read my post. Already covered this.

I re-read your post, you say they are real, but you don't say they are true feelings. Shown in the vacuum you presented, they sure appear to be sarcasm. How about adding some context?

C'mon man. You said the tweets were real. Nobody disputed that. We disputed your interpretation of said "tweets".

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

Instead of making assumptions about the intent of the tweets, why don't you read some tweets from the same authors? That should tell you all you need to know.
Report back to us and let us know what you find.

Ok,
first one claims trolling.
Second one says "hey it was a joke"
Third one says trolling, and both happy and pissed he made an article
Fourth one "This account doesn't exist"

Also- You owe me at least 20 IQ points after making me read twitter, which I'm now glad I don't do anything with.
I'll accept a decent box of junk wax era stuff as compensation...

How long before a graded Hitler card shows up on BlowOut with evidence being trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, or shilled?

That's ultimately the real conundrum here. :)

The real question is which is the better card.

A PSA10 Hitler

or

one mis-cut with his head cut off?

At least one ebay seller uses German Chancellor in his titles.