What is your opinion on destroying old artifacts to put in new cards?

[packs]

I would be intersted to see the back of the card if you have a scan. I'm sure it makes no mention to its origin, independent authentication, or offers any kind of insight into the item other than it being "authentic."

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by packs

I would be intersted to see the back of the card if you have a scan. I'm sure it makes no mention to its origin, independent authentication, or offers any kind of insight into the item other than it being "authentic."

Packs, I'd just copied and saved a picture of the card front. Here's a link to the auction selling the card. There is a back picture included, and you're right. It's pretty typical verbiage for this kind of item:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-20...item256a2b689a

I do agree with you that many of these cards are not what they claim they are, especially the more modern cards. But every once in a while, I see something that strikes me as clearly authentic, or at least highly probable to be authentic. Here's an example of a card that Panini showcased on their own website:



http://paniniamerica.net/dspNewsDetail.cfm?nid=102

That card bothers me.

I can see both sides of the argument to a certain extent, but I think destroying something like a Babe Ruth jersey is just selfish. Could getting a card with a little square from Ruth's jersey spark a kid's interest in baseball cards? I suppose so. I suppose, too, that a '34 Goudey Ruth card could do the same thing without having to ruin a piece of history.