Popular, but Ugly:

[drcy]

Cards aren't always supposed to be 'beautiful.' I like some of the candid shots, in part because they bring back childhood collecting memories and because they have character. All Carl Horner portraits would be boring. The 72-3 Topps definitely have some bizarre candid shots-- but that makes them interesting. Also cards are made for kids, so some silly and comic designs such as the Goudey Big Heads fit that bill. I've never been fond of some of the 1800s comic trade cards, but they were intended for kids.

Have to say I've never been fond of the 1952 Topps Mantle-- doesn't even look a lot like him. But, hey, as an art historian I know that beauty and art are in the eyes of the beholder.

[Econteachert205]

There's a difference between an ugly card and an ugly guy on a card. I'd go with the oft discussed joe Jackson e90 lipstick card.

[ValKehl]

"Hi Ma, this smile is for you 'cause I finally made it to the Big Leagues!" (for one season with the 1924 Senators - "Oyster Joe" Martina also played 21 years in the minors)

[irv]

Originally Posted by OsFan

I've always thought this picture of Brooks was kinda ridiculous. Not sure if this is necessarily popular among collectors.

Not my card.

Originally Posted by abroome

I asked Robinson about that card. He said he hated it, that it was taken right after running wind sprints.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

I always said to myself, there is no way Brooksie would be happy about how he looks on that card, but then I always thought maybe the players had a say about what photo/image got published, but, after reading your post, that is definitely not the case, at least back then.

[irv]

I always got a chuckle out of these two players/cards.

Torgensen looks afraid of the ball and King looks, well, I'm not sure?

[spaidly]

Originally Posted by irv

i always got a chuckle out of these two players/cards.

Torgensen looks afraid of the ball and king looks, well, i'm not sure? :d

fire bad

[Andrew1975]

Originally Posted by irv

I always got a chuckle out of these two players/cards.



Torgensen looks afraid of the ball and King looks, well, I'm not sure?

IMG_6697.jpg

The King card reminds me of Sling Blade... I like them French fried potaters.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[samosa4u]

Some very interesting posts here. What about the Sporting News Babe Ruth RC? Now before you Americans start plotting my murder , let me just state my reasons below, and maybe you might agree with some of them:

- It has no color
- It is small
- It has a blank reverse side (some of them do)
- It has a blank background
- I hate the pose. Ruth looks like he is breakdancing.

Due to the above reasons, I find this card to be a little on the ugly side. The best baseball player of all-time deserved a better-looking RC card, IMO. Look at Ty Cobb's T206 cards, don't they look just awesome? It would be nice if Ruth had something like that (2 portrait rookies + 2 in action cards).

[OsFan]

Originally Posted by drcy

Cards aren't always supposed to be 'beautiful.' I like some of the candid shots, in part because they bring back childhood collecting memories and because they have character. All Carl Horner portraits would be boring. The 72-3 Topps definitely have some bizarre candid shots-- but that makes them interesting. Also cards are made for kids, so some silly and comic designs such as the Goudey Big Heads fit that bill. I've never been fond of some of the 1800s comic trade cards, but they were intended for kids.

Have to say I've never been fond of the 1952 Topps Mantle-- doesn't even look a lot like him. But, hey, as an art historian I know that beauty and art are in the eyes of the beholder.

I completely agree with you on the first part of your post, if they all looked like 52 Mantles collecting cards would be extremely boring. Although I do love and want that card.

[Spike]

It's like a Bazooka Joe comic.

"How much fresh dirt you wanna buy?"

"One Molesworth."