Interesting article on the "10 Most Desirable Cards" on ESPN.com
 

Posted By: <b>Donald Johnson</b><p><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=baseballcards/060728" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=baseballcards/060728</a>

Interesting article on the "10 Most Desirable Cards" on ESPN.com
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Very interesting. We debate here regularly about the meaning of "desireable" or "sought after", but the same cards seem to pop up in all of them. I wonder if the list would vary if it were based on desireability to 19th Century collectors, or set collectors, or type collectors, or team collectors, or HOF collectors, etc. I bet it would still be close to the same list (except for 19th C collectors) just because of rarity and cost.<br /><br />Joann<br /><br />PS: Cut and paste the link into your browser address line, then delete the "&gt;" character at the end. The link will work then.<br />

Interesting article on the "10 Most Desirable Cards" on ESPN.com
 

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />The Top 10 selections are decent, but the author of the article should have consulted this board before putting fingers to keyboard to avoid spreading misinformtation--first he calls T206 Plank an error card and then he mentions the unsupported broken printing plate theory as a reason for its scarcity.

Interesting article on the "10 Most Desirable Cards" on ESPN.com
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>The Anson will "usually" sell between 75 and 100K? Maybe he is referring to another Anson and not the N162?

Interesting article on the "10 Most Desirable Cards" on ESPN.com
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>With Scot, I had to cringe when i read the commentary on Plank.<br />Still, i was pretty ok with the choices. I was particularly pleased that<br />there was no Clay Dalrymple <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />barry

Interesting article on the "10 Most Desirable Cards" on ESPN.com
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>3 errors in the article<br /><br />1st The Baltimore News Ruth is not 6" X 9", it is 2-5/8" by 3-5/8".<br /><br />2nd the T206 Plank is not an error, just short printed.<br /><br />3rd the Anson he is talking about is the N172 Portrait in uniform, not the N162 pictured.