Free Updates

Let us tell you when new posts are added!

Email:

Navigation

Categories

Search

Archives

<April 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345

More Links










 Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Mr. Clemens, you're late for work again
Posted by T.S.


   Am I the only baseball fan in the world who is stupendously annoyed to the point of distraction by the parlor dance every spring that goes on with a certain Hall-of-Fame-bound pitcher? I speak, of course, about Roger Clemens, who for several years now has been allowed to bless us with his presence on the Major League Baseball scene at precisely the moment that suits him and his busy Roger Clemensblog.jpgschedule.
   To answer my own question, I would appear to be, since at least in the newspapers and magazines that I read, hardly a discouraging word is heard about conduct that would have been unthinkable for an earlier generation of ballplayers.
   The most compelling, repetitive aspect of spring for me recently has been a stunned disbelief that anybody tolerates the prima donna that Clemens has become by virtue of his seven Cy Young Awards and the admittedly remarkable ability to keep his heater humming past age 40.
   I have joked that perhaps one of these days he’s going to lament that he would prefer only to pitch in odd-numbered innings on alternating Thursdays in cities that conform to specific demographic, sociological and climatological guidelines set forth by Clemens’ agent. Gee, sounds silly when you put it like that, but only about 12 percent sillier than the ground rules the pitcher actually tosses out there every spring.
   I know that it’s customary for older folks to carp about changes that take place over time, and indeed, some of that grousing can be discounted or even ignored based simply on that disclaimer, but the pesky case of Roger Clemens is – ironically – a very special case, perhaps even as unique and exalted as Clemens himself believes. Just not in the way that he believes.
   But in this one, the implications for the game that I have loved for more than a half-century are profound. With all the historic changes that MLB has endured since I started paying attention in the late 1950s, the pampered, indulgent treatment afforded Clemens is the most discouraging because it is, at its core, the most dramatically antithetical to the fundamental underpinnings of a team game.
   The staggering salaries that are doled out routinely to players who couldn’t make a turnstile spin if their pensions depended on it (fortunately for them, they do not) have turned off millions of fans, but fiddling like this with the team concept and the responsibilities that have traditionally been attached to it is even scarier.
   And I am not bitter that Clemens is headed to Cooperstown (he’s asked that he be allowed to be portrayed in street clothes on his HOF plaque and that the plaque itself will only be exhibited from June 15 to Labor Day). I was always a Doc Gooden guy, and I used to track their careers, head to head, as I assumed they both would eventually ascend to immortality. I didn’t dislike Clemens; I just rooted for Doc.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   Ed Tyree is one of the nicest gentlemen I’ve encountered in this hobby, and that’s saying something, because over the nearly 30 years that I’ve been going to shows and otherwise taking part in the social aspects of collecting, I’ve met and often become friends with a whole bunch of nice people.
   I’ve only met Ed Tyree a couple of times, quite a few years back when we (Krause Publications) still used to run the Tuff Stuff shows in Richmond, Va. But we’ve talked over the phone from time to time, and he is a frequent contributor to our letters to the editor section in Sports Collectors Digest. And those letters usually have 1980s National League slugger Dale Murphy front and center on Tyree’s agenda.
   Ed has made it something of a crusade to get Murphy more HOF “cred” than he currently receives – about 9 percent in the 2007 vote – and it’s an alternately noble and quixotic undertaking. Tyree has gotten a good deal of newspaper coverage for the Murphy candidacy, and he has frequently written to Commissioner Selig and the Hall of Fame to tout Murphy’s numbers, but it has to be disheartening to see such paltry vote totals for a player of such prominence for the better part of a decade.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   I am still trying to get comfortable with this blogging business, and one of the areas where I think my unfamiliarity shows pretty plainly is in the area of responding to e-mails that show up as a result of earlier blogs or are simply commentary about the hobby in general or SCD in particular.
   One of the areas where I get snagged is in the notion that I have to respond to every allegation and assertion, either in this fashion or individually. I’ll do my best to react to such commentary, but it’s kind of an old rhetorical trick to suggest that such responses by definition have to be all-encompassing and that failing to address any specific item constitutes evasion. Ultimately, I’ll always be faced with picking and choosing topics.
   To the questions about how can a reporter cover hobby figures who are friends, I can only suggest that the relationship with our advertisers is not the adversarial paradigm (I’ve always wanted to get that word into a column, er, blog) that you might find between the fourth estate and government, for example. It is a major element of my job to balance friendships I have with any number of dealers and hobby figures with the need to fairly serve the readers and I try to do that on a daily basis.
   I count Alan Rosen as a friend, but that’s a designation I would also apply to a number of people in the hobby that circumstances dictate are fequently part of our news coverage. I would list an expansive list of other well-known hobby figures that I regard as friends, but my fear is I would leave somebody out and maybe hurt some feelings.
   As my old third-grade teacher used to say, “You know who you are.” And I think that’s part and parcel of the hobby. I have a number of people in the hobby who are mad at me, in some cases perhaps justifiably, but it’s not something I am proud of or wear as a badge of honor. Any evaluation of our publication or any other is going to have to be done through the prism of an imperfectly crafted relationship; expecting it to be something more grandly contentious doesn’t push the debate forward.
   It is my hope that this blog and by extension SCD will be fertile ground for broader debates about the issues affecting the hobby. The new ground rules, which I have conceded I am only now barely getting accustomed to, make things easy enough that the content can be as weighty as the serious issues facing collectors or significantly less than that.
   I am rooting for the former.

