Who are the 10 most important collectors in hobby history

[Hot Springs Bathers]

In the honorable mention category I would have to add John England. When he sold his collection to Fritsch it took three North American moving vans according to the old SCD story on the sale to move it to Wisconsin.

During a phone visit with Larry he told me that his personal collection more than doubled with the purchase.

After years of buying trips to John I would have never known. He did put me in touch with Wharton-Tigar when I told him I would like to find some old tennis cards back in the late 70s. That was a fun experience!

[philliesphan]

can name three to five people who should be on a list like this, but they want their privacy, and we help them maintain it by not ranking collection competition in threads like these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DzX18o-zsA
(perhaps the inspiration for Bruce's plurality)

Whilst we recognize your point of view on privacy, everyone on our list (s) wrote about the hobby in magazines like The Card Collector or Trader Speaks, and/or often advertised or they were large bidders at major public auctions.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong about naming said people. There are no secrets in this hobby. We have over 2000 articles on sports collecting
and over 500 back copies of baseball memorabilia trade publications
dating back to 1927. Furthermore, at each of early Sotheby's auctions
and early Leland auctions- we tracked the winning floor bidder and recorded his name so we could trace history of the items.

Many of the 30+ major items that we obtained since the 2010 National came from individuals who are not visible at all, but own world class collections.

We hope you see our point. If one spends thousands of hours tracing hobby publications, talking to collectors and dealers and reviewing magazine ads
and auction catalogs,,,one certainly has the right to publish a list.

Given the number of responses from other Board Members, we would say that Philliesphan that you are "out in left field" on this issue.

We await your response.

Bruce Dorskind
America's Toughest Want List
bdorskind@dorskindgroup.com

[Peter_Spaeth]

i could well be wrong, but I think it would be very difficult given the nature of the hobby to amass a leading collection so far under the radar that it would not be common knowledge at least in general terms.

[GoSoxBoSox]

Philliesphan couldn't be more right when he says there are at least 3-5 people not on your list that should be way up on your list. And I agree with him that it is only right for us to respect their wishes by not calling their names out in public.

Yankeefan51, all of you over there need to calm down. There is no reason for any of you to say that just because he told all of you the truth.

[Leon]

I can't imagine all of these anonymous folks being so helpful to the hobby? If they are so helpful why the anonymity? Isn't that counter to what is being discussed? Also, I am taking the title literally. For me, the most important collectors aren't the ones with the most money that can buy whatever they want to. I don't begrudge them whatever they want to do but I just don't think buying a large collection necessarily helps the hobby. I guess it does in the sense that it keeps it moving but I like to think of helping the hobby as actually helping collectors. If the anonymous people are big registry guys then I would say they are great for the registry, might be really nice guys and collectors, but I am not sure that helps the hobby in general...though that can definitely be argued and I could see the other side of that argument too. Interesting discussion....way to go Brucii

[Wesley]

What about Marshall Fogel? In addition to having a great collection, he is ready to spearhead a nonprofit hobby watchdog organization. That is a pretty significant contribution to the hobby.

[GoSoxBoSox]

I agree with what you said Leon. I admit that I was not looking at contribution to the hobby as much as breathe, depth, etc. of their collections when I say there are at least 3-5 people who should be on that list.

To be honest, I assumed (wrongly) that this second list that the Brucii posted wasn't about contributions to the hobby because there are more than a couple people on that list that I don't know about having contributed much if anything outside of having huge collections? I could be wrong. I'm just saying I don't know what they contributed that was so great? I don't want to be disrespectful by calling out their names but there are some obvious ones to me. I'm not bad talking them because they sure as hell don't owe "the hobby" anything. They should be enjoying it like the rest of us.

If I'm wrong please go down the list and explain to me what each of those people contributed to the hobby outside of compiling huge collctions? You can skip obvious people like Burdick, Fritsch, Lifson, J. Miller and Lipset. Outside of those five gentlemen I would love the education so I can give each of these men the proper respect they deserve.

Thanks in advance.

Tom

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Leon

I can't imagine all of these anonymous folks being so helpful to the hobby? If they are so helpful why the anonymity? Isn't that counter to what is being discussed? Also, I am taking the title literally. For me, the most important collectors aren't the ones with the most money that can buy whatever they want to. I don't begrudge them whatever they want to do but I just don't think buying a large collection necessarily helps the hobby. I guess it does in the sense that it keeps it moving but I like to think of helping the hobby as actually helping collectors. If the anonymous people are big registry guys then I would say they are great for the registry, might be really nice guys and collectors, but I am not sure that helps the hobby in general...though that can definitely be argued and I could see the other side of that argument too.

+1

[scottglevy]

Originally Posted by philliesphan

can name three to five people who should be on a list like this, but they want their privacy, and we help them maintain it by not ranking collection competition in threads like these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DzX18o-zsA
(perhaps the inspiration for Bruce's plurality)

Good point. I can certainly think of at least one or two that have superb collections ... but it's not my place to say.

