Underappreciated sets
 

What set do you love that doesn't seem to get the love it deserves? Personally, I think the 1933 DeLong set is one of the greatest of all time. In just 24 cards, it manages to include one player from every team, AND 15 hall of famers. The colors are bright, the image selection is outstanding, and the design is simply perfect.

Not really a set, but I love postcards. I think they are ridiculously cheap and the ones that are postmarked are already authenticated for you.

Plus one on Delong. Diamond Stars also in the mix.

I never thought of it this way, but this is brilliant. Makes buying postcards really easy if you don't mind them being used for their intended purpose.

I just picked this one up. It’s a team photo of the 1907 Chicago Cubs. It has 4 HOFers: Three-finger Brown, Tinkers, Evers and Chance. 1907 is the year that the Cubs won their first World Series ( after losing to the Hitless Wonders White Sox the previous year). There are 3 interesting dates on it.

10/11/07 ( handwritten) is the day the Cubbies were up 3 games to 0 ( with 1 tie) against the Tigers.

10/12/07 11:30 a.m. ( postmark): Game 5 of the WS was about to start

10/13/07 10:00 p.m. ( postmark): The Cubs are WS Champs.

The message from Cousin Bill : “This town has grown base-ball mad. I have but not quite.Hurrah for the Cubs” sort of describes the excitement in Chicago in a succinct matter.

I am partial to the Oxford Confectionary set; it has real photos, many not seen on other cards, such as Walter Johnson batting, has a real tough-to-find Ruth, expensive HOF'ers but not punitively so. The Cobb I hold is one of my favorite cards of Tyrus. I believe he actually might be smiling. Just a fun set of E cards.

yeah, Delongs are awesome. Love the backs too. I only own an SGC 4 Foxx

A few years ago I pieced together a low grade Delong set and it is a treasured part of my collection. When we were kids we had seen pictures in books and we called the Giants in the Stadium.

I'd like to throw a vote for Tattoo Orbits. How a card can have colors that are simultaneously vivid and muted is crazy.

1911 T205's are said to be some of the best looking tobacco era cards yet they get kicked to the curb like a leprous beggar. Damn white trash T206's :D:D

Kind of a love/hate set methinks.

I'm going with the 1909-11 Obaks.
_

I agree with all the sets mentioned so far; Delong, Oxford Confectionery, Diamond Stars, and the T205's (though the T205's aren't really unloved as much as they're more like the kid brother to the T206 set and just don't get as much attention as their big brother).

I'm going to nominate a few more sets as well, mostly for their uniqueness and in some cases first ever attempts at a somewhat new type of collectible.

1909-13 M101-2 Sporting News Supplements

1916 BF2 Ferguson Bakery Felt Pennants

1937 O-Pee-Chee Stand-Ups

1910-11 S74-1 White Silks

1911 S74-2 Colored Silks

And for a post-war nominee:

1948 Swell Sports Thrills

And postcards are great collectibles also, but aren't a set, they are more of an entire type or genre of a collectible, and the OP specifically asked about sets. They are getting more and more attention and love though as many card prices have risen so much over the past couple of years, lots of collectors may be turning to PCs as a more affordable alternative.

I’ll vote for Batter Up. Has all the HOF’ers except Gehrig and Ruth, multi-player cards, horizontal cards, a tougher high # series with some probable single prints and multiple color variations for master set wonks. Yet, zero love for the most part.

+1 on Obaks

Also like the D304 Butter Krust Issue

Underappreciated, and rightfully so...the W9316 set.

Brian

T201's.

Many of these sets mentioned have a certain level of appreciation by collectors.
Batter Ups in comparison are definitely a set that is barely recognized at all. They are just plain cool for the reasons Judson mentions, as well as for its set size and scope of players it includes, but no one seems too interested...

Brian

Definitely in agreement on 1934 Delong and T205.

Some others I really like:

-T207: just a fascinating set, really hard to find in nice condition, with varying levels of scarcity throughout the set. A little dull-looking and missing some key players, but if we're (rightly) going to count Obaks for their beauty and scarcity, we could count T207s for their scarcity and condition issues.