*  *  *  *  *  *




4/24/2007 12:03:07 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [9]
 Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Kibitzing about SCD and a solid Gold book
Posted by T.S.


   We’ve gotten a lot of response to our various blogs in the first three weeks, and the most compelling aspect that I’ve noted is my own relative unfamiliarity with how to respond. My natural inclination is to respond to the broader audience in a subsequent blog – like this one, for example – but I do understand that not everybody who reads the blog also reads the “Comments” section that follows at the end. Still, my hope would be that the back-and-forth nature of it would serve all readers, with the understanding that enough context is provided.

   Much of the initial commentary from readers hasn’t touched upon specific items in the blogs, but rather upon criticism of SCD and my stewardship of same. Some of the commentary seems thoughtful and well considered; some of it is more strident and occasionally personal. Either way, I need to develop a thicker skin and kind of roll with the odd punch here and there.

   Concerning some of the allegations that SCD does not take an aggressive enough stance on problematic issues in the hobby, I would only suggest that we try to address controversies like trimmed and altered cards, fraudulent autographs, etc., through interviews and profiles of any number of hobby professionals. The criticism about how much we’ve hammered the card companies about the redemption process might be more legitimate. We have taken note of the inherent problems that surround the idea of redemptions, but we’ve hardly taken it up as an editorial causis belli (I just wanted to get some latin into the blog).

   A couple of readers complained about our relationship with advertisers in general and one in particular; there’s not much to say in that regard other than to restate that our magazine holds an obligation to both readers and advertisers, and we try to navigate that tricky middle ground that ostensibly separates the two. I say “ostensibly,” because the distinction between the two is hardly absolute. Creating a venue for buying and selling cards and memorabilia was what gave life to SCD 34 years ago, and it’s never been a traditional adversarial relationship because everybody who buys stuff ends up selling stuff sooner or later.

   Questions about our delivery of SCD are even more discouraging, because it’s an area we know is one of the most important components of the magazine and also – to our great frustration – an area where we don’t have as much control as we would like. We have worked mightily with a number of alternate solutions to deliver the magazine over the years, but ultimately wind up being at the mercy of the U.S. Postal Service.

   We never miss any deadlines with the magazine; one the same day every week, it’s sent from our printer to the regional postal facility in Chicago where it gets routed around the country. It would almost be unprecedented for a particular delivery snafu to be connected with something we’ve done, rather than something linked to the handling by the Postal Service.

   For our customers, if that sounds like a lame excuse, I would insist it is not. The ultimate responsibility for getting SCD into a reader’s hands in a timely fashion is ours, and we will continue to work to ensure that, but the reality if that our ability to impact the whole process is not nearly as significant as we would like.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   One of the cool things that we used to do here in Iola was to hold a special promotion each spring called “Whatzit Day.” The idea was that people from the community would bring their collectibles to our offices and the editors from our various divisions would evaluate the material and provide details – including but not limited to potential value – to the collector.