[FrankWakefield]

A superb collection, by itself, does not make an important collector... a collector's contributions to the hobby is the primary factor. Being a collector is a qualification, but not the end all of the matter. Maybe they contribute information to others, or use an assumed name... that would get them there. But a great collection alone isn't enough.

[Jacklitsch]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

A superb collection, by itself, does not make an important collector... a collector's contributions to the hobby is the primary factor. Being a collector is a qualification, but not the end all of the matter. Maybe they contribute information to others, or use an assumed name... that would get them there. But a great collection alone isn't enough.

I agree. I would rank someone with no collection, but who is willing to impart hobby knowledge to others, over someone with a fabulous collection who is not.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jacklitsch

I agree. I would rank someone with no collection, but who is willing to impart hobby knowledge to others, over someone with a fabulous collection who is not.

As stated before, there really are 2 different questions posted. The first one being about "whos is biggest/best?" and the second one being "who has helped the hobby the most?" One is not necessarily dependant on the other. I could also include a past and present tense of both questions. I would like to think many on this board help the hobby in many ways today. And I am sure that there are some of the best collections by members, or lurkers, too.

[Delray Vintage]

I think there are many of us who have very nice collections who remain quiet about it. It is not that we do not want to discuss it, but we do not get pleasure from seeing our sets on registries or care about grading companies' awards. I would guess many quality private collectors are completely unknown on boards. Of course those who have the best wagners or the grade 10 52 mantles are known. I first joined this board recenty but have been collecting high quality pre-war, mostly 19th century for years. I enjoy the board but do not care if PSA knows me.

I do not denigrate the lists here or say those mentioned are publicity seekers but point out that many of us are not in it to top other collectors or get recognition.

[nodgrass]

Delray,

Absolutley a great point. A somewhat related saying "Those who say the least are usually those you should listen most to".

[quinnsryche]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I think there are many of us who have very nice collections who remain quiet about it. It is not that we do not want to discuss it, but we do not get pleasure from seeing our sets on registries or care about grading companies' awards. I would guess many quality private collectors are completely unknown on boards. Of course those who have the best wagners or the grade 10 52 mantles are known. I first joined this board recenty but have been collecting high quality pre-war, mostly 19th century for years. I enjoy the board but do not care if PSA knows me.

I do not denigrate the lists here or say those mentioned are publicity seekers but point out that many of us are not in it to top other collectors or get recognition.

Completely understandable that it's not a contest, but not sharing with the comnmunity seems a bit selfish. 99.9% of board members here (IMO) would love to see stuff they have never seen before. If collectors can't enjoy other's cards, mem., etc. then really what is the point? Why do you think there is a monthly pick up thread? It's so others of the same ilk can see the great items in the hobby. Secretive and cloistered collections only serve their masters and that's just self serving. If you are worried about theft or other concerns, just don't list your name or address. Too many lurkers/takers and not enough givers (info, scans or opinions for that matter). As an example, I asked a question about Old Judges awhile back and got no responses. I think they were reasonable questions but as I have heard, the big collectors don't like to impart info or even show their rarities. Why is that? Seems a tad childish doesn't it? Take it for what it's worth, just my opinion.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Completely understandable that it's not a contest, but not sharing with the comnmunity seems a bit selfish. 99.9% of board members here (IMO) would love to see stuff they have never seen before. If collectors can't enjoy other's cards, mem., etc. then really what is the point? Why do you think there is a monthly pick up thread? It's so others of the same ilk can see the great items in the hobby. Secretive and cloistered collections only serve their masters and that's just self serving. If you are worried about theft or other concerns, just don't list your name or address. Too many lurkers/takers and not enough givers (info, scans or opinions for that matter). As an example, I asked a question about Old Judges awhile back and got no responses. I think they were reasonable questions but as I have heard, the big collectors don't like to impart info or even show their rarities. Why is that? Seems a tad childish doesn't it? Take it for what it's worth, just my opinion.

Of course you're entitled to your view, but I have to respectfully disagree.

I collect for my personal enjoyment. Yes, if in the process I can share my knowledge with others, all the better. But I don't think that is a prerequisite to a person being passionate about collecting, or to there being a "point" to the collection. I know a number of people with substantial collections. Most of them collect under the radar. They do that not to be secretive. Without exception, all of them I think would go out of their way to offer assistance if anybody should come to them with a question. But they are modest people who would regard constantly showing what they have to be a form of bragging. Maybe others would not see it as such, but they would. In addition, to some of them it's not so easy to post scans. To those of us who grew up in a different technological era, taking and displaying quality digital photographs is not a common-place activity. For me personally, I do not even own a digital camera. All my images are on transparencies, which many scanners cannot scan.

So while I have no issue with encouraging people to impart knowledge for the good of the hobby, I don't think it appropriate that the passionate private collector who collects neither for investment nor ego, but simply for pure unbridled enthusiasm for what he/she collects, should be denigrated.

[FrankWakefield]

I kinda agree with Corey, but I see a different distinction...

