|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
The t206 crazies ... going to extremes in research to determine what company put their ad on the back of cards most often, or whatever it is they are busy at work researching. OR |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Chad
Except for me. When you all realize this, the world will be a happier place with 72% more butterflies and daffodils than currently exist. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Chris Counts
Gilbert, |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Al C.risafulli
I think they're all great. Rather than get on somebody who collects differently than me, I'd rather learn something about how/why they choose to collect that way, and let it influence my own collecting preferences. Makes the hobby fun for me, instead of being aggravating. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: PC
I'm so crazy, that I'll take every 1960s HOFer card (especially the Yankees) that anyone on this board wants to give me. Call it charity. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
Well, I certainly agree with each of these posts. But for this thread only, it is ok to not be PC. You can feel free to allow the anger, hatred and rage come out. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Josh Adams
Probably the guy that finds the need to create different catagories of "who is worse." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
Well, at least I don't bother people like those who collect pictures of men in their underwear, and call it "artistic". I usedta tell people that Playboy was chock full of interesting "articles" - and it was. But comeon now. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: davidcycleback
There's nothing wrong with doing something silly if you know it's silly and you do it because it's fun. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Frank Evanov
I consider myself a "vintage collector" for whom "only the best will do". I usually go "to extremes in research" to make sure "my card has an abundance of character". |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Tim James
I thought that we pretty much fit into one catagory,WING NUTS ! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: davidcycleback
It's not so much what you do, but how seriously you take what you do. If you're trying to find a cure for cancer, take yourself seriously. If you're collecting baseball cards, don't take yourself as seriously. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
It seems to me that the lines which were once drawn in the sand are shifting. At one time, not so long ago, the consensus on this forum appeared to be that card enhancememt was generally frowned upon. Currently, however, the feeling appears to be that if a card achieves a grade of "Authentic", that card has merit as a collectable. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Frank Wakefield
Well the PSA 8+ folks get my vote for first place. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: joe brennan
I am taking a new direction. No longer will I fret that I cannot afford the PSA 8's, 9's and 10. I'm reverting back to my 3rd childhood. Collecting cards and not condition. If my neighbor bought a $120,000 sports car, would I try to 1 up him and get one for $130,000? I couldn't compete on that level even if I wanted to. Same goes for sets consisting of all PSA 9's and 10's, with commons reaching $1k for a 5 cent card. I'm going back to collecting raw sets in decent condition. Back to what we did as kids. Back to when it was fun to have the card. Back to when we knew nothing about the miniscule difference between an 8 and a 10. Back to when it was fun to look through binders of players from my childhood. I will make an exeption and continue to put together my set of graded T206's. One because I know they are real and unaltered and 2 because I am assured no damage will come to them. I will continue to look for cards with eye appeal regardless of grade. This Bender is a good example.It is a PSA 1. Sorry if I got off topic a bit, but it does bring out another class of collector, so it is still of the topic, sort of . |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: Josh K.
Im right there with you Joe - nothing better than a great looking low grade card. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: DJ
Well the PSA 8+ folks gets my vote for first place as well, especially the T206 people. No Offense. IMO. I like character in my cards as well and I enjoy wear on my cards.I love stains on my Cracker Jacks and have even embraced T206 cards that would give the owner of the card a free beer at the stamped establishment on the back of the card. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Who is worse?
Posted By: joe Brennan
Josh, Sweet looking Matty. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: 1941 Playball (low grade) (EX or worse) | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 7 | 03-11-2009 02:46 PM |
OT: It Just Got Worse For Roger Clemens | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 46 | 05-02-2008 05:36 AM |
Re: What is worse...a scammer or a big time supplier? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 04-02-2007 03:42 PM |
Ooops, But coulda been worse | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 06-18-2006 12:21 AM |
This stuff seems worse from a Seeler w/so much feedback! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 02-03-2003 01:39 AM |