Hobby Newsflash! Re: Top 250 Cards In Hobby

[tschock]

These kinds of lists always need qualifiers. So at my age, I always take these kinds of lists with more salt than I put in my jar of Kimchee. Even the "Top x most expensive cards" in the hobby would probably need some kind of qualifiers as well.

Shoot, even something like "most sought after" card in the hobby needs qualification. I do not "seek" a T206 Honus Wagner (since I could never afford it), but given the opportunity to "pick" one from a box load of cards, I would definitely "seek" it.

That said, this list is still way off base, IMO....

[MattyC]

Yeah, it seems anytime people give into the urge to rank things-- as it seems so many publications especially tend to do these days-- some qualifiers and rationale behind the criteria would go a long way.

Instead, so many of these ubiquitous lists are put forth as definitive, with not nearly enough upfront defining of terms and criteria, and that in turn leads to a lot of debate.

Then again, I imagine what many "Top X of Y" lists are out to do is generate debate centered around them, and so in that way they may be successful according to their true aim?

There is definitely a deeper philosophical discussion lurking around this topic, in terms of the need to rank and then compete.