A collector with a great collection who keeps to himself, that is fine with me. I actually well understand that. But that collector is not as important to the hobby as one who is knowledgeable and who shares his depth of knowledge and experience with other collectors, even if he has a more modest collection himself. The former's collection may be more important, but the latter collector is more important to the hobby.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I kinda agree with Corey, but I see a different distinction...

A collector with a great collection who keeps to himself, that is fine with me. I actually well understand that. But that collector is not as important to the hobby as one who is knowledgeable and who shares his depth of knowledge and experience with other collectors, even if he has a more modest collection himself. The former's collection may be more important, but the latter collector is more important to the hobby.

Nicely put. However, I don't think having a great collection would exclude someone from helping the hobby either (not that you were saying that, Frank). Merely posting some views and info on chatboards is giving back a little bit, in it's own right.
Type-collecting does allow me to be part of many conversations, which is fun. I am a glory hog .

[tedzan]

DITTO....to what Frank W said in post #125.


TED Z

[tbob]

Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers

In the honorable mention category I would have to add John England. When he sold his collection to Fritsch it took three North American moving vans according to the old SCD story on the sale to move it to Wisconsin.

During a phone visit with Larry he told me that his personal collection more than doubled with the purchase.

After years of buying trips to John I would have never known. He did put me in touch with Wharton-Tigar when I told him I would like to find some old tennis cards back in the late 70s. That was a fun experience!

Yes, old John He was one of my partners when we bought "The Southern Find," the largest discovery of Coupons ever made (I believe). I met John in the early 80's. John owned a card store in Fort Smith, Arkansas located on the second floor of Vivian's Bookstore. At one time his collection was outstanding. He had an unbelievable collection of tobacco and caramel cards and had (arguably) the largest and most complete collection of Zeenuts ever put together, although Mark M. told me it wasn't quite #1. It had to be close. I remember when he began to get disinterested in cards and sold his collection to Larry Fritsch for a huge sum. He still had his store inventory and ran a business for several years but it seemed like his heart wasn't in it and eventually he sold the business. I spoke to him a few years ago and he is completely out of card collecting and his obsession is now jazz records and he has a ton. I always wondered if he regretted selling his marvelous collection. He was a set completist and I bet his collection of cards could have rivaled anyone's.

[Jewish-collector]

Bruce started a similar thread back about 2 years ago.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ial+collectors

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

Bruce started a similar thread back about 2 years ago.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ial+collectors

Actually there was one last year even closer on topic.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...hlight=wharton

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Actually there was one last year even closer on topic.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...hlight=wharton

At least it's something to discuss and I don't think 1 yr is too long to talk about something again. There can always be new points made. At least he started a good thread. regards

[FUBAR]

i was hoping to make the list this year, but once again, i was over looked!

I must be #101...

I personally don't think Halper should be one the list any longer, with all the recent findings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

At least it's something to discuss and I don't think 1 yr is too long to talk about something again. There can always be new points made. At least he started a good thread. regards

Oh I agree I was only pointing it out as a cross reference not as criticism.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

Bruce started a similar thread back about 2 years ago.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ial+collectors

Alan,

That wasn't Bruce. That was that damn Archive fellow!

[jeffmohler]

I came from a stamp and coin background prior to getting into baseball cards about five years ago. In those fields there has been a great deal of scholarly research done over the years. To me, the card hobby is just in its infancy compared to stamps and coins. In order for it to mature we need to see more research, books written and hobby associations formed. We should have organizations like the American Stamp Dealers Association, Society of Philatelic Americans, the American Numismatic Association and others. Why we don't have exhibitions of collections, research papers presented and conferences at the National puzzles me.

To address the topic at hand, I would nominate Lew Lipset for his Encyclopedia, Scot Reader and Ted Zanadakis for their ground-breaking work on T206 and the guys that put the Old Judge book together. This is the kind of research that will eventually bring order and growth to the hobby.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by jeffmohler

To address the topic at hand, I would nominate Lew Lipset for his Encyclopedia, Scot Reader and Ted Zanadakis for their ground-breaking work on T206 and the guys that put the Old Judge book together. This is the kind of research that will eventually bring order and growth to the hobby.

I second that! I would also add that any list that includes Jim Beckett should also include Denny Eckes; in fact they should be referenced as a tandem I feel.

[GoSoxBoSox]

Again with the name calling. Boring.

Nice catch on Hal Lewis as a collector, guys. I'm not sure how he slipped by? Same with James Beckett and Bob Lemke as contributors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I infer the original reference to Hal was sarcastic, but he did generate a lot of interest and debate about the definition of a rookie card, and by extension the definition of a card in general.

[Leon]

The original question only asked for 10 people. That is quite a small number for the last 75 yrs, or so, of collecting. I gave my 10 but certainly missed some names that could have been put in.

Bruce- I still don't think that just because someone spends 10 million on a collection that they should be nominated for the list. It's the people, dare I say, that give back and help collectors and the hobby, that I feel should be on the list. It would be fun to have a current 10 and a past 10 too. There are also names like Denardo, Young, Mitchell (Hi Stephen) and many more that could make the list. As I said, 10 is a small number. regards