-T202: These are beautiful, and have a wide range of stars. I honestly think that the reason they're so overlooked is because there's not a sensible way to put them in order. We're collectors. Does this card go under "C" for "Cobb," or "J" for "Jennings," or should I file it by the picture in the middle? How do I list it on eBay? I've owned an auction house for ten years and I STILL don't really know the best way to title these.

-1938 Goudey: this set has a million questions, starting with "Why did you make the same set twice?" and then continuing on through the premiums, the lack of obvious players that should've been in the set, the fact that it's numbered as a continuation of the 1933 Goudey set, and a host of other questions that may never be answered.

-Anything too big to be graded. Supplements, premiums, oversized cards - they're all overlooked because they can't go on a registry, and there are some beautiful pieces there, and some really scarce ones as well.

-Al

I love this set. They remind me of Picasso

I keep saying how much I don't like T201s but...I still have them...and I keep buying them. I can't quit them. (and they're still reasonable).

My one complaint is that I can never judge a raw one's grade very well. A t206 I can grade in my sleep and usually get within .5.

+1 for delong as well

Two sets that are right on the cusp of really popular sets, would be T205 and 1934 Goudey. Neither is quite as popular as their all-time favorite cousins. And because every thread needs a picture of a card here are some examples.

They're not flashy, but I really like the close-up portraits in Maple Crispettes.

To me, hands down, it is the 1887 small Gypsy Queen set. There are probably 150 Old Judges for every Gypsy Queen, yet they don’t receive anywhere near the love they deserve.

.

Great set, and so under-appreciated and unrecognized that in my opinion it has never properly been listed as the two separate sets it really is. The low number series (cards 1-80) were originally issue in 1934. There are multiple ink colors used for all the cards/players issued. My understanding is the high number series (cards 81-192) possibly didn't come out till 1936. Also, though the layout, format, and picture quality/style of the high and low number card series are the same, all the high number cards are a smaller, uniform size than those in the low number series, and the high number cards only come in black and white and do not have any other colored cards, like the greens, blues, reds, and so on, that only appear in the low number series. These should be two separate sets IMHO.

Agree on Gypsy Queens.

-Al

I think I'm the only person in the hobby that likes 1939 Play Ball...

1939 Play Ball has some great portrait images.

I think D304s are underrated - a very cool set with back variations and many HOFers, but hands down some of the very worst artwork around

Absolutely, and, in essence, it's the first Bowman set. People don't seem to acknowledge that those and the Swells are the same company.

I am not a set collector, except for the following two, small, obscure, and scarce (I love scarce/rare cards!) sets that understandably generate little collector interest or love:

- 1910 E222 A.W.H. Caramels, a 12-card set I collect because all the cards are of Virginia League players (I'm a native and life-long Virginian). Perhaps the most interesting aspects of this set are that both the fronts and backs were issued in different colors for the SAME player, and there are several different back designs. I need these three: Lipe, Revelle, & Ryan plus an upgrade of my Ison card.

- 1925 Holland Creameries, an 18-card set issued in Canada and comprised entirely of players who were on the Washington Senators 1924 WS Championship team (I collect cards of all the players on this team). I need the SP Peckinpaugh card plus upgrades of several others.

Although not a favorite set, I like it, and I prefer the clean black and white photos and simple design of the 1939 cards over its ornate bordered, sepia tinted 1940 Play Ball brother. However I always thought that it was missing player identification on the front. In my opinion a little box with the player's name, similar to what is seen in the 1951 Bowman, would have been a great addition.

Brian

That is a good point Bob, I can't come up with another set that has different sized cards lumped together. I have always preferred the look of the 1-80 cards versus the 81-192 cards...that extra 1/4" makes a difference, and in general the photos seen in the higher numbers seem to be grainier.

Brian

Brian,

Was surprised that Bob Lemke and the SCD catalog never mentioned that in their descriptions. They treated it always as just one set. But besides the obvious size difference and the different colors between the low and high number series, what other set have you ever heard of that supposedly had a short printed high number series where the set itself was issued over a multi-year period? That doesn't make sense to me.

