Narrow-minded Collectors

[Snapolit1]

I don't disagree that a relative handful (or two) of names garner the lion's share attention in the pre-war collecting world. Your point maybe be exaggerated (people talk all the time about Paige and Gehrig as but two examples), but your point is generally accurate. Wait around for an Ernie Banks thread and you might be waiting a while. But have you ever gone to a post war board? Jeez its Mike Trout all day and all night. I think this is just the vagaries of collecting, and would bet it takes place with respect to vintage cars, hummels, Norman Rockwell plates, stamps and everything else. Pecking orders develop in hobbies and are in a way self perpetuating. Why is this plate more desirable than others? Because basically the hobby decided it was because more people talked about it and it got more desirable. Rinse and repeat.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Pecking orders develop in hobbies and are in a way self perpetuating. Why is this plate more desirable than others? Because basically the hobby decided it was because more people talked about it and it got more desirable. Rinse and repeat.

I'm an English literature major, and we call the top 100 books the canon. Generally it is represented by dead white guys, who were chosen by old white guys. But over the last 20-30 years, more open minded academics have started to change the canon by broadening and redefining what's important. It looks a lot like NET54 organization as they break it up into groups. Post Colonialism. Feminism. Realism/Naturalism. Contemporary. Poetry. World Lit. Victorian Era. Elizabethan. African American Lit. It's a glorious time to be alive if you're a reader as the canon has grown to adopt diversity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Casey2296]

I was hoping to keep my progress on a Gus Zernial master set under wraps so y'all didn't drive the prices up.

[glchen]

Babe Ruth sez: "Sorry, Willie, I think I was the best baseball player I ever saw. Now buy more of my cards!"

[GeoPoto]

Best Pitcher (after Ruth)

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1605641989

[oldeboo]

This thread needs a Ty Cobb card, who has one?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm an English literature major, and we call the top 100 books the canon. Generally it is represented by dead white guys, who were chosen by old white guys. But over the last 20-30 years, more open minded academics have started to change the canon by broadening and redefining what's important. It looks a lot like NET54 organization as they break it up into groups. Post Colonialism. Feminism. Realism/Naturalism. Contemporary. Poetry. World Lit. Victorian Era. Elizabethan. African American Lit. It's a glorious time to be alive if you're a reader as the canon has grown to adopt diversity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Not everyone shares the changing of the canon as something positive, Allan Bloom, in his highly influential The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students (1987) argues that moral degradation results from ignorance of the great classics that shaped Western culture. His book was widely cited by some intellectuals for its argument that the classics contained universal truths and timeless values which were being ignored by cultural relativists.

Additionally, defenders maintain that those who undermine the canon do so out of primarily political interests, and that such criticisms are misguided and/or disingenuous. As John Searle, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, has written:

"There is a certain irony in this [i.e., politicized objections to the canon] in that earlier student generations, my own for example, found the critical tradition that runs from Socrates through the Federalist Papers, through the writings of Mill and Marx, down to the twentieth century, to be liberating from the stuffy conventions of traditional American politics and pieties. Precisely by inculcating a critical attitude, the "canon" served to demythologize the conventional pieties of the American bourgeoisie and provided the student with a perspective from which to critically analyze American culture and institutions. Ironically, the same tradition is now regarded as oppressive. The texts once served an unmasking function; now we are told that it is the texts which must be unmasked." (this was taken from online)

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Not everyone shares the changing of the canon as something positive, Allan Bloom, in his highly influential The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students (1987) argues that moral degradation results from ignorance of the great classics that shaped Western culture. His book was widely cited by some intellectuals for its argument that the classics contained universal truths and timeless values which were being ignored by cultural relativists.

Additionally, defenders maintain that those who undermine the canon do so out of primarily political interests, and that such criticisms are misguided and/or disingenuous. As John Searle, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, has written:

"There is a certain irony in this [i.e., politicized objections to the canon] in that earlier student generations, my own for example, found the critical tradition that runs from Socrates through the Federalist Papers, through the writings of Mill and Marx, down to the twentieth century, to be liberating from the stuffy conventions of traditional American politics and pieties. Precisely by inculcating a critical attitude, the "canon" served to demythologize the conventional pieties of the American bourgeoisie and provided the student with a perspective from which to critically analyze American culture and institutions. Ironically, the same tradition is now regarded as oppressive. The texts once served an unmasking function; now we are told that it is the texts which must be unmasked." (this was taken from online)

Wonderful response! I in no way disrespect the canon of classics. I have grown more in awe of Shakespeare the longer I am out of college, as well as for the Elizabethan artists. I have read and enjoy some of the classics - Allegory of the Cave by Plato stands out. More modern poets like Longfellow and Robert Frost. I appreciate what they have added, and I respect them for it.

