Baseball Cards = Art?

cravetopps · July 9, 2007 2:53AM

anyone ever wondered why it is an acceptable practice to "restore" paintings, documents, books, sculpture and other classical art forms? It seems like what is called "restoration" in one field of art is called "alteration" in our hobby. I wonder if in a few hundred (or thousand) years, it will be common practice to have experts in the field of restoration apply their craft to what will be by then very, very old cardboard. Other than trimming, it seems like a lot of the stuff card doctors are doing is already being done in the restoration field. I'm not condoning the practice in our hobby, just asking a question.

seems to me it is going to eventually be a widely practiced art or future generations will likely never see a baseball card from this era.

ajw · July 9, 2007 3:04AM

I think a big part of the difference is that baseball cards are not unique. A masterpiece painting is. It's more acceptable to restore the only copy of a painting, as it can't be replaced if lost or damaged. That's not true for baseball cards.

But what do I know?

dontippet · July 9, 2007 3:08AM

<< I think a big part of the difference is that baseball cards are not unique. A masterpiece painting is. It's more acceptable to restore the only copy of a painting, as it can't be replaced if lost or damaged. That's not true for baseball cards.

But what do I know? >>

It's common practice in the comics field, and they are not unique. I don't know the answer either, but I have wondered the same thing before.

BobaFett72 · July 9, 2007 3:11AM

some of the old bowmans and tops from the 50's are definitely art.

compared to the crap of today

1960toppsguy · July 9, 2007 4:35AM

Makes perfect sense to me but every time it's mentioned on these boards . . . you become a criminal. I have a 1963 Chevy that looks like sh!t, but I think I will keep it that way . . . restore it, why? If there is a person on these fourms today that does not try to make a card look as nice as possible before they submit it for grading, then I'd venture to say they don't take a bath or comb their hair before they go on a first date.

fandango · July 9, 2007 6:31AM

<< Makes perfect sense to me but every time it's mentioned on these boards . . . you become a criminal. I have a 1963 Chevy that looks like sh!t, but I think I will keep it that way . . . restore it, why? If there is a person on these fourms today that does not try to make a card look as nice as possible before they submit it for grading, then I'd venture to say they don't take a bath or comb their hair before they go on a first date. >>

im confused? how do you make a card as nice a possible before submitting it? fill me in, im missing something here, maybe that is why i dont get PSA 10's....

zep33 · July 9, 2007 8:00AM

hot soapy water and air dry

QUITCRAB · July 9, 2007 10:09AM

Art is one of one...Restoring a dirty masters painting is a lot different then altering a card to bring back a fresh appearence......cards are one of hundreds/thousands...baseball cards shouldnt be restored

Boopotts · July 9, 2007 11:08AM

The reason, I think, is that the price for a baseball card is largely a function of its condition, whereas I don't think this is the case for high art. if Michelangelo's David gets a hairline crack in the left leg it's value won't be diminished, since it's value is not based on it's condition relative to the condition of other, similar (or identical) works.

If you have a T-205 Matthewson PSA 9 (I use this as an example because it's the most beautiful sportscard ever printed) the reason it's worth so much is because its condition distinguishes it from otherwise identical specimens. This doesn't hold for pieces of art, since there are not (usually) similar works that inform the piece's value.

Another explanation is that this is just one of the idiosyncracies of card collecting. If the hobby had evolved differently then we could have an entirely different set of normative standards in place. The fact that the current standards exist doesn't mean they HAVE to exist, or that they will exist for as long as the hobby survives.

dontippet · July 9, 2007 11:11AM

<< The reason, I think, is that the price for a baseball card is largely a function of its condition, whereas I don't think this is the case for high art. if Michelangelo's David gets a hairline crack in the left leg it's value won't be diminished, since it's value is not based on it's condition relative to the condition of other, similar (or identical) works.

If you have a T-205 Matthewson PSA 9 (I use this as an example because it's the most beautiful sportscard ever printed) the reason it's worth so much is because its condition distinguishes it from otherwise identical specimens. This doesn't hold for pieces of art, which have other features that distinguish them from other, similar specimens >>

I'll bring up comics again. Why is it ok with comics? The comic graders will slab a comic book that has been restored and call it exactly that. I don't know what it does to the value, but I know it does not make it worthless like restoring a baseball card would.

Boopotts · July 9, 2007 11:19AM

<< 

<< The reason, I think, is that the price for a baseball card is largely a function of its condition, whereas I don't think this is the case for high art. if Michelangelo's David gets a hairline crack in the left leg it's value won't be diminished, since it's value is not based on it's condition relative to the condition of other, similar (or identical) works.

If you have a T-205 Matthewson PSA 9 (I use this as an example because it's the most beautiful sportscard ever printed) the reason it's worth so much is because its condition distinguishes it from otherwise identical specimens. This doesn't hold for pieces of art, which have other features that distinguish them from other, similar specimens >>

I'll bring up comics again. Why is it ok with comics? The comic graders will slab a comic book that has been restored and call it exactly that. I don't know what it does to the value, but I know it does not make it worthless like restoring a baseball card would. >>

I edited my post to offer an explanation for this, since I was asking the same question myself. One possible counterargument is that a restored sportscard isn't, in fact, worthless. If someone offered me a 1952 Mantle with rebuilt corners for $1000 I'd probably buy it-- it's a good looking card, has some historical resonance, and so on.

In fact, one possibility-- and we'll never know if this is holds or not, but it would be interesing to find out-- is that in a perfect market the price for a restored sportscard would come close to matching the price which that card would have sold for if the restorations had never taken place. Taking our 1952 Mantle as an example, if someone is capable of turning a VG Mantle into a 'mint looking Mantle', then the price of the restored Mantle will eventually converge with the price of a VG, unrestored Mantle, plus or minus a few bucks.

Baseball Cards = Art?

Comments