Share your contrarian hobby opinions

Lorewalker · #1 06-17-2022, 04:14 PM

I do not see the appeal of any of the hugely popular T206 or 1933 Goudey cards.

HistoricNewspapers · #2 06-17-2022, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I do not see the appeal of any of the hugely popular T206 or 1933 Goudey cards.

I second this, which leads into mine,

Mine is that I prefer black and white cards, such as 1921/22 Caramel cards that contain actual photos of the player as opposed to the artwork type cards such as T206 and 1933 Goudey where the resemblance to the player is often sketchy.

G1911 · #3 06-17-2022, 06:11 PM

I tend to like color artwork over photographs but:

All of the cards featuring bright red lipstick on players are ugly and overpriced. Nap Lajoie did not look like his E96. He was a baseball player, not a drag queen.

glynparson · #4 06-24-2022, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I do not see the appeal of any of the hugely popular T206 or 1933 Goudey cards.

You don�t see the appeal of cards of some of the games all time greatest players? What do you collect for them? Seems like a very strange statement.

Rad_Hazard · #5 06-24-2022, 09:25 AM

1. 19th century baseball cards astound me, EVERY. TIME. I absolutely love them!

2. I don't understand the hype for the 52 Topps Mantle, the 52 Bowman is WAY better aesthetically.

3. Anything made in the last few years with the exception of the Leaf Babe Ruth product is pretty awful, overproduced, and uninspired.

4. I dislike strip cards and post cards, I don't get the appeal.

5. I wish every card pre-WW2 would be slabbed and graded. I feel like they need to be perfectly preserved.

6. I'm guilty of loving perfectly centered cards, but if it's not centered, I want it horribly miscut. The more miscut the better.

BillyCoxDodgers3B · #6 06-24-2022, 09:43 AM

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I don't understand all this love for the first two Bowman Mantles over the '52 Topps. Those Mantles (and all 1950-52 Bowmans) are crude, almost child-like depictions. The artistry, if you want to call it that, is laughable (Paul Richards, anyone?). The best efforts look more like comic book illustrations rather than anything approximating portraiture. The 1950's also feels really late in the game for using simplistic artwork over actual photography. If that appeals to you, however, 1953 Topps would be a more sound option to me. Couple all of this with their odd and inconsistent sizing over just a few short years, and you've completely lost me. '53 Color-'55 are things of beauty. Bowman finally got a handle on crafting beautiful cards, and then they were gone.

JustinD · #7 06-24-2022, 10:07 AM

I can quite literally purchase a graded 52' Mantle at any time, on any day. There are multiples for sale at noon on Christmas Day and from a multitude of locations. It is far more difficult to locate a listing for thousands of other items. It is not even in my list of top 200 cards as they are a dime a dozen. I know I am far in the minority on this opinion, but seeing one is a complete meh...

70s-80s OPC cards are vastly undervalued for the same reason the Mantle is overvalued. Just try to locate PSA 9-10 80s OPC anything and you have to convince the 1 or 2 people with one to sell it. The QC was horrific, it's like Bob and Doug Mackenzie ran those cutters.

That said, both of those are going to likely stay in their own lane for value eternally.

Oh, by the way... if you are the lovely owner of one of the 3 graded 1981 OPC Lance Parrish 9's (because a 10 doesn't exist) please let me know. Hell, if you have a Parrish that's just not 90-10 centering, doesn't look like it spent time in a kid's velcro wallet and gradable let me know, lol.

skelly423 · #8 06-24-2022, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinD

I can quite literally purchase a graded 52' Mantle at any time, on any day. There are multiples for sale at noon on Christmas Day and from a multitude of locations. It is far more difficult to locate a listing for thousands of other items. It is not even in my list of top 200 cards as they are a dime a dozen. I know I am far in the minority on this opinion, but seeing one is a complete meh...