But I also find real value in the new canon of politicized opinions (the world of post modern thought). The women added to the canon - such as Virginia Woolf, and the post colonial authors - like Chinua Achebe, they have all added such thoughtful and thought provoking work that they should arguably have a place at the table. At my liberal arts college....College of Idaho....the canon was moved to a class called Literary Theory I and II.

It makes me think of one of my poetry instructors at college who said - "If you can tell me the rules of poetry and exercise them, then I will let you break the rules. But if you don't know the rules, then you need to practice them and learn them until you understand them." I think the same is true when arguing the canon. If you understand the value of these works, and you can see why they were highly respected, then you have a right to question the individuals choosing who is and isn't in (editors of Norton Anthology, in particular) and ask why other artists (based on gender and ethnicity) are not included.

When I teach Shakespeare to my high school students, I talk to them about what makes Shakespeare so timeless. And I highlight that he knew the rules of poetry so well, that when he broke the rules of the sonnet, he was doing it on purpose and he knew what his purpose was.

Turning this back to collecting baseball - I am particularly fond of some of the SABR and mathematicians who are trying to influence hall of fame voting by showing that player XYZ who is not in the hall of fame is just as good as player ABC, who is in the hall of fame and revered. Today, mlb.com ran an article title "Best players on every team not in the HOF." One of the players they highlighted was Lou Whitaker, and they highlighted his statistics as very similar to Rogers Hornsby and Joe Morgan. So, why isn't Lou Whitaker in the Hall of Fame?

[Eric72]

Some "obscure" players have reached legendary status on this board.

Paging Mr. Large-Ass Herzog

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Some "obscure" players have reached legendary status on this board.

Paging Mr. Large-Ass Herzog

What's paging?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

What's paging?

Its an ancient and archaic communication system devised by long deceased individuals who, without the availability of the modern technology that has now cured the world's ills, implemented a primitive electronic devise - known contemporaneously as an "intercom" - to amplify and broadcast sound. While remnants of the long-forgotten communication system can still be found in situ within prehistoric dwellings, countless daft millennials and those without a cognizant grasp of anything before 2007 remain shocked and baffled by it's existence and former use.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by todeen

Turning this back to collecting baseball - I am particularly fond of some of the SABR and mathematicians who are trying to influence hall of fame voting by showing that player XYZ who is not in the hall of fame is just as good as player ABC, who is in the hall of fame and revered. Today, mlb.com ran an article title "Best players on every team not in the HOF." One of the players they highlighted was Lou Whitaker, and they highlighted his statistics as very similar to Rogers Hornsby and Joe Morgan. So, why isn't Lou Whitaker in the Hall of Fame?

Do I like MLB.com? Yes
Do I like and should Whitaker be in the Hall? Yes, but he's lower tier based on watching him his whole career...that, along with his stats.
In any universe is Whitaker equal or near equal to Hornsby or Morgan? No frickin' way. LOL

[Rich Klein]

As a person who is more of a dealer than a collector I get what the OP is saying.

To me, when I saw that, my instinct was I can't tell you how many times over the years I saw newer people immediately gravitate towards the BEST names instead of working on building a collection. Our generation of collectors/dealers did collecting, I personally think it's possible the next generation will mainly focus on names/grades/cards which can be treated like assets and be traded on that level.

Will there be room for the average collector/dealer? Absolutely but it will be a minority of what you see not the majority. I was chatting with one of the dealers from whom I buy a lot of nickel/dime/quarter cards and mentioned how I used to be able to afford the occasional box from him. Now he was doing deals for boxes in the thousands of dollars and said something to the effect of: I preferred those days to what is going on now. Why? He does not know how long he can stay in that game.

It is what it is and we'll survive and there will always be us dinosaurs as collectors and dealers to get through this as well.

[Mark]

What you say makes sense. Things have changed over the years.

But even way back when, there were some people who were drawn to the Big Names. I remember going into a card store 20+ years ago, in Monroeville Pa., and asking to see the stack of Goudey's that were under the glass. The owner said, "which kind of collector are you?" He explained that there were 2 kinds: the first buy only the Ruths and Gehrigs, and other ones want the other cards.