![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Great Deacon White card, Joe.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Here is a card that is unique in a certain sense - its provenance. It is from the estate of King Kelly's teammate, Billy Sunday. So if the image itself is not unique, at least the provenance is.
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Great image of King, Jamie.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Great card, Jamie...I love that one...but with that rationale...every card that's no longer in it's original packaging is unique?!?!
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Okay, it is an admittedly weak rationale, but I wanted to post the card.
![]() Scientifically speaking, I suppose every card is unique since all cards hold a slightly different molecular composition. So maybe provenance is a weak rationale, but not so bad as the scientific rationale of molecular differentiality? Does finding an even potentially worse rationale help support my other, admittedly weak excuse for posting in the first place? ![]() |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
IT's cool, Jamie...it's an awesome card...with uber-cool provenance...I wish I had it...and Connie!!!!!
|
![]() |
|
|