One other big thing that would tend to support all 192 cards being in one set is that there are no players in the low number series that are duplicated in the high number series. Plus, they sequentially numbered the cards from 1 to 192 as if it were all one set. But sequential numbering itself doesn't necessarily guarantee cards are all supposed to be in one single set. For example, the 1938 Goudey "Big Head" cards are numbered 241 to 288. It seems, for whatever reason, that they were possibly intended to be an extension of the 1933 Goudey set then, that included cards 1 to 240? But if that was the intention, why did they jump from a 1933 issue to a 1938 issue to do so, skipping over all the other Goudey issues for the years in between? That is a question that has aways stumped me as to the true reason why Goudey numbered their 1938 cards as they did.

Bob, this is one of the things that fascinates me about the set.

What's more, if you look at the BACKS of the cards, the low number series declare the cards as being one of a series of 288 cards. And the high number series declare each card being one of a series of 312!

This means that at first, Goudey planned a 48-card set, and then at some point decided to do 72 cards. Yet they only did 24, really, unless you subscribe to the belief that repeating the same 24 cards a second time (with cartoons added) was their plan all along, which I don't. There are WAY too many important players excluded from the set. For instance - why would they have not produced a card of Lou Gehrig or Chuck Klein, both of whom endorsed Goudey gum in 1934? There are lots of examples like that.

I could go on about this set and all its unanswered questions all day.

-Al

Al,

And the fact that only the '33 Goudey set fits that 288 card set description is a real head scratcher. LOL

That is one of the great things about collecting such old sets. Trying to figure out what was going on behind the scenes. Great sets though.

I love the hand written baseball and Cubs content on this piece. Not the usual type of postcard. Great pickup.

1961 Fleer Basketball. It's my favorite set. It gets some love, but not enough, IMO. Here's a random scan from my set.

Another vote for T205. In the deep shadow of T206, yet this set is loaded with HOF, boasts deep colors, team logos, and stats and a write up on the back of the cards. Brilliant design too.

Sets aside, I have a few items I feel are under appreciated. I hope they get on the train soon along with all that has appreciated.

Big fan of some of the "card game" issues.

1906 Fan Craze and 1913 National Game/Tom Barker Game are especially nice. They feature big photos/images and there's a decent amount of them out there in great condition for a reasonable price. Also worth mentioning 1914 Polo Grounds Game and 1936 S&S Game.

All great choices as underappreciated sets. Plus, the WG game card issues may be the most cost-effective way to get a high-grade Joe Jackson card from during his playing days. Same could be said for Cobb, Wagner, and other superstar players as well.

And in this period of crazy, escalated prices, the S&S game cards still seem to be almost ridiculously cheap. Just think where that 1933 S&S set would be today had they included Ruth and Gehrig in it.

I think the T206 set is really underappreciated :)

It's hard to beat the 1936 Goudey Wide Pen Premiums for the quality photography and how cheap they are.

I finished my set about 2 years ago. All PSA graded. #24 Current Finest.

Re: Underappreciated sets
 

Many excellent suggestions here. I'll add E122. Certainly not the most attractive set, but vastly scarcer than most realize.

I like the cut of your jib, Eddie.
With ya all the way.
Ben

"I love baseball history backstory; especially when it involves cards."

Exhibits in general - this one in particular
 

It is completely perplexing to me that somehow a few years ago the 1925 Gehrig became appreciated as his rookie and has taken off to the stratosphere, but many other exhibit cards get no love or market respect - how does the 21 Ruth which is a tough find, an incredible and unusual fielding pose and one of his earliest after moving to the Yankees not get more love??!! There are many REALLY tough finds of some of the biggest HOF players in these sets.

Howard, uh, mmm, simply like WOW !

1916 m101-4 and 5's

30 plus Hofers, rare backs, first real action shot style cards. ruth rc, blacksoxs, and the wagner and cobb types at the end of their run.. Great mix of everything.