Right, so although I don't agree, I think you are on the side of the prevailing view, which is not contrarian. I was thinking this thread would be wilder than it is. Like views on the BSF, etc. It all seems pretty tame. No matter what I say on here, someone has a counterpoint. No matter what it is. Save me the part about Modern Collecting. Buying a new Ferrari is not collecting Ferrari's.

Better than 1915 Cracker Jack?

-1955 Topps is the greatest Postwar Set ever produced and (Per Al)

-1952 Topps is an overrated set (Dont care if I never own the Mantle)
-Grading has been a huge benefit to the hobby
-Modern collectors and investors are all collectors, there's room for all of us

and go..........

I buy tobacco cards for the player on the front. The advertising on the back means absolutely nothing to me. I suppose that the different backs are interesting to some, but when I look at a card my first thought is not Piedmont or Uzit? Who cares?

I'm right there with you on both of these.

Agreed! I'll take a T206 over a T206 any day.

T206's aren't obscure if you're just looking to complete the set based on the front images but there are many "obscure" combo's in the set even in the "common" backs.

It took me 10 years to find this combo
Attachment 521625

I recently picked up this tough combo
Attachment 521626

minus the Niles image I posted I will paypal $50 to anyone that can post scans of 2 different cards of this combo and $100 to anyone that can post 3.

I think this belongs in the hijack thread!!!!:p

T202 is the best pre-war set. It has bios, stats, action photos, portrait photos, b/w photos, and color art... All on one card. Plus it has rare variations and back/front combos.

It essentially has everything. The only real knock on it is the size, but even then some have decided to collect the panels themselves.

With all due respect to Kevin Costner in Bull Durham, "Well, I believe in the soul... the c*ck...the p&$$y... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap... I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

Personally, I believe:

With the exception of Conlon photos, generally color cards are superior to black and white cards

T206 portraits are overrated.

T205 cards are superior to T206.

Pete and Joe Jax should have to buy a ticket to get into the HOF.

Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Smokey Joe Wood and Lefty O'Doul should be in the HOF.

1954 Topps is the worst Topps set of the 1950s.

The A's of the 1970's are underrated.

90% of the shiny new stuff will severely depreciate in the next five years.

Teddy Ballgame was a better player (on the field) than Joltin' Joe. Off the field is another story.

Baseball cards from the mid 1930's to 1950 suck.

1954 Bowman cards have gotten better with age.

TPAs have brought more money into the hobby.

More money in the hobby has ushered in more bad actors.

How many 1971 Thurman Munson's are enough? Just one more.

I am guilty of that and I apologize. I did not initially realize how to edit the title of a thread to reflect that an item had been sold. :o

OK, I'll stick my neck on the chopping block, too!

I NEVER liked the 1953 Bowman Pee Wee card and I do NOT think that The Mick looks good on his 1956 Topps, either!

There, I said it and I feel better now. I should probably run and hide, too!

Pee Wee card is indeed highly overrated. So blurry you can't make out details. Is it a painting or a photo? Musial card is his best, however. Same for Hodges and Lockman.

Contrarian views:

• T205 cards look hideous
• Nolan Ryan was overrated (and his rookie card is U-G-L-Y)
• I have a great deal of respect for the Baseball Hall of Fame
• The two greatest team sports are Baseball and Hockey. Watching football or basketball instantly lowers the intelligence level of the viewer.
• 1955 Bowman Baseball cards are beautiful
• Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens belong in the Hall of Fame

I really dislike horizontal cards like 1955 and 1956 Topps. My hands were perfectly made to hold and appreciate cards vertically. With a horizontal card I need to twist my hand down awkwardly. This is supposed to be fun? A premium price for T206 Pelty because it is sideways? Please.

1953 Bowman set is beautiful but, that Pee Wee Reese card? The majority of the picture is sky and dirt. Reese's whole body is represented by less than an inch tall. Why is he wearing a red sweatshirt? Is that a Dodger teammate laying on second base? Why is there no flying dust? Where are the other players and umpires? AND it's horizonal!

Collecting cards of lesser known players is more interesting than collecting HOFers. I really enjoy learning interesting facts about the lesser known players.

The 1952 Topps set is the ugliest set ever made. As kids when we got a Flexichrome card (such as the 1959 Bob Gibson), they looked hideous and we hated them. What could be worse than a whole set of them?

The 1953 Topps set isn't much better. They look like failed High School art projects and many don't even look like the players. I don't know how Topps stayed in business in 1951-1954 with such poor designs compared to Bowman.

1949 Leaf and 1955 Bowman are ugly too. The printing quality was so bad on the Leafs, it is no wonder the 2nd series sold poorly and the rest of the set was never made. The color TVs are ridiculous on the 1955 Bowmans and it doesn't help that you open a pack and the cards are different sizes. It is no wonder that it was Bowman's last set, they clearly were out of good ideas.

