Memory Lane Players' League Document Find

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Couple of items had one bid. I think the Forbes article was a little over the top. These should be in a museum somewhere, not in demand collectibles in my mind.

I don't understand this thought.

At all.

Something as thoroughly and passionately collected as baseball memorabilia...for there to be an item that would go great in a museum but not in someone's collection? How is that even possible? Can you name other such baseball collectibles that would be museum worthy but not of collectible interest? Just doesn't make sense.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I don't understand this thought.

At all.

Something as thoroughly and passionately collected as baseball memorabilia...for there to be an item that would go great in a museum but not in someone's collection? How is that even possible? Can you name other such baseball collectibles that would be museum worthy but not of collectible interest? Just doesn't make sense.

A copy of a lease to buy a plot of land. A legal document. And a terribly boring one at that.

I have no interest in owning a lease to a plot of land. It might have some historical significant. But I don't see why it would be of great interest to collectors, despite it's historical significance (or not).

1000s of collectors looked at it and one person placed one bid on it. I guess that makes my point.

[oldjudge]

It was the lease to the land on which the stadium that the Giants played in until they moved to SF. It also was negotiated by John Ward, the driving force behind the Players' League. If you find it boring then apparently you have limited interest in baseball history. If it doesn't fit in a collection of a memorabilia collector then why would it warrant display space in a museum where the typical visitor is more interested in colorful displays than historically significant items?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

A copy of a lease to buy a plot of land. A legal document. And a terribly boring one at that.

I have no interest in owning a lease to a plot of land. It might have some historical significant. But I don't see why it would be of great interest to collectors, despite it's historical significance (or not).

1000s of collectors looked at it and one person placed one bid on it. I guess that makes my point.

No. The starting bid was very high. Just because there was one person willing to pay $2,400 for it doesn't mean there was little interest.

I won the Players League by-laws. Perhaps you see it as being a boring legal document with little collectible appeal. I see a document that was written in large part by John Montgomery Ward and debated and ratified by a group of players that included Hanlon and Keefe and Pfeffer. I see a document that stated the rules of play for a league that was incredibly far ahead of its time. That was the first in a series of challenges to the owners oligopoly which eventually would culminate in free agency and would forever change the sport.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

No. The starting bid was very high. Just because there was one person willing to pay $2,400 for it doesn't mean there was little interest.

I won the Players League by-laws. Perhaps you see it as being a boring legal document with little collectible appeal. I see a document that was written in large part by John Montgomery Ward and debated and ratified by a group of players that included Hanlon and Keefe and Pfeffer. I see a document that stated the rules of play for a league that was incredibly far ahead of its time. That was the first in a series of challenges to the owners oligopoly which eventually would culminate in free agency and would forever change the sport.

but will PSA grade it?