Does this "newer" card have interest for 'vintage' collectors

[pawpawdiv9]

yeah- i always though someone tore up some old underwear or jersey then rubbing it in dirt and grass saying it was game worn. Heard too much bad stuff about these items.
That is why i like the older stuff too. Enjoy all the feedback. Just what i thought i get.
These are more-less sucker cards...I radther spend the 75+ dollars and buy a card pre-war or atleast before 1970.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I was hoping this auction would fly under the radar and I could win it for a decent price. Thanks a lot

Like others, I have absolutely no interest in this junk.

[obcbobd]

No interest.

Besides, I feel bidding on an item would just encourage the card companies to destroy more historical artifacts.

[geor952]

I like the looks of them and really don't have a problem with them, but I won't pay more than $10 for a relic card due to the concern over their authenticity. I would love to own that card, for $10.

I really don't understand why a "blue foil" parallel, or one numbered /10 is worth so much more for the same photo, auto, or relic made from a diff. color cardboard. That seems incredibly stupid to me. Just my opinion, never been into collecting "the rainbow," like a lot of modern collectors.

[drc]

I don't like game used and cut signature cards, but have nothing against many newer cards. I've bought Topps Chrome packs from the local drug store and liked the product. I thought some of the Topps Archive cards were well done too. Some of the non-cut autograph cards can be nice too.

Yes, in particular I dislike old jerseys, bats and documents being cut up. Though jersey swatches of any kind and player/era don't do it for me. A little piece of cloth doesn't excite my senses.

Also, I want Ty Cobb on a 1913 card not a 2013 card. Felix Hernandez on a 2013 is fine.

That's just my taste.