For prewar cards, I don't get the fascination with Delongs, Diamond Stars or Cracker Jacks. An oversized player in an undersized stadium? No thanks. The backgrounds on Diamond Stars? Yuck. The only thing worse is all bright red backgrounds of Cracker Jacks.

The 1952 Topps Mantle is the 1951 Bowman Paul Richards of Topps cards. Who thought it would be funny to give Mickey a bright yellow bat? Flexichrome was bad enough, an ugly cartoonish card just made it the worst.

Lou Gehrig, Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente and Sandy Koufax cards are under valued. Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb cards are way over valued.

The PSA 8 t206 Honus Wagner belongs in a PSA 8 holder. PSA graded sheet cut cards for a long time. I believe Beckett still grades sheet cut cards. In the junk wax era, Topps sold uncut sheets by the pallet to other companies because they did a much better job of cutting them. I would be willing to bet most if not all PSA 10s from this era where cards not cut by Topps. Why do people pick on one card when there are thousands of sheet cut cards in PSA holders with numbers?

Speaking of the t206 Wagner, if a 52 Topps Mantle sells for 7 figures as do a few modern cards, all t206 Wagners should be 8 figures. Also, t206 Planks and 1933 Goudey Lajoies should be worth more than any post war card, as well as several other key prewar cards. Prewar cards and way under valued and postwar cards are way over valued.

Nolan Ryan is one of the greatest pitchers ever. He has one of the lowest FIPs of the live ball era, the lowest H/9 ever and his ERA of 3.19 is solid despite having some pretty bad defenses behind him. He should have won 4 Cy Young awards (1973, 1977, 1981 and 1987). Although his cards are as overrated/overvalued as his on field performance was undervalued.

End the thread. No one can possibly top this outpouring of contrarian views. Fantastic. As to Wagner, the card is both sheet cut and then trimmed again on top of that. Question, if you can forgive the original sheet cut, does the further deliberate trimming matter?

I disagree. Delongs are rather drab and unappealing to me. Dont see the attraction at all. Goudeys are way better.

Jackie Robinson Well Made Pants and Champs pictures are not a rookie card


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Some comic collectors probably think the Wagner could be cleaned and pressed into a 9.8

Tinker, Evers, and Chance are more likely legitimately great players who deserve to be in the HOF, rather than marginal players who got in because of a poem. The point of the game is to win, and the 1904-1913 Cubs won more games than any team in history over a decade. The only other HOFer on the team is Brown. The team won with by not only allowing fewer earned runs than anyone else, but fewer unearned runs. So who gets credit for all that winning?

Most of the Boys of Summer are overrated though, partly because of the bandbox they played in, and in Snider's case, because they never threw lefties against the Dodgers (I think Spahn started two games against Brooklyn over a span of several years in the mid-1950s).

The 1960s Giants were the most underachieving team of all time.

The '51/2 Berk Ross set is undervalued and under appreciated. Despite the cheap look of the cards, they offer an alternative to the high price of '51 Bowmans and '52 Topps. The Mickey, a faux '51 Bowman, Jackie, Joe D., Teddy W. have all shown big price increases in the past 18 mos. And the '51 Musial card is his only national issue for that year.
The set also contains the RC's of Ben Hogan and Bob Cousy.

We know that Mastro admitted trimming the Wagner but I don't buy the speculation that it was cut from a sheet just prior to that by Alan Ray, Bob Sevchuck or anyone else. There would have been multiple examples of Wagner on the sheet and none have surfaced in past the 35+ years to support the speculation.

My hobby goal (for over 15 years) is to correct a long held misconception and make the following statement less of a contrarian view:

The E91 American Caramel sets of cards do not have generic artwork.

The E91A set features facial artwork that was derived from photographs of the player that is designated on the card. About 1/2 of the E91B cards are repeats from the E91A, and thus once again accurate facial depictions. The other 1/2 of the E91B set as well as all of the E91C set do not accurately reflect the player designated, but are still not 'generic', they just have inaccurate player designations on the card.

As a related note, E254 Colgan's Chips cards do have a great portrait photos of players of this era, as was pointed out in a previous post, and many of the photos used in the Colgan set were the basis of the E91 facial artwork.

Brian

I don't waste my time trimming ungraded cards for profit.

I buy graded cards, crack them out of their slabs, and then trim them.

I resubmit the cards I have trimmed to see if I can get a numerical grade or at least a purple sticker indicating that I am card board certified.