   It was always an extremely popular event, and I liked doing it just to see the items that collectors would bring in. The antiques end of things was by far the busiest department, but there would occasionally be some good cards or sports memorabilia that would turn up.
Inspired by that idea (and, obviously, the iconic “Memorabilia Road Show” on PBS), we added a “What’s It Worth?” component to our annual SportsFest Show in suburban Chicago. The first edition, held at last year’s show in early June at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont, Ill., was a major hit, with perhaps 150 collectors bringing in material that ranged from the pedestrian to the sublime.

   A USA Today writer and photographer also turned up at the show, producing a piece that ran in the paper the following week, with nearly a full page dedicated to the “What’s It Worth” program, including several spectacular photos both in the paper itself and on the USA Today website.
So with that kind of history, naturally, we’re doing it again, this time at the new SportsFest site at the Renaissance Schaumburg Hotel and Convention Center, just a hoot and a holler from the former site (about 10 minutes northwest). The show runs June 8-10, with the “What’s It Worth” session slated for 1-5 p.m. on Saturday, June 9. For more information, go to www.sportsfestshow.com.

   By the way, the last time we held the “Whatzit Day” program here in Iola, the neatest sports item brought in for examination was a complete set of 1933 Goudeys, all in vg-ex condition, but all from the Goudey files, since each card had a nice, round punch hole squarely in the middle at the top of the card. Not bad for such a small community, eh?

Schlossberg.jpg*  *  *  *  *  *

   Those kinds of programs do wonderful things in terms of introducing and often connecting the broader public to our hobby. Dan Schlossberg, certainly one of the most highly regarded and prolific sports authors in the country, does a nice job of accomplishing that very same goal in his latest book, Baseball Gold: Mining Nuggets From Our National Pastime.

   Chalk this up under the old dictum about “unintended consequences,” but intended or not, our hobby gets a boost in a marvelous, 400-page book that includes so much hobby-related art that it could be “ripped from the pages of SCD,” as they say.

   In a book filled with fascinating facts and factoids about everything from baseball history, stadiums, fans and rules to teams, trades traditions and spring training, the accompanying art is nearly perfect. In addition to images from the Hall of Fame and a vast array of photos of cards, souvenir programs, equipment and jerseys, there are literally dozens of pieces of original art from the Bill Goff Inc. stable of artists, a similar number of Ronnie Joyner caricatures and even the old “Ripley’s Believe It or Not” cartoons that touched upon the world of sports.

   All those artists appear routinely in the pages of SCD, as does Schlossberg himself, who is an SCD columnist. The book can be ordered at www.triumphbooks.com, and is also available at Barnes & Noble bookstores nationwide.




4/17/2007 10:00:24 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [5]
 Monday, April 09, 2007
Musings on Satchel and Robby
Posted by T.S.



    If you’ve ever wondered about the iconic status of Topps, you need look no further than Satchel Paige’s 1953 card, which is easily the nicest card that exists of the legendary figure from the Negro leagues. I mention the designation of Topps as an icon in this regard, but I really should refer to it as is The Merriam Webster Topps Dictionary. That’s where the iconic status comes from: when your typos wind up becoming firmly entrenched in the lexicon.

   Topps misspelled Satchel on the only card the company ever made of Paige, adding an extra “l” to Satchel. For thousands of casual fans, the 1953 Topps card was the first and in many cases only exposure that they had to the most famous player from the Negro leagues, and thus the misspelled 53Satch.jpgfirst name became all but institutionalized for several generations of fans.

The 1953 Topps Satchel Paige card is shown at right.

   Oh, I’ll admit that it has been largely cleaned up now by the expansion of the Information Age and the dawn of the Internet, but there are, no doubt, hundreds of artifacts out there with the misspelling. I was at Mike Shannon’s restaurant in St. Louis several weeks ago, and in the “Hall of Fame” room in the lower level of the restaurant, there was some artwork with the misspelling, which got me to recounting to some of the other diners about the power or the original Topps mistake.
  
   The 1953 Topps card included the same misspelling on the back, giving additional weight to it, reinforcing the initial mistake. Lots of eBay listings carry the extra “l” and some early auction catalogs had it as well, but like I say, the Information Age has helped clear it up over the last 20 years or so and the dramatically increased exposure for the Negro leagues hasn’t hurt, either.


*  *  *  *  *  *


   Now here’s a tangentially related story that I assume Ole’ Satch might have approved of (this is the Blogosphere, so I am willing to loosen up and end a sentence with a preposition). In 1971, I started working at the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon in my last year in the Navy, and one of my first reactions as I waddled around the 17 miles or corridors was, quite literally, a question. “How come there are so many toilets in this place?” I asked myself.

