Showing off a custom cut signature booklet - Steinbrenner

[David Atkatz]

No, they're not.

[packs]

With such a delicate worldview it must be hard to throw anything away. Each creation being so unique and a part of historical record.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

With such a delicate worldview it must be hard to throw anything away. Each creation being so unique and a part of historical record.

Nah. I'd throw that manufactured card away in a heartbeat.

[yanks12025]

I think the card looks nice, bit I agree with David to a point. I think it would have been better to use a index card instead of this photo. Yes it's just a polariod but it is unique and I'm sure there's not many out there.

[thecatspajamas]

It's an age-old argument as to whether the resulting piece is more or less desirable than the original components. To use an argument of aesthetics (the product looks better than the components) against an argument for the intrinsic value of truly unique items is an exercise in futility. If you place higher value on the aesthetics, you will be less concerned about the integrity of the original pieces. If you place a high value on keeping a piece of memorabilia in its original state, whether the finished product looks good or not, knowing what was destroyed to create it will taint your enjoyment of it.

The same conflicts crop up when discussing whether to have a vintage photograph signed by an aging former ballplayer, whether to use a vintage ball for a modern signing, whether/how to have an old stadium seat restored, what pieces to cut up and put in a card, and on and on and on.

Bottom line is, if you're presenting your manufactured piece to a group of collectors for comment, you have to expect that there are going to be people from both camps in the crowd and that not all of their comments will be praises. If you ask for opinions, it's poor sport to attack those who speak up when they state opinions differing from yours.

[ksfarmboy]

It's too bad someone ruined those one of a kind photos with Ruth and Gehrig autographs. Especially since they were signing everything and anything at the time.

[David Atkatz]

They weren't? Have you ever heard of Ruth refusing to sign anything? (contracts excepted, of course.)

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

No, they're not.

You sure showed me.

[David Atkatz]

Any time, Jake.

You're welcome.

[steve B]

Just a minor point. Polaroids aren't necessarily unique. Polaroid made a device for copying them.

I'm sort of with David on this one, I generally don't like seeing anything cut up. On the other hand, without the background story to give the polaroid some context it becomes what everyone else calls it. A rather poor photo with a signature.

I know I wouldn't have cut it, but I can see why someone would.

And as others have said aesthetically a 3x5 would have ended up much nicer. And the polaroid probably could have easily been swapped for a 3x5.

Steve B

[mr2686]

Sorry, but I'm in 100 percent agreement with Dr. Atkatz on this one. That's one of the reasons I don't like to collect things like autograph books if I'm looking for one sig because I wouldn't want to cut it up for a matted project. Doesn't mean I wouldn't collect one, just wouldn't use it in other projects.

[Gary Dunaier]

The Polaroid may have been a big deal to the person who took it, especially if he's not someone who is in a position to run into someone like George Steinbrenner every day.

As a Mets season ticket holder, I went to many games in '12 (unfortunately, the Santana no-hitter was not one of them ). One of my passions is walking around Citi Field during games and taking pictures from all sorts of angles. I'm partial to this photo I took of Ike Davis about to tag home plate after hitting a walk-off home run to win the game for the Mets in their final meeting against Houston...


(Photo taken August 26, 2012. © Gary Dunaier. Link to upload on Flickr.com: here.)

As it happened, I caught Davis in midair as he leaped and did a celebratory twirl in front of his teammates as he tagged home plate. Now, there are "better" shots of Davis' twirl, from professional photographers with better equipment and better access, for instance:


(Photo source: here)

But I think my photo is pretty darn special because I took it. And just the same way, whoever originally took the Steinbrenner shot must have been pleased with his "get," at least at the time.

[drc]

The Polaroid had a crappy image. No work of art was destroyed.