 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
09-30-2025, 11:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Iconic cards YOU think are ugly.
I recently saw a new member looking for some iconic cards, and one of them is the e90 Joe Jackson. I have always thought this card of Joe made him look like a Porcelain Doll and was not appealing to me at all. I don't want to make this a fighting thread, just say the card and why you don't like it. If you see your favorite card here that someone else doesn't like, just post your own etc. Just make sure you say why you think the card is ugly.
Another example for me is Babes 1935 goudey 4 in 1. Just a bad photo used (I know it is the same as his green goudey, but the full image helps that out). 
__________________
I have done deals with many of the active n54ers. Sometimes I sell cool things that you don't see every day. My Red Schoendienst collection- https://imageevent.com/lucas00/redsc...enstcollection 
|
|
#2
09-30-2025, 11:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Before I even clicked on this thread I knew e90 Jackson would be mentioned...
__________________
_ Successful transactions with: Natswin2019, ParachromBleu, Cmount76, theuclakid, tiger8mush, shammus, jcmtiger, oldjudge, coolshemp, joejo20, Blunder19, ibechillin33, t206kid, helfrich91, Dashcol, philliesfan, alaskapaul3, Natedog, Kris19, frankbmd, tonyo, Baseball Rarities, Thromdog, T2069bk, t206fix, jakebeckleyoldeagleeye, Casey2296, rdeversole, brianp-beme, seablaster, twalk, qed2190, Gorditadogg, LuckyLarry, tlhss, Cory, zizek
|
|
#3
09-30-2025, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
1933 Goudey Ruth Green and Standing version. The green is not a good image and the standing version is just too tiny and hard to see.
I love the Red and Yellow versions. The others, well, not so much. Last edited by parkplace33; 09-30-2025 at 11:40 AM.
|
|
#4
09-30-2025, 12:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The 1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese. It features a terribly posed "action" image, it's blurry no matter how good the registration is, and a really poor card amongst a really beautiful set.
|
|
#5
09-30-2025, 12:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The 1948/49 Leaf Jackie Robinson & Satchel Paige - Just not an attractive set. Prefer the 1949 Bowman for both of them...which is also not a beautiful set...but still a lot nicer then the Leaf.
1963 Topps Pete Rose - Those 4 tiny headed "Rookie Star" cards look atrocious. 1968 Topps Nolan Ryan - just kind of boring in every respect. Appreciate he shares a card with Koosman, who was pretty good himself, but those 68' borders and Nolan looking like he's ALL hat, is not pretty.
__________________
* * WAR Hates Dante Bichette! * * So what is it good for?  *
|
|
#6
09-30-2025, 12:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
E90-1 Jackson
T206 Mathewson portrait, white cap T205 Cobb 1916 M101-4/5 Ruth 1933 Goudey Gehrig 1933 Goudey Ruth #144, #149 1952 Topps Mantle 1986 Fleer Jordan And, if we're being honest, any Cy Young card that accurately depicts his facial features.
|
|
#8
09-30-2025, 01:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Agree on 1986 Fleer Jordan. It just looks cheap and mass-produced. Not even a clear image of Jordan, and is highly overrated. The "Emperors Clothes" comes to mind every time I see it.
Disagree on the Goudey Green Ruth. It's actually my favorite of the four and I really love that shade of green. He looks sick to his stomach in the Red and Yellow versions, and the fully body image is too distant and small, IMHO.
__________________
Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube Channel, The Stuff Of Greatness. New videos are uploaded every week... https://www.youtube.com/@tsogreatness/videos
|
|
#9
09-30-2025, 01:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
09-30-2025, 01:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
You guys accidentally typed “1986 Fleer” instead of “1984 Star.”
|
|
#14
09-30-2025, 07:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As someone in the GOAT conversation Ted Williams has mostly extremely ugly cards. I have had 8 baseball cut card artwork pieces done and Ted was someone I wanted in that collection. I ended up going with the wrapper from the 59 Fleer set because I couldn't find a card I liked enough. Sorry for the bad picture.
|
|
#16
09-30-2025, 09:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
1914-1915 Cracker Jack(74/176) T206 (433/520) T205 (65/197) T3 Turkey Reds (12/126) 1949 Leaf(58/98 , 2 Premiums) New York/San Francisco Giants Boston Braves St Louis Browns Baltimore Orioles Anything Deadball Era
|
|
#18
10-04-2025, 11:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't know. It's a scary headshot, but still Mr. Hockey personified as a grizzled old man, with a half smirk that almost says, "I'm bout to break you in two, if you so much as go NEAR those boards around me.". If we're talking "iconic" cards. His Parkhust Rookie card is pretty atrocious looking.