   It really was one of the first things that struck me about the building, and I had walked a good chunk of the corridors in the various rings, not because of an interest in aerobic exercise (70 percent of Americans smoked in those days), but rather because I wanted to see as many of the museum-quality ship models that were strewn about as I could.

   Anyway, it only took 36 years to clear up the question about the toilets. From a book I am currently reading about the Pentagon, The House of War by James Carroll, comes word that there were 200 of them all told. Turns out that when the place was officially opened in 1943, President Roosevelt showed up for the ribbon cutting and spotted a “Whites Only” sign over one of the restrooms, a Jim Crow vestige obviously aimed at making the facility comply with Arlington, Va., segregation prohibitions. So that’s why there were so many of them!

   FDR promptly told Pentagon officials (the 1943 equivalent of) “I don’t think so.” Toilet accomodations were thusly integrated, making the Pentagon the only place in Arlington to have such egalitarian ground rules in that particular area.

   And there’s an epilogue, too. The next spring, the Weathermen underground organization blew up one of our beloved restrooms in a May 19, 1972, bit of terrorism that was part of their protest of President Nixon’s bombing of Hanoi during the Vietnam War. I remember the various demonstrations blocking our ability to get to work one day that May, and I remember seeing the blown-up men’s room, though I wasn’t working at the time of the explosion.


*  *  *  *  *  *


   In sticking to the integration theme, I am sure you’ve noticed that a number of Major League Baseball players have decided to wear No. 42 on April 15 to honor Jackie Robinson and mark the 60th anniversary of his breaking the color line. Ken Griffey Jr. was reportedly the one who pitched the idea to Commissioner Selig, who quite rightly was enthusiastic about the idea.

   So the “retirement” of No. 42, which had been engineered by MLB a decade earlier at the 50th anniversary of the historic event, was given a one-day moratorium for the tribute, and a number of other players, including one Barry Bonds, quickly signed on.
Robinson.jpg
   I think it’s a great idea, and I also like the idea because of the link to our hobby. I suspect that by the time April 15 rolls around, every team will have a No. 42 out there, creating a number of wonderful collectibles in the process. We asked MLB officials what was going to happen to the jerseys; initial word was that there was no official word yet. The MLB.com site winds up the repository for an imposing pile of game-used stuff, so I assume that’s an option, or maybe the option.

Original Jackie Robinson artwork by Darryl Vlasak (at right)

   It would also seem to be a great way to raise money for charitable purposes, something that MLB has done in a big way for many years in conjunction with The Jackie Robinson Foundation. How much would somebody pay for a game-used No. 42 jersey used by Ken Griffey Jr. and signed by him? I dunno, but I bet it’s a pile.

   A number of newspapers recounted the good-news story of modern ballplayers offering such proper genuflection to one of the giants who came before them; they then fouled off the rest of the story with a tortured linkage.

   Several newspapers in MLB cities juxtaposed the No. 42 jersey story with the yesterday’s news demographic dirge about how the overal number of blacks has declined in Major League Baseball over the last two decades.

   Gimmee a break! While the change in MLB’s demographics is a legitimate story – think about baseball’s expanded and wildly successful efforts to tap Latin American nations for talent – linking it to what Jackie Robinson did is silly and ultimately trivializes what he accomplished.

   What Robinson faced in 1947 – and indeed, what a generation of black ballplayers faced – was a brutal, malignant institution that denied the basic humanity of an entire race. The decline in the numbers of blacks playing Major League Baseball – now below 10 percent – has been the result of a number of factors, virtually all rising independent of one another and hardly the result of any Pumpise Green-like quota somehow quietly installed by bigoted execs eager to cling to some final shadow of the color line.


*  *  *  *  *  *

   The last bit of business in this blog entry will be to address – albeit a bit collectively – some of the postings to my earlier blogs. Some of them included the kind of broader criticisms of SCD that we get – and take quite seriously – but don’t necessarily lend themselves to individual responses via the blog.

   So I’ll note that we sincerely value our readers and our advertisers, and that auction advertising is indeed a major component of the magazine. Like everything else, SCD has changed dramatically over the past 10-15 years, with a good deal of that change dictated by the 800-lb. elephant in the room: the Internet. The articles are not paid for by advertisers; any time we do special sections with linked editorial and advertising content we diligently label the pages thusly.

