the better looking 64 rose!

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by CW

I'd say the '64 definitely looks better than the RC, but I also think the '65 looks better than the '64. It never ends!

I agree 100%, love the 65.


I think the Ryan RC is another example. One of my favorite all time cards is the 1969 Topps Ryan, his first solo card. His RC is downright ugly. On the flip side though, growing up during the "rookie" card chaos of the 80's, cards like the Rose RC are so iconic they transcend beauty to me.

[orly57]

Though Bench's rookie isnt as ugly as some of the other multi-player rookies, his second year solo card is much nicer.

[jb67]

Originally Posted by orly57

Though Bench's rookie isnt as ugly as some of the other multi-player rookies, his second year solo card is much nicer.

+1.

[brian1961]

Up and down the line-up of Topps multi-player rookie cards from the 60s-70s, virtually every one of those player's first solo cards trumps the rookie, MASSIVELY, in the aesthetic sense.

Agree with all of you, nice as the 1964 Pete Rose is, his 1965 is much better. The image, the design, the colors---it all just comes together perfectly!!!

--Brian Powell

[ClockworkAngel]

The added problem with the Rose RC, in particular, is that the deign for the Rookie Stars that year was just awful. Just 4 heads floating...

The 64 Rose is awesome. Love the overall look with the All-Star Rookie trophy right next to him as if he is accepting it on the card. Personally, think it's his best looking card, but that's me..