Why is (this card) worth more than (this card)?

[chadeast]

More people enjoy colorful action shots than black and white portraits.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by chadeast

More people enjoy colorful action shots than black and white portraits.

+1

[nineunder71]

Look at the pop reports

[Casey2296]

Every thread needs a card
-

[MattyC]

I've tried to get psyched up about other DiMaggio cards, but in the end I always find myself grabbing the 41 PB to hold and enjoy over them. Tried the Zeenut Batting, the '37 OPC, even the WWG. The latter has some serious flavor I'll admit, with the mugshot photo and "deadpan Joe" on the reverse. But in the end the 41 PB in my opinion just has an elegance and that color that make it "the one" to represent him in a collection. And there is of course it being from that one iconic season. Found this one at a local shop and loved the registration and centering. So many are blurry.

[Leon]

great looking cards

I need one of those!

.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Leon

great looking cards

I need one of those!

.

Have a gorgeous 2.5 in November. Right down your alley, nobody has been able to figure it out.

Will try and get a scan up.

[MR RAREBACK]

why is a
1914 cracker jack mathewson worth more than a
crofts cocoa/candy mathewson

[mrreality68]

To Me it is interesting that the 1917 CM Ruth or Boston Store Ruth does not get more Love, Attention, and valuation.
Compared to the 1921/22 Throwing Pose Ruth.

The 1917 Ruth has same throwing pose, lower total population and the prices do not seem to get the same valuation as the 1921/1922.

I understand the 1921/22 is the Early years of the Yankees but it is Ruth in a Red Sox Uniform and it is the same pose.

Things that make me go hmmm

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by chadeast

More people enjoy colorful action shots than black and white portraits.

If the 1939 Play Ball was his definitive rookie card, then it would be more valuable. But there are other pre-1939 cards featuring Joe that have a better claim for rookie status, so what people have previously mentioned is the reason.

Brian

[Carter08]

Never been a huge Joe D fan but his 41 Play Ball is in my top 10 best looking cards. Ditto for 48/49 Ted.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Never been a huge Joe D fan but his 41 Play Ball is in my top 10 best looking cards. Ditto for 48/49 Ted.

Definitely the 1941 Play Ball of Joe DiMaggio is a great card, but like Matt said previously registration is key, as can be seen in his perfectly registered card.

Brian

[Carter08]

I agree. As a net54 newbie one thing I also want to add that is a complete off topic is that Warren Spahn is very underrated. Anyway, back to the topic at hand…

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I agree. As a net54 newbie one thing I also want to add that is a complete off topic is that Warren Spahn is very underrated. Anyway, back to the topic at hand…

This thread needs more card pictures anyway. Here is my favorite Spahn card.

[G1911]

The 1941 Play Ball is scarcer than the 1939, and a color image of Joe that is a classic pose. The 1939 is not, nor is it a rookie by any reasoned definition.

The 1952 Mantle vs. 1951 Mantle is a dead horse that has been beaten numerous times.

The 1961 and 1962 Maris are similar value in low grade. In higher grade card #1 carries a premium. This is normal. I like both.

The Tiffany is obviously superior to the regular set because it is a higher quality production of the same image, made in 1% or less of the quantity. Of course it will cost more.

Warren Spahn is underrated.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

This thread needs more card pictures anyway. Here is my favorite Spahn card.

Love the Spahn! Hard for me to pick my favorite but that’s up there. Collected a Spahn run earlier this year. Love that he ends with a 65 Topps on the Mets. Anyone know why he never appeared on Bowmans after the first few sets?