   The charges that our coverage has diverted away from new cards is a fair one; that was an editorial decision that was deemed of strategic importance quite a few years ago, and in any event, we feel our sister publication, Tuff Stuff magazine, offers a great repository for articles and features about the newer material. I could also add that the change is hardly absolute: our plan is to have the 2007 Topps Heritage cards on the cover of this week’s issue of SCD (May 4).

   Other criticisms of individual advertisers also must face a collective response: grousing about specific businesses and individuals is, I guess, one of the democratic aspects of the Blogosphere, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly engrossing debate for forums where we try to involve our readers in some of the important issues facing the hobby. Companies that provide newly created autographed memorabilia, for example, confront a host of costs and expenses, and then price their material accordingly. Oh wait, that’s what virtually every business in America does, quite routinely, and consumers respond in the fashion that suits them.

   As for carping about Mr. Mint, whom I would quite unabashedly characterize as a friend, all I can say is that the denunciations seem “sooo last week.”

   See you next week.


*  *  *  *  *  *





4/9/2007 3:40:21 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [4]
 Monday, April 02, 2007
Too much boo hoo about Barry
Posted by T.S.


   As readers of my column in SCD are no doubt aware, I am the self-appointed world’s greatest Henry Aaron fan, an informal designation that speaks to nothing more than my unrelenting ardor and half-century-plus of serious campaigning on his behalf. I offer that as a disclaimer ... and as evidence that what I am about to write warrants a bit of extra credibility since it defies conventional wisdom and comes from someone who generally writes with a pronounced pro-Aaron slant.
  
   People discussing the approaching demise of Henry’s All-time Home Run King status need to lighten up and simply accept the moment with whatever degree of disdain, disbelief, disgust, disinterest, disregard or elation that seems appropriate for them personally.
BONDS1.jpg
   What prompted this was an editorial in the largest newspaper in our state (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) noting that the editorial “they” would be placing an asterisk after Barry Bonds’ name if and when he passes Hank’s No. 755. This solemn edict stems from Bonds’ alleged link to steroids.

   Aside from the obvious silliness of individual newspapers deciding which Major League Baseball records they will ratify and which they will deem unworthy, you are confronted with the unworkability of the whole idea. If you look hard enough, you can find any number of reasons to question the validity of records; we just put extra import on this Bonds situation due to “drugs,” because we are at war with them and have been for more than 40 years.

   In fairness to the Journal Sentinel guys (non-gender-specific usage), I suspect they weren’t that serious or really literally intend to follow through with the asterisk part. Roger Maris didn’t really get one, either.

   There is also much debate about what Bug Selig’s role should be in marking the occasion of the record being toppled, a faux controversy that winds up being mindless fodder for sportswriters.

   Of course Selig has to try to be present when the record falls, and I emphasize “try” because it’s an inexact science and the commissioner of baseball can’t be expected to hang around the ballpark like a groupie for a couple of weeks in the event that Bonds doesn’t sock No. 756 in his usual one homer every 11 at bats or whatever.

   With that caveat included, how could Selig not make an attempt to attend? Why would he want to feed the controversy surrrounding his beloved game by seemingly turning up his nose as the most important record in baseball history falls? It’s a no-brainer.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   When is a Hall of Famer not a Hall of Famer? Or more precisely, when is a non-Hall of Famer actually a Hall of Famer? Pete Rose would be an example of the former: a player with the visibility and perhaps popularity of a Hall of Famer (including card prices), though he may never actually have the official designation.

   Marvin Miller would be the preeminent example of the latter. Both legends are appearing at MAB Celebrity’s April 28-29 show in Secaucus, N.J., with both signing that Sunday afternoon. Miller got rudely dissed by the HOF’s Veterans Committee in late February in a vote that defies understanding as much as it begs for a change in the way the voting is done.

   It says here that Miller will ultimately be in the Hall of Fame, one way or another. There’s too much credibility for the organization itself at stake in the process for him not to eventually be enshrined. Miller is 90 years old, so the debate about whether he’ll be around to enjoy sitting in one of those rocking chairs on the front porch of the Hotel Otesaga is legitimate, but there shouldn’t be any real argument about his eventually getting a plaque.