Ha

i appreciate Bill James' take on Ryan:

"I know there are probably none of you in the audience who don’t remember Nolan Ryan, but as an organizing device, I’m going to pretend there are, anyway. Nolan Ryan was the ultimate power pitcher. Ryan threw harder than any other pitcher of his generation or perhaps any generation, and it wasn’t like he did this once. Ryan could stand on the mound and throw a hundred miles an hour for 9 innings, 10 innings, 11, 12, 13. He would throw more than 200 pitches in a game, come back three days later ready to do it again. He did this for years in a four-man rotation, switched to a five-man rotation and pitched another fifteen years. He threw no-hitters almost as a matter of routine. He holds the single-season record for strikeouts, and broke the career record for strikeouts by some ridiculous margin.

Nolan Ryan was Roger Clemens’ boyhood idol, but whereas Clemens became a genuinely great pitcher Ryan was not. Ryan was the most impressive pitcher who ever lived. He did absolutely phenomenal things with such regularity that people took it for granted. But he was not a great pitcher because he never compromised, which means that he never adjusted. He was, in a sense, a perpetual rookie. He was out there to strike the hitter out—period, even when he was 44 years old. He could be behind the number eight hitter 2-0 with the bases empty, and in his mind he was still working on a strikeout. The concept of “let him hit it and see what happens” absolutely wasn’t there for him."

Nolan Ryan WAS a great pitcher. And because I am contrary, it is not something up for debate or discussion. I don't care how many stats you come up with, comparisons to any other pitchers you name, whatever. He was. Period. End of discussion.

Who hurt you?


kidding aside, good contrarian post, I'll take those pesky CJ14 Cobbs and 53 Mantles off your hands if it would help.

-

1914 and 15 Cracker Jacks are the most virtually stunning cards ever created. Their beauty lies in their simplicity. They are the Natalie Wood of baseball cards.

Not a contrarian take; not a hot take; just a matter of fact.

There are many cards that would be more valuable if they were less rare.

Interesting point, can you give an example?

Gehrig Star Player

Leaf Premiums.

1. Collecting Vintage Movie Star Cards in 2022 = Collecting Vintage Baseball Cards in 1970

2. Standard sized 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" baseball cards are too big (they don't fit well in pockets)

Wasn't there a companion sheet cut Plank? In any case I don't understand anyone to be claiming Ray or Sevchuck had cut it, just that it was in fact sheet cut wherever it originated.

It's speculated that this Plank might have come from the same sheet.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=12350

Isn't this one of the most horrible cards of Mantle every made? Look how childish he looks!

Napolean Lajoie does not appear in the 1933 Goudey set. He does have a card in the 1934 Goudey issue with a peculiar number.

I've seen the claim on numerous occasions it was even in the book The Card.

Attachment 521673
Attachment 521674

If the Wagner came from uncut material, my presumption would be it wasn’t actually a full sheet and was a strip. A sheet or even a panel of a sheet should have multiple Wagners (and Plank’s, if the Plank came from the same source).

I gave away a Wagner. It was a fake.

I gave away a 52 Mantle. It also was a fake.

It used to be that the fakes were totally obvious.

I'll have my own contrarian opinions to add in due time, but in the meantime I agree with all of this.

The only true way to determine a card's value at any one point in time is via auction.

1950 Bowman is the best set of the decade, and it’s not especially close

OK now I recall that from the book. Why are you skeptical?

This is the biggest fallacy in the hobby. The value of an item is what a seller and a buyer can agree to. An auction values an item based on what the second highest bidder is willing to pay. There probably isn't much difference for generic items. For rare items with a limited collector base there is a huge difference.

Because there would have been several on a sheet and if it was cut from a sheet in 1985 other examples would have surfaced not only by now but a long time ago.

What then, scrap?

The green Ruth is the best of the four Goudeys
The 50s were the greatest decade for cards

I am far from an expert on the Wagner topic but had heard from numerous people describing the author as a tabloid esque reporter and found many inaccuracies in The Card so I never read it.

There is no comparison between the Peck and Snyder Cincinnati trade card and the various c1869 Cincinnati CdVs. The trade card is much, much rarer, especially untrimmed.

I don’t understand the cult-like fascination with Piedmont 350 examples of the so-called Elite 11 T206 150/350 subjects which were short printed with Piedmont 350. These are common fronts with the most common back. I get that the front/back *combination* is tough but there are many other front/back combinations that are tougher and don’t exact nearly as big of a premium.

Schulte (Front View) with Piedmont 350 excepted. That’s a legit 1-of-1 as far as
I know.

If your goal is to build a collection that represents the history of baseball, if needs to include Pedro Martinez as well and Walter Johnson, Mike Trout as well as Tris Speaker.

Also many 1950s cards are currently radically overpriced in mid grade. There is more than an ample supply.

Some say this is Jackie's finest looking card.

https://i.psacard.com/cardfacts/1950...026.jpg?h=1000

Topps 1959 is a great set.

Topps 1953 Satchel Paige is a horrible looking card.

