Spalding, Reach and other cut outs sold on our BST

[Runscott]

....

[drcy]

I'll testify that Scott's a purist. He eats the entire bag of potato chips in one bite, because he thinks it would be unethical to remove one chip from the set. I keep telling him I think its okay to at least remove the chips from the bag first, but he says "No, I want to go to Heaven." All I know is I hope Heaven has an Internist.

[Runscott]

....

[drcy]

It was a joke. I avoid the use of emoticons, so there is sometimes some confusion. I already stated I'm against cutting up books, and, in fact, wouldn't cut out a Harper's Woodcut either. We're disagreeing about philosophy (and psychology) not practice.

Besides, to be candid, I think my points and analogies were sound. I fail to see how someone in 2010 cutting up a Harper's Weekly for its pictures is so different than cutting up a Spalding Guide.

One point is I never used sentimental as a derogatory term. Collecting is a sentimental activity. When some says he thinks Spalding Guides or Babe Ruth bats should be left intact, that's a sentiment I agree with. I merely said I didn't think it was a reason to ban items.

[drcy]

It should be noted that woodcuts are considered different than many Spalding and Reach Guide photos because woodcuts are handmade original works of art, while the guide photos are reproductions of photos or art. The woodcuts were printed from hand carved or engraved woodblocks,-- the way Durer and Picasso did it--, while the guide photos have the dot patterns of modern newspaper photos. For most of the 19th century, newspapers and magazines didn't have the modern reproductive technology and the pictures were made by hand.

That's a point apart from the cutouts debate on this thread, but explains why woodcuts are valued differently than cutouts from 20th century newspapers, magazines and books.

And I was just joking when I called Scott a 'sentimental fool.' I assumed it was obvious, but humor can be lost in translation on a chatboard.