Eddie Plank ☆ Ebay

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

... ultimately just a picture of some guy on a piece of cardboard.

You realize that you're on a message board that specializes in pictures of guys on pieces of cardboard, right?

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

You realize that you're on a message board that specializes in pictures of guys on pieces of cardboard, right?

Well, yeah. I'm just suggesting that there might be other things more significant to spend half a million dollars on than a picture of Mickey Mantle.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Well, yeah. I'm just suggesting that there might be other things more significant to spend half a million dollars on than a picture of Mickey Mantle.

500K to that buyer may be like 1k to you or I....it all the same thing..i know lots of non collectors who would say there may things more significant to buy other than a baseball picture even for 40 bucks...

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

500K to that buyer may be like 1k to you or I....it all the same thing..i know lots of non collectors who would say there may things more significant to buy other than a baseball picture even for 40 bucks...

It's not really the same as far as the point I was making. It wasn't about relative wealth. My point was about the significance of a 52 Mantle.

Using the coin example, for $40, I can buy some cards or I can buy some coins. None of the coins in the $40 range are going to be significant historical artifacts. They're going to be common just like the cards.

But for $500,000, I could possibly buy any number of coins with great historical significance, that far outweighs a 52 Mantle. I could buy a Roman Sestertius commemorating the opening of the Colosseum in 80 A.D. for instance.

Maybe a 52 Mantle is worth $500,000 to some people but I have a different perspective.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

It's not really the same as far as the point I was making. It wasn't about relative wealth. My point was about the significance of a 52 Mantle.

Using the coin example, for $40, I can buy some cards or I can buy some coins. None of the coins in the $40 range are going to be significant historical artifacts. They're going to be common just like the cards.

But for $500,000, I could possibly buy any number of coins with great historical significance, that far outweighs a 52 Mantle. I could buy a Roman Sestertius commemorating the opening of the Colosseum in 80 A.D. for instance.

Maybe a 52 Mantle is worth $500,000 to some people but I have a different perspective.

For a half million you could get a pretty respectable work of art as well.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For a half million you could get a pretty respectable work of art as well.

I pretty sure however is buying the mantle also has nice works of art too...

[Sean]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Well, yeah. I'm just suggesting that there might be other things more significant to spend half a million dollars on than a picture of Mickey Mantle.

+1
I would much rather have a picture of Babe Ruth.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Well, yeah. I'm just suggesting that there might be other things more significant to spend half a million dollars on than a picture of Mickey Mantle.

They aren't buying the picture of Mantle, they are buying the PSA flip.

[HRBAKER]

There's probably more than a bit of truth in that Peter.

[Jewish-collector]

$500,000 to these bidders is probably just pocket change to them.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They aren't buying the picture of Mantle, they are buying the PSA flip.

Excellent point.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They aren't buying the picture of Mantle, they are buying the PSA flip.

right cause you sell the holder not the card......until i ever see a post on ebay that says 'bad card for the grade' or 'techinal aspects of the card are much worse than the grade'


Though like when i see a seller say 'good card for the grade' then i assume any of his other postings are not good for the grade....just like a realtor or baseball cards seller saying 'priced to sell'...to me than means every other listing from that seller or realtor that doesnt say that is 'priced not to sell' when they are the ones using that priced to sell lingo...

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right cause you sell the holder not the card......until i ever see a post on ebay that says 'bad card for the grade' or 'techinal aspects of the card are much worse than the grade'


Though like when i see a seller say 'good card for the grade' then i assume any of his other postings are not good for the grade....just like a realtor or baseball cards seller saying 'priced to sell'...to me than means every other listing from that seller or realtor that doesnt say that is 'priced not to sell' when they are the ones using that priced to sell lingo...

Huh?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

Huh?

Law of exclusion. It's the opposite of the law of inclusions. The law of inclusions says something that is inside something else came first. It's why the chicken came before the egg too .

He is saying something that is excluded necessarilly has a characteristic of being "not" what the other offer is including. I think I just made less sense than he did.

[Bestdj777]

Haha, thanks Leon! My takeaway: A high grade card is an egg and you should buy a chicken before you sell all your eggs.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Leon

Law of exclusion. It's the opposite of the law of inclusions. The law of inclusions says something that is inside something else came first. It's why the chicken came before the egg too .

He is saying something that is excluded necessarilly has a characteristic of being "not" what the other offer is including. I think I just made less sense than he did.

correct..not sure how someone didnt understand it.

sort of like saying to a girl 'did you lose weight, you look nice'...girl says 'so yesterday when you saw me, i looked fat and ugly?'