Who are the 10 most important collectors in hobby history

[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 .

[oldjudge]

Tony-Pick up a copy of the Old Judge book. I think you'll find that most of your Old Judge questions will be answered in there.

Whilst we were the individual who began this post, our intent was not to force those collectors who collect "under the radar" to reveal what they have. Everyone of the 30 individuals who we named appears in a table top book- ie. The Smithsonian Guide, Ken Burns book, National Pastime, and/or others or in long forgotten hobby publications.

From time to time we mention an item that we have acquired. We have shared less than 2% of the really rare and unique items in our collection. Whilst we comment frequently, everyone has a right to manage his/her own time and one's collection. A collector or a collection is no less important in stature if the only one who ever sees it is the collector himself.

We agree with Corey, that the collection gives extraordinary pleasure, and we much its company than that of the vast majority of talking heads who
paths have crossed ours.

As a final point, we are in regular correspondence with at least five collectors, only one of whom was mentioned among the 30 names we posted,
who possess $3M+ collections of extraordinary and super rare baseball cards.

In fact, we had a big laugh when a recent major auction noted that a certain item was the only one known, and another collector and ourself had a better example.

It was never our intent to ask anyone to share what he/she does not want to share. One of the joys of great financial success is that you can buy privacy. And we can not think of any thing as valuable as the right to come and go as one pleases, and the shut the world out whenever one wants to.

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

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Yankeefan51

In fact, we had a big laugh when a recent major auction noted that a certain item was the only one known, and another collector and ourself had a better example.

Even as one who doesn't have a collection of extraordinary and super rare baseball cards, at least once or maybe twice a year I'll read an auction house's description of an item (usually a piece of memorabilia) that's "the only one known," and there will be an example in my collection. Granted, the auction houses cover themselves by using the word known, but that phrase still gets thrown around more than it should.

[yomass]

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.

Seems there was this book published not long ago....

[GoSoxBoSox]

Originally Posted by Yankeefan51

And we can not think of any thing as valuable as the right to come and go as one pleases, and the shut the world out whenever one wants to.

One can only hope you make this choice to go and shut the world out soon.

Sorry guys. That was too easy to pass-up.

[Tabe]

First of all, I must say I find this thread fascinating. While I have been collected cards off and on for over 30 years, and tried to read publications on the topic, I am still unfamiliar with a large number of the names in this thread. So I appreciate the history lesson I'm getting in exchange for my time reading this thread.

I must say that I find the personal attacks disappointing and distracting from the topic. FWIW, I do find Bruce's plural references to himself as more than a little odd but to each his own

Also, I'm seeing multiple references to a book on the Old Judge set. Can someone link me to that book? I did an Amazon search but came up empty - just a link to the Barry Halper collection book, the one on the fake Honus Wagner, and a bunch of auction books.

Kind regards,

Tabe