Showing off a custom cut signature booklet - Steinbrenner

[Exhibitman]

Beautiful! Turned a crappy polaroid into a work of art any Yankees fan would be proud to own.

[cubsfan-budman]

and its a one-of-a-kind relic now. even says so on the card.

i agree that the polaroid wasnt anything too special and the card is an improvement.

[David Atkatz]

The photo told a story. The "card" is a manufactured, meaningless, decoration.

[packs]

You mean like taking an original photo and turning it into a baseball card?

[Exhibitman]

The card tells a story of the man in the photo, with better images and quotes that really sum up his philosophy and his life's work. It may be sacreligious to some to ever change an atom of any collectible but as a fan and collector I far and away would prefer to own a work of art like this to a random snapshot of a middle-aged man in a hallway.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

...but as a fan and collector I far and away would prefer to own a work of art like this to a random snapshot of a middle-aged man in a hallway.

If he's just a "middle-aged man in a hallway," why would you want his autograph in the first place? And why would you want to create a cardboard shrine to encase that autograph?

[David Atkatz]

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a photo which can be duped millions of times, and a polaroid, which is a unique, one-of-a kind, original.
(And, of course, turning a photo into a baseball card does not damage or destroy the original photo. Just ask our fellow collectors who pay three figures for those type I photos which were used on cards.)
And then there's the fact that the polaroid was signed when taken, preserving a moment in time when a fan met the Boss.

But, hey, it is a beautiful, meaningless decoration.

[Cfern023]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The photo told a story. The "card" is a manufactured, meaningless, decoration.

Yeah, the Poloroid is telling me someone caught him off guard and harassed him for an autograph after.

The card is nice, but an index card would have been perfect. I like it.

I wonder if I can find two index cards signed by my favorite 2 Marlins.

If the photo was something special, such as him behind his desk, or even hugging the guy who took it- then I understand. But the image isn't special to begin with, and you can find millions of photos of The Boss.

Those photos from before 1950 are sometimes the only item you can get of a guy who never was asked for his signature, and of a time when memorabilia wasn't mass produced. This Polaroid is an example of that "Instant Collectible" world we live in. Those old photos of the Babe and Gehrig are the antithesis of that.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Cfern023

This Polaroid is an example of that "Instant Collectible" world we live in. Those old photos of the Babe and Gehrig are the antithesis of that.

Is that so?

Tell me... In what respect does the signed Polaroid snapshot of Steinbrenner--preserving a chance meeting with a fan--differ from this snapshot of Ruth?



Or this blurry snapshot of Gehrig and Ruth? (It's so blurry--if it were mine I'd cut off the signatures and have a card made.)

[Exhibitman]

Let's see: value, rarity, desirability.

David, you take a fanatic's position of absolutism, that there is no difference between a vintage Ruth signed snapshot and a modern polaroid signed by the Boss. If you cannot see the difference between the two then there is no point discussing this any further with you.

Some items--like the Steinbrenner photo--can be transformed into more enjoyable items for the fan who owns them with no great loss to the history of the sport, and that is what a hobby should be all about. If you can't see that then maybe you need to take a step or two back from collecting and follow the advice below.

[David Atkatz]

Rarity and value, huh?
At the time those two snapshots I showed were signed, they were no big deal--they had essentially no monetary value. And they were common--Ruth spent hours signing anything and everything presented to him. Does that mean they should have been cut up?
I'm sure many, many such photos, though, were destroyed--that's why they're (relatively) rare today.
I guarantee you this, though. There are far fewer signed photos of Steinbrenner than of Ruth. That's not to say that they ever will have the value of a Ruth-signed photo--they won't. But they still should not be destroyed.

And just so you know, I don't live in a studio apartment, I'm married to a real, live woman (and we talk all the time), and I don't give a damn about baseball cards. And disagreeing with you certainly does not mean that I need to "grow the hell up."

[Cfern023]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Is that so?

Tell me... In what respect does the signed Polaroid snapshot of Steinbrenner--preserving a chance meeting with a fan--differ from this snapshot of Ruth?



Or this blurry snapshot of Gehrig and Ruth? (It's so blurry--if it were mine I'd cut off the signatures and have a card made.)

Lets see, in the time Ruth played I'm sure getting your picture taken was sometimes a big deal. These days, you get your picture taken every day and don't even know it.

The ruths are great pieces, in great settings in great era appropriate clothing. The Steinbrenner poloroid strikes me as instant TMZ.

Feel how you may, but you can't deny how much crap is produced since the 1960's, this polaroid included.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Cfern023

Lets see, in the time Ruth played I'm sure getting your picture taken was sometimes a big deal.

You're only off by about a century. In the 1840s, getting your picture taken was a big deal. In the 1930s, Kodak was selling millions of cameras a year.

People collect snapshots because they are unique, and nothing at all like the mass-produced "collectibles" you keep comparing them to.