I'm with you on this. The same is true for most of the "big" cards in the hobby. The 1956 Mantle, 1955 Clemente, 1954 Aaron, 1933 Goudey Ruth #144, T206 Red portrait Cobb are everywhere. You can buy one any day of the year, all it takes is money. The demand supports the prices, but none of these cards are rare.

BobbyStrawberry · #9 06-24-2022, 10:51 AM

Tobacco cards are the "correct" size. Standard cards are too big!

Exhibitman · #10 06-25-2022, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinD

70s-80s OPC cards are vastly undervalued for the same reason the Mantle is overvalued. Just try to locate PSA 9-10 80s OPC anything and you have to convince the 1 or 2 people with one to sell it. The QC was horrific, it's like Bob and Doug Mackenzie ran those cutters.

Early OPC is really underrated all across the board. Those are some tough cards to find in nice shape and especially with nice centering. I was very happy to add this one recently:

Rad_Hazard · #11 06-27-2022, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I don't understand all this love for the first two Bowman Mantles over the '52 Topps. Those Mantles (and all 1950-52 Bowmans) are crude, almost child-like depictions. The artistry, if you want to call it that, is laughable (Paul Richards, anyone?). The best efforts look more like comic book illustrations rather than anything approximating portraiture. The 1950's also feels really late in the game for using simplistic artwork over actual photography. If that appeals to you, however, 1953 Topps would be a more sound option to me. Couple all of this with their odd and inconsistent sizing over just a few short years, and you've completely lost me. '53 Color-'55 are things of beauty. Bowman finally got a handle on crafting beautiful cards, and then they were gone.

Oddly enough I really dislike the sizing of early Topps. I much prefer the smaller Bowmans from 48-52 and I enjoy the size differences. I probably like 1950 sizing the best. As for the art it's just much more appealing to me on 50-52 Bowman than either 52 or 53 Topps. The bold black outlines are somewhat of an OCD thing with me and art, and they add a LOT visually for me on early Bowman art cards. The 52 and 53 Topps sets are just meh when I compare them side by side with 50-52 Bowman.

Exhibitman · #12 06-27-2022, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I don't understand all this love for the first two Bowman Mantles over the '52 Topps. Those Mantles (and all 1950-52 Bowmans) are crude, almost child-like depictions. The artistry, if you want to call it that, is laughable (Paul Richards, anyone?). The best efforts look more like comic book illustrations rather than anything approximating portraiture. The 1950's also feels really late in the game for using simplistic artwork over actual photography. If that appeals to you, however, 1953 Topps would be a more sound option to me. Couple all of this with their odd and inconsistent sizing over just a few short years, and you've completely lost me. '53 Color-'55 are things of beauty. Bowman finally got a handle on crafting beautiful cards, and then they were gone.

I like 'em all a lot but my sentimental favorite is the 1952 Bowman because I got one at a card show auction for $3.25 in 1978. The rates have gone up...

Rad_Hazard · #13 06-27-2022, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I like 'em all a lot but my sentimental favorite is the 1952 Bowman because I got one at a card show auction for $3.25 in 1978. The rates have gone up...

Beautiful! The 52 Bowman really stands out to me among this bunch. That is a beaut of a 1 for the Topps though, very nice!

JimC · #14 06-24-2022, 09:47 AM

1. I'd rather have a cool looking playing days card of a guy than his ugly rookie card. A cool rookie card is fine, but I'll never understand the craze to get a guy's first card. Same thing x10 with comic books. Cool covers beat first appearances any day.

2. Photo matched jerseys are a joke. I've seen so many fakes I can't believe people pay for them. I can only imagine how many "relics" came from some random guy's garage.

3. Shoeless Joe is overrated. His lifetime average would have declined like everyone else's had he not been ousted in his prime. Okay, I'm not even sure I believe this last one myself . . .

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wantlists - to share or not to share (and why?)	Angyale	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	27	09-13-2021 05:44 AM
Share a great hobby story	Aquarian Sports Cards	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	29	06-07-2020 10:58 PM
2019 Net 54 Card Set Post #4 - Card front layouts! Share your opinions!