Do you think the National should be expanded to twice a year ?

[barrysloate]

To continue Rob's point, too many collectors would not be able to afford traveling to two nationals a year. For many this is their once a year event, one they plan for a year in advance and save up for months. In a bad economy too many people wouldn't be able to swing this. The result would be two weaker shows instead of one very good one.

[kkkkandp]

I agree that two Nationals every year is probably not a great idea, but I'd like an east coast city to be the site of a once-a-year National show more frequently than every 10 years!

When Gloria Rothstein ran her White Plains show billed as the "East Coast National" it was well attended by both dealers and buyers.

[tedzan]

Regarding this......
"......having two Nationals a year would cheapen the product."

History, during the GROWTH years (1970's to 1990's), of major BB card shows totally contradicts such an absurdity.

For example. the Philly Show started as an annual event in Willow Grove, PA in 1975. Then it was expanded to a March and September show.
Bob Schmierer expanded it to 3 times a year in 1988. And, when it moved to a larger facility (Ft. Washington) in 1993, it was expanded to 4
shows a year. Each of these expansions increased the attendance and improved the quality of this show. The same can be said for several
other shows across the country in that time period.

However, for various and sundry factors, we are no longer in a GROWTH trend in this hobby. Having the National twice a year may introduce
some new excitement into the hobby, and reverse this trend.


KEVIN

This is what I am suggesting here, the Baltimore venue would be a permanent annual East coast Show, while Chicago, and California shows
would alternate.



TED Z

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by tedzan

History, during the GROWTH years (1970's to 1990's), of major BB card shows totally contradicts such an absurdity.



TED Z

Ted,

If it's such an absurd statement, then why weren't there two Nationals during the GROWTH years? Seems like that would have been a prime time to try such an experiment.

Maybe fixing the failing shows is a solution rather than breaking one of the few shows that flourishes. I'm not sure how doubling the pinnacle event of the hobby would "introduce some new excitement into the hobby." That seems like a throwaway line to me, i.e. something that sounds good but really has no basis of fact.

Again, part of the allure of the National is that it's an annual event. Take away that aspect of it, and you take away part of the allure. Pretty simple concept, and not that absurd at all, when you really consider it.

[barrysloate]

The Philadelphia show expanded from twice a year to four times a year during a period of strong growth in the hobby. Today's hobby appears to be in attrition, with the baby boomer generation getting older. It may not be a good time to think expansion. It's in fact possible that by having fewer shows, the ones that remain will be stronger.

And I'm just speculating, as I have not attended a show in over ten years.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The Philadelphia show expanded from twice a year to four times a year during a period of strong growth in the hobby. Today's hobby appears to be in attrition, with the baby boomer generation getting older. It may not be a good time to think expansion. It's in fact possible that by having fewer shows, the ones that remain will be stronger.

And I'm just speculating, as I have not attended a show in over ten years.

That's a key point I forgot to mention, Barry. Shows expanded when it was a GROWTH period. To conveniently omit that key fact when trying to make a case for two Nationals during a period of non-GROWTH, well, it just seems ... absurd.

[Tony Gordon]

While I didn't make it out to Baltimore, I talked to several Chicago dealers who relayed that sales were just okay. The location where their sales are highest is Cleveland. Naturally, I don't mind having the National in my backyard but I think dealers are shortchanged when the show is in Chicago because the promoters do a lousy job at local advertising. The Chicago Sun-Times newspaper is on life support and advertising a show in it is a wasted effort. I believe advertising on the two Chicago sports radio channels and on local cable television would increase attendance significantly.

[Leon]

First of all I don't think it's absurd to talk about 2 shows cheapening the product. If nothing else, it's a good discussion either way, but to call it absurd is absurd in itself, imo. Nothing personal Ted. I just don't think it's an absurd recommendation either way.

For me, and maybe not too many others, I would love to have 2 giant, great shows to go to in one year. I would gladly attend both. I realize I very well might be in the minority though. I would bet 2 cents this whole discussion is how REA feels on the subject of 1 vs 2 (auctions a yr). It would potentially water down the "event". I think this is a great topic and one that is easily debated on both sides. I certainly see good points for having one or two shows a year. regards

[E93]

While I would enjoy two Nationals a year if I could make the time, the reality is I probably could not. I am imagining many are in the same boat. So while it would be fun in theory, I, like others here, would worry about the weakening of the National. If a sizable percentage of regular National attendees only went to one of the two, then it would make both shows not as good. And if they both were weaker, it might mean that they both eventually lose steam. I enjoy the National so much because it is the hobby event that so many of my hobby friends try to make it to every year. I fear diluting that by having two.
JimB

[Doug]

If they had an eastern national and a western national it might give more people a chance to go that otherwise don't want to travel cross country.

[4815162342]

Q: Why is there only one National a year?

A: Wives.

[Jewish-collector]

What they could do is have an east coast city National in the spring and a west coast city National in the fall (or vice versa). And, then have a midwest coast city (probably Chicago and/or Cleveland) replace one of the coast Nationals the following year like so...

Spring 2011 East coast city National
Fall 2011 West coast city National

Spring 2012 Midwest coast city National (to replace the East)
Fall 2012 West coast city National

Spring 2013 East coast city National
Fall 2013 Midwest coast city National (to replace the West)

and so on.....

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Doug

If they had an eastern national and a western national it might give more people a chance to go that otherwise don't want to travel cross country.

This is a key point. I would attend twice as many Nationals if it ever came back to California, Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix or even Denver. I am sure that many other potential attendees (West of the Mississippi) who currently skip it would attend more as well.

So you might lose a few East Coast/Midwest people, but you would gain many others. That's my admittedly biased left coast viewpoint.