That is a beautiful card Michael

Centering is one of the most overrated aspects of a cards condition. I much prefer a card in the condition it was in when it was originally pulled from a pack. Subsequent handling of a card should define it's condition, not how it came out of the factory prior to being handled.

The amount a card was enjoyed is reflected by it's condition. I sometimes struggle with top grade cards, and think that the person who originally pulled it never looked at them, never played with them, and likely never appreciated them as much as someone who originally had a (now) lower condition card.

I thought little of O'Keefe. Mint Condition by David Jameson is much better.

I wasn't using it as factual information I've already stated I don't believe the Wagner was cut from a sheet in the 1980's by anyone, it was in response to Peters post questioning the claim ever being made.

+1 on 1, 5 and 7 for me

I'll add every hobby turns into an investment that pushes out the little people that love it for hobby, and the love of the hobby for people that just have huge bank accounts. Greed kills every part of life for common people. If a card holds no value other than $$$ or prestige IMO you're an investor. Stop holding cards from people that want them for personal reasons like a local small town hero or family member or family friend just to have a complete set you care little about the cards themselves. Signed bitter pill.

Scarcity is scarcity whether designed or not.

I hate 1962 Topps and 1955 Bowman. That wood grain is FUGLY and the cards are dull and washed out. Though I do like this card:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...Minoso%201.jpg

+1. I've been trying to explain that to people for decades.

I think that people are too generous when grading the cards they advertise. My cards would range from very-good to excellent to near mint, but mostly in ex-mint. I'm not strict on centering, just as long they're not miscut. Cards that I receive at times are either damaged or worn. Grading is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but cards with four rounded corners or creasing aren't in ex-mint to near-mint condition.

Phil aka Tere1071

1953 Bowman Color set

Topps Baseball complete sets
1971, 1972, 1974, and 1975

Working on completing 1970
and 1973 Topps Baseball sets

Thank you, Jay. You nailed it. But I fear my contrarian view is the one held by many who play in auctions for high ticket cards.

I hope you're right about movie cards as I collect them, but I can't see where the necessary surge in demand is going to come from.

And that's why 1952 Topps is king and 54 Bowman is garbage:D:D:D
As time goes by, I love the 52 and 53 topps Mantle cards. They have 1 name. They don't need 6 names and be a 1 of 1 PSA 10 either.

The more I see of the Mantle 53 pig nose pose, the more I like it and the artwork.

You picked 3 out of 4 of the ugliest cards of all-time...but laughing all the way to the bank anyway.

Cards with multiple players on them, like leaders cards or team composites or those action R-cards with the batter and catcher labeled, give you more bang for your buck.

1967 Topps Mets team card is Nolan Ryan's RC. :D

yup, :D:D:D3 outta 4 ain't bad! See if I can go 5 outta 6 on the all important Ingram Scale? Not as nice as the maraca shaker trimmed 9, but a fake 4.5. Jackie? I happen to like the Topps better, the Bowman's not so much. Though many have grown on me over the years;) like this trimmed 53 Mantle

Strip cards are great to collect. Why you might ask? Because despite how ugly some (note that I say some, not all) of them are, it is cool to think that a kid liked them enough to cut/rip them into individual cards, and then valued them enough that the kid didn't toss them away when he became an older kid, and by some twist of fate these cards survived decades of the urge to purge, or were hidden from view just long enough for most folks to realize that hey, having these things hanging around was not too painful.

Brian (sorry about the D381 card, but when the ugly bell for scanning rang, Egan just assumed it was for him)

Now THAT's what I'm talking about, right there!

1. 1936 R312 is the only Dimaggio card worth owning.
2. I like gum residue on the front or back of all my Topps HOFer cards. Reminds me of 1961.
3. Single malt scotch is better for you at baseball card conventions than pale american beer.
4. I hate hot dogs with ketchup. Mustard onions and sauerkraut a must.
5. I wish I had more 1990 Score baseball.
6. I had too many T206..

Are there people who claim Nolan Ryan is pictured on the 1967 Mets team card? I've never heard that one before.

my contrarian views!
 

-The 1978 - 84 Sports Photo Associates Pinbacks, with more than 400 subjects, is one of the great underrated and underappreciated pinback sets of all time.

-Larry Doby's contributions to major league baseball are underappreciated

-There are still many baseball card issues yet to be fully investigated and catalogued.

There are people who think so. But if you search you will find an in-depth analysis. Conclusion: he isn't in the photo, but he has stats on the back from a 2 game call-up in 1966.

Came in here to say "pre-war is boring". I agree with both of these!

Thank you. To me, just looking at each player shows that he is not pictured. I dare say, that no one even comes close to resembling him...but I do think I see Joe Jackson. :rolleyes:

I agree Bob. Unfortunately centering fanaticism now reigns. So we all most bow to the god of centering when considering what to pay or list a card for.