   It may not be on par with William Gladstone’s quotation about “Justice delayed is justice denied,” but it seems particularly unfair to me for someone to be excluded from enjoying the ultimate recognition of a life’s work simply because the process of according that recognition is clumsy and inefficient.

   Dick Gordon (full disclosure: a friend for more than 20 years) is bringing Miller to that MAB show (www.mabcelebrity.com), and like so many of us, he was thoroughly disappointed and disheartened by the HOF voting results announced on Feb. 27. Miller is appearing at a show with a dozen Hall of Famers, another eventual shoo-in (Ken Griffey), a player who should be a HOFer someday (Andre Dawson), a whole bunch of rookies of the year, and Pete.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   I bet it would make an interesting poll to ask fans whose facsimile autograph was on the very first baseball glove that they owned when they were young. For me it was Moose Skowron on a Denkert glove, but it turns out that the whole idea of attaching the ersatz autograph of your favorite player to a store-model glove is apparently in decline, having lost favor for a number of reasons over the last two decades or so.

   Our own Joe Phillips, SCD columnist and the editor of The Glove Collector, the online (www.glovecollector.com) and printed newsletter, was quoted in the New York Times Sunday Sunday edition on April 1 in article entitled “Gloves Without Names.”

   Citing Phillips, the article noted that in the late 1970s about 70 percent of store-model gloves came with the facsimile autograph; now, the figure is closer to 80 percent without a signature.

   Apparently the combination of increased licensing fees, declining demand and changes in the way gloves are wholesaled around the country came together to spell the demise of the once iconic product. The example noted in the article was a youngster in New England coming upon an Alex Rodriguez model glove at the local sporting goods store, giving our hypothetical Beantowner simply another reason not to buy the glove.

   The executive quoted, Tom DeSimone, a buyer for Modell’s, did point out that his best-selling glove is actually a “relatively inexpensive $29.99 Derek Jeter model intended for children under 12.”
I wonder how many adults end up buying that particular item as something to be used to get a real Derek Jeter signature on it?

*  *  *  *  *  *

   Speaking of player endorsements, probably the most famous instance of that coming up as an issue would be the T206 Honus Wagner card. While the folks outside the hobby often ascribe the scarcity of the Wagner card to an alleged distaste for tobacco products that Honus was said to have had (contradicted somewhat by his 1948 Leaf card), hobby veterans often put stock in yet another view.

   The seemingly more sophisticated take on the T206 rarity is that Honus objected to not be properly compensated for using his image, since he was arguably the brightest star in the baseball universe at the time.

   Either way, the T206 Wagner has been one of the most widely reprinted cards in hobby history. The result of that is, of course, that we get on average a handful of phone calls every year with the excited fan clutching a T206 Wagner in one paw while breathlessly asking me about its value.

   I routinely ask the collector to turn to the card’s back and read me what it says. “This card is one of the most coveted in the sports card hobby, selling for as much as $80,000,” is roughly what they end up telling me in reading from the back of the “card.” And then I have to gently explain that the $80,000 figure is a fairly conspicuous hint about the authenticity of the pasteboard.

   I am not sure (I could ask noted autograph expert Mike Gutierrez), but I have a suspicion that it’s a lot more fun to be the guy on the PBS television show “Antiques RoadShow” telling some unsuspecting collector that is memorabilia is worth a kazillion dollars more than he/she thought, rather than being the guy who ended up bursting their bubble.





4/2/2007 3:40:42 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [6]
 Monday, March 26, 2007
Into the Blogosphere
Posted by T.S.

    This is my blog. I am a 56-year-old formerly computer-phobic weenie who now finds himself quite unceremoniously propelled into cyberspace. I am the editor of Sports Collectors Digest; I have been here at SCD for nearly 14 years and worked for several years before that as a freelancer. I would still have the original Topps cards that I bought as a 9-year-old in 1959, since I politely asked my mother not to throw them away while I was overseas in the Navy from 1968-72, but I have upgraded most of them over time. If that sounds like I am – at some bizarre level – ashamed of ts1.jpghaving done so, then there it is.

