when i first read that i thought "i cant believe someone paid $7400 for a chewed up michael vick trading card"
and while i didnt know the proceeds went to the humance society until just now... i still think "i cant believe someone paid $7400 for a chewed up michael vick trading card"
yeah yeah. but who in their right mind would pay $7400 for a trading card of someone who made less of a dent in this world than... say... the man who invented the george foreman grill? crazy! i mean, maybe youd pay a couple hundred. but then again, im not making enough money to be giving it away to charities (however good they are) anyway.
since when is a chewed up trading card of someone who people hadnt even heard of before this whole incident considered to be valuable? art is a creation of people's emotions, experiences, whatever. while i can't say there arent people who look at a trading card and get excited, but to put a trading card on the same level as a piece of art is ludicrous. not to mention the fact that art is an actual investment that accrues value over time. i know trading cards are also considered an "investment" but come on. no one in their right mind is gonna give two shits about a chewed up trading card in 5 years. i mean, im glad the woman gave the money to the charity. its great. im just saying, i wouldnt have bent over and decided to give that amount of money for a trading card. i would have rather just given the money with no trading card in return.
Um. They didn't buy it for the same reason people buy other trading cards. Also, maybe the person who bought it considered it art. Whatever you don't get it. Nevermind.
i understand the principle of donating money to a charity if thats what youre getting at. i just think comparing a chewed up trading card to art (since youre the one that brought it up) is off-base. whether it actually is art or not is "debatable" i suppose but when someone makes something that is immediately mass-produced (as there are numerous chewed up cards being auctioned off), i think that the item in question immediately loses some sort of "credibility".
all i meant when i originally posted is that i *personally* wouldnt want the trading card in return for that sort of contribution. especially not when theyre being mass produced. or not even chewed up by dogs who weren't even dog-fighting. i have nothing against charity.
and while i didnt know the proceeds went to the humance society until just now... i still think "i cant believe someone paid $7400 for a chewed up michael vick trading card"
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
all i meant when i originally posted is that i *personally* wouldnt want the trading card in return for that sort of contribution. especially not when theyre being mass produced. or not even chewed up by dogs who weren't even dog-fighting. i have nothing against charity.
Reply
Leave a comment