__________________
* * WAR Hates Dante Bichette! * * So what is it good for? *
|
|
#19
10-04-2025, 01:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Brian
|
|
#20
10-04-2025, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A grizzled old man who still had another 15 seasons ahead of him. Remarkable.
|
|
#21
10-06-2025, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't like the tall boy format and am just glad they opted against a baseball issue. I appreciated them more in the past, but care less for them the more I encounter them.
As you pointed out, there are a lot of bad photos, but they're not just bad due to being head shots. What's with the graininess? They could have used crisper images if they cared enough to do so. Did they tweak those photos, because the hair glare looks absurdly phony. Mahovlich, Bathgate and Goyette all have shiny hair like Astro Boy that proved impenetrable to fleets of jackhammers. Phil Goyette's hair makes me wonder if he had a brother named Don and they sang beautiful harmonies but just never got along. Big M and Goyette's fuzzy photos are unforgivable. The sizing of these things always bothered me, though it might be charming to some. Being in Canada (you can relate), finding the proper sleeves/pages/top loaders was impossible way back when, at least in our hometown and vicinity. How the heck was I supposed to store them? Given their popularity and higher price as compared to other period cards, I just passed on them altogether as a kid. I remember seeing T card pages for the first time on a childhood trip to the States and being so impressed! We simply weren't afforded such luxuries in this fairly large Canadian city. Last edited by BillyCoxDodgers3B; 10-06-2025 at 10:26 AM.
|
|
#22
10-04-2025, 03:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Nonetheless, I don't understand what Topps/O-Pee-Chee was thinking when it came to the 2nd series of the 1964-65 Hockey set. Here's a representative page of the cards from the 1st series:  And here's how the majority of the 2nd series cards look:  
__________________
That government governs best that governs least. Last edited by Balticfox; 10-04-2025 at 03:05 PM.
|
|
#23
10-01-2025, 12:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This to me is always an interesting topic, because a card doesn’t have to be aesthetically ideal to become “iconic.”
Examples to me would include the ‘68 Nolan Ryan RC, and even the ‘52 Topps Mantle. Neither picture just fantastic likenesses of the subjects which make them so expensive, but because they have been so famous / iconic for so long - this as a criteria anymore is out the window for most people. They are famous cards, and will remain that way. I know a lot of people dislike the ‘63 Rose floating head, and I understand why so it doesn’t bother me - but to me the early Topps multiplayer RC’s are in themselves iconic due to what I will call “period correctness” - if for lack of a better term. No, it’s not great image of Rose, but that’s how Topps treated most all rookies at the time, and the fact that he was just lumped in with 3 other guys to me kind of speaks to the innocence of the time. Clearly had Topps known Pete Rose would turn out to be Pete Rose, he would have gotten his own card. I don’t mind the floating heads, but do think it’s kind of funny that the LL cards like that might be a “cheap” way to get a Mantle or an Aaron or a Mays, but the Rose floating head because it’s a RC is the most expensive Rose out there. You gotta laugh at how things turn out sometimes… Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Cubs of all eras. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets.
|
|
#24
10-01-2025, 03:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm absolutely floored that I'm the first person to mention the ugliest card of all time, the T207 Walter Johnson.
This will probably be unpopular, but also t3 Cobb for me. Incredibly beautiful card until you look closely at his face.
__________________
ThatT206Life.com
|
|
#25
10-04-2025, 09:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#26
10-02-2025, 07:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There's evidence aplenty in this thread for not stressing out to complete sets on which one is working. Acquiring a certain number of ugly cards is understandable if they're part of an attractively priced bulk lot, but why pay up for specific cards if they're ugly?
__________________
That government governs best that governs least.
|
|
#28
10-04-2025, 08:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#30
10-04-2025, 09:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Now I've been a completist on the Hockey, CFL and non-sport cards I've been collecting since 1979 when I took up re-amassing the cards of my formative years. But the 2nd series of 1964-65 Topps Hockey Tall Boys and the hundreds of ugly, head shots (many even hatless) included in the 1954-65 Topps Baseball sets have resulted in an attitude adjustment since I retired in 2020. I mean "Hey, why am I forcing myself to pay mega $ for that ugly thing? (e.g. 1960 Roger Maris, 1961 Willie Mays) There are better cards/places on which to spend my money." Yeah, yeah, I guess I won't complete any of those Baseball sets but so what?
__________________
That government governs best that governs least. Last edited by Balticfox; 10-04-2025 at 10:05 AM.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What Are The Top 10 Most Iconic Baseball Cards Ever? | 4815162342 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 47 | 08-16-2025 06:54 PM |
| Cards becoming iconic | polakoff | Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) | 6 | 03-07-2021 05:51 PM |
| Iconic cards | Jcfowler6 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 62 | 03-26-2018 06:52 PM |
| 10 Most Iconic Cards under $200 | jared6180 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 47 | 07-12-2016 04:01 PM |
| Iconic non Rookie Cards | bn2cardz | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 30 | 09-19-2014 11:59 AM |
Hybrid Mode