   I am not so much a reluctant cyberspace traveler as I am a bit intimidated by the undertaking. That’s odd, since I trace my computer roots back to 1969 when I operated a UNIVAC 1004 computer at the Naval Communications Center at Subic Bay in the Philippines. That particular contraption was roughly the size of old Crosley Field; as the computer age rolled on through nearly four decades, the actual hardware kept getting smaller and smaller, as did my comfort level with each new advancing generation.

   I whine like this because I welcome any help that loyal readers can provide in terms of pushing me in this or that direction, with this or that nuance or emphasis. Remember, I was the guy who thought Pong was breathtaking in 1975 with its graphic sophistication and frenetic pace.

   So with that convoluted introduction, here I go. I will be updating this periodically, as they say, so hopefully there will be good reason to revisit from time to time. Five, four, three, two, one ...

 * * * * *

   One of the main reasons I love going to shows, aside from seeing old friends and great cards and collectibles, are the reminders that I get from those very same friends and collectibles about why our hobby has such an enormous underlying strength and resilience.

   For many years when I would get treasured opportunities to visit with famed collector Barry Halper, I would come away from virtually every meeting with an overwhelming admiration for his scholarly interest in the game of baseball and its history, rather than an overriding preoccupation with investment value or other such details concerning dollars and cents.

   Naysayers might pooh pooh all that, saying, with some sarcasm, something to the effect of, “Yeah, and he wound up with nearly $40 million for all his scholarly pursuits.” True enough, but I can promise you that when you talked with Halper about his stuff (which will be the kind of exchanges I’ll be featuring in this blog), it wasn’t about what he paid or what he could get for something: it was about the item and its history, and no detail was spared.

   Anyway, when I was at the Chicago Sun-Times Show over the St. Patrick’s Day Weekend, I ran into a host of old friends – just as I usually do at George Johnson’s biannual show, our own SportsFest show, the Philly shows and other major East Coast events (read auctions) and at the National Convention.

   And speaking of the National Convention, I briefly saw John Broggi, National Convention co-manager, who was there in his official capacity to check out details for the 2008 National. I also ran into one of my favorite people in the hobby, Steve Juskewycz, president of Megacards, the company that produced the wonderful Conlon Collection cards from 1991-95. Juskewycz is a standout golfer; he was buying autographs from another friend, Kip Ingle, who is regarded as one of the top sources in the hobby for golf items.

   On Saturday at the show – St. Patrick’s Day – I was walking around in a garish, bright-green jacket, a bit of sartorial splendor mildly out of character for somebody who dresses in the dark and thinks that “dressing up” means finding a T-shirt that doesn’t have any advertising logos on it.

   Anyway, the jacket was loud enough to prompt Mounted ts2.jpgMemories president Mitch Adelstein to ask if I had won the Masters, but it also elicited a wave from another friend, autograph expert/dealer Phil Marks from New Jersey.

   “Who’s the second-most-famous Irishman in Chicago,” he asked. I was pretty sure I wasn’t it. “Charlie Comiskey,” Marks said, and he proceeded to produce a great pile of artifacts, including photographs and postcards, from the Hall of Famer’s estate.

   He had items from a 1907 spring training trip by the White Sox to Mexico City, a number of stunning Indian postcards from Comiskey’s travels out west, and even PC’s from the 1924 World Tour. And the whole time I was talking to Phil about the Comiskey cards (listening, really), he never once mentioned the price of anything. Not that he doesn’t sell stuff, just that he has that estimable Halper-like quality of being so genuinely interested in his own material that the monetary aspect isn’t the overriding focus.

   I was also personally interested in four or five images from Comiskey’s summer home in Eagle River, Wis., the place where he died in 1930. My grandmother had owned a “cottage” in nearby Three Lakes, Wis., where we vacationed nearly every year until 1960 or so, and my cousins still own the summer home now, though calling it a cottage would be akin to calling an aircraft carrier a boat. It’s one of the most beautiful areas in the state, if a bit forbidding in the winter, unless you’re a snowmobiler or skier.

   And on the subject of that neon-green sport coat, I wanted to point out that I had actually been given the jacket the night before from my mother. My father, who died 11 years ago, was as natty a dresser as I am, uh, less than fashionable. I had stopped to see my mother in Stoughton, Wis., en route to Chicago for the show, and the only remarkable thing about her giving me his boisterous green jacket was the mystery of why she had waited more than a decade to do it.

