Vintage Undervalued Roookies

Casey2296 · #1 02-06-2021, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbhofmann

Most visually stunning card in the hobby. The colors are tremendous.

It's interesting that the 51 bowman set hit all the marks on a lot of cards in that set. The Mantle runs a close second behind Mays for perfect balance and beauty. But there's also Spahn, Williams, Snider, Campy, Rizzuto, and Doby to name a few. They missed the mark on Feller & Berra though, their 1950 cards are perfect, in 51 they went to head shots. The elephant in the room though is how much better that set would have been with a 51 Robinson and Paige but that's just fantasy talk.

Now let's talk Topps. 52 Mantle, great design. 52 Mays? Horrible. If you've ever seen the photo that card was based on it's a design nightmare. Dark subject on a dark background and no flow. 53 Mantle? Even better design than 52. Mays? He looks like my 13 year old son on little league picture day. Shameful.

Topps for the most part had no idea what they were doing when it came to the nuance of black skin from 1952 thru 1956. They got Aaron right for the most part but if you look at their Mays and Clemente cards they printed their skin color way too dark. Missed opportunity in my opinion.

skelly423 · #2 02-07-2021, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey2296

It's interesting that the 51 bowman set hit all the marks on a lot of cards in that set. The Mantle runs a close second behind Mays for perfect balance and beauty. But there's also Spahn, Williams, Snider, Campy, Rizzuto, and Doby to name a few. They missed the mark on Feller & Berra though, their 1950 cards are perfect, in 51 they went to head shots. The elephant in the room though is how much better that set would have been with a 51 Robinson and Paige but that's just fantasy talk.

Now let's talk Topps. 52 Mantle, great design. 52 Mays? Horrible. If you've ever seen the photo that card was based on it's a design nightmare. Dark subject on a dark background and no flow. 53 Mantle? Even better design than 52. Mays? He looks like my 13 year old son on little league picture day. Shameful.

Topps for the most part had no idea what they were doing when it came to the nuance of black skin from 1952 thru 1956. They got Aaron right for the most part but if you look at their Mays and Clemente cards they printed their skin color way too dark. Missed opportunity in my opinion.

I've branched out from rookie cards (for obvious financial reasons) and started picking up visually appealing early cards of stars. Between the 1951 and 1953 set, Bowman has the best looking cards in the hobby (minus the bizarre 1951 Paul Richards). Topps doesn't make a nice Mays card until 1954. IMO Bowman doesn't get anywhere near the hobby love it should for what they produced.

h2oya311 · #3 02-07-2021, 08:47 AM

Interesting that you mentioned Paul Richards. I�ve found that his 1950s JD McCarthy postcard doesn�t conform to the typical look of other JD McCarthy postcards. Most notably, it�s the only horizontal one I�ve seen for an individual player. All other single-player postcards are oriented vertically. I wonder if there is something further that could be explored here with respect to this particular player... maybe he wanted to �be different�.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is there a more undervalued card in vintage?	T_Hamilton	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	81	06-30-2020 07:53 AM
So what do you think is most undervalued at REA right now?	GregMitch34	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	60	05-02-2016 02:07 PM
1920's Exhibits - undervalued or not	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	12-05-2007 06:21 PM
Most Undervalued set?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	13	11-08-2005 05:18 PM
undervalued cards?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	26	06-13-2005 01:01 AM