                                                             * * * * *

   Fathers and sons; that’s big-time stuff. It’s still fun when old-time collectors remember my dad from the early 1980s and the days of O’Connell & Son Ink. Lots of people still recall that quirky little outfit we started in 1982, though not that many actually remember meeting my dad, except for a few dealers in Indiana who met him when we first started selling the Baseball Greats set in 1983.

   Around that time I was the director of public relations for the Empire State Games in New York, the prototype of virtually every state-sponsored “State Games” in the country, and I still have a staff jacket from that time, now all of 25 years old. I was wearing the jacket the other day when it occurred to me that it was a bit on the snug side.

   As I sort of wondered why I hadn’t sent it to Goodwill or otherwise retired it, it reminded of a remembrance of my father when I was a kid and I was always wondering why in casual situations on Saturdays (like Connie Mack, he always wore a suit and tie to work), mostly, he would wear things that often seemed to be too small. And with the green jacket fresh in my mind, I suddenly realized that now I was doing the same kind of thing. We attach a lot of sentimental power to some garments, a power that keeps them in the closet long past the point when traditional notions of utility and/or style might have relegated them to the dumpster.

   Keeping my Navy uniforms would be an obvious one, but I’ve still got a custom-made shirt from the Philippines, circa 1969. It’s the only custom-made shirt I’ve ever owned, and unlike my Navy dress blues or dress whites, I am pretty sure I can still fit into it.

   At age 56, finding more evidence that I either already am or am continuing to become my father is hardly stunning, but it’s comforting in a spiritual sense. Heck, I’ve got his driver’s license and other such ephemera since his passing, and I could easily use it in some official capacity, if needed, since we have the same name. And for those youngsters who think this is a lot of maudlin claptrap, I can only remind you that you, too, are becoming your father. It's just a matter of time.

* * * * *

   Barry Bonds, he of considerable fame in his own right but also the son of a famous father, is nowhere to be found in the first couple of Topps sets this year, after a two-year run as an exclusive with the iconic card company.

   I gotta admit I might not have noticed this, except that I took a lot of interest in the 2007 Heritage issue which came out a couple of weeks ago. As readers of my column in Sports Collectors Digest probably know, I am a big fan of these Heritage issues, so it’s a lot of fun when we open up the sample boxes that we receive here. I am also a fan of the idea of intermittent reinforcement, a notion that collides with the card companies’ modern emphasis on creating contrived scarcity.

   There was something to be said about the way they did it in the old days, but of course, that relied to a great deal on the idea of printing cards in six or seven series every summer. If you opened packs of 1959 Topps, you would get (in theory, anyway) as many Mickey Mantles as you would Coot Veals. There was/is a good deal of power to the intermittent reinforcement concept; I don’t know if B.F. Skinner had baseball cards in mind with his revolutionary study in 1957 (is it just coincidence that this was the first year of the standard, 21/2-by-31/2-inch Topps card?), but I am convinced the application is completely relevant for collectors.

   Being the online whiz that I am (facetious), I noted somewhere online that somebody likened the underlying principles of IR to the often seemingly addictive quality of e-mails and slot machines. I’ll confess to a substantial hankering for the latter; with the former, I have a bit more of a conflicted relationship.

   I guess there’s irony in Barry Bonds’ absence from a baseball card issue prompting all this fuss and investigation, but he is the biggest star in the game, if not the most popular player in the game. In the spirit of this blogging business, I would note that Bonds has a good relationship with Topps, based on my understanding of the two years when he was exclusive with the company, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Topps eventually brought him back into the fold. I’ve never heard any rumblings to suggest that “His Barryness” might be inclined to exercise his egalitarian side and sign with the MLBPA; turns out his report card says he doesn’t play well with others.

   One last thing in the Topps department: As I waddle around cyberspace both in my official capacity as editor of SCD and in preparation for this blogging venture, I wound up on a message board on the Collectors Universe website. There I found some of the original photos that were used on vintage Topps cards, including Willie Mays from 1952 Topps (and the image used for the painting in 1953), the background of several 1956 Topps cards, including Mantle, Nellie Fox and Monte Irvin, and a couple of others. It’s the kind of stuff I love, so here’s the link, as they say: CU Forum




3/26/2007 3:15:56 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [16]
 Friday, March 23, 2007
Test #2
Posted by T.S.

This is a test.  This is a test hyperlink.



3/23/2007 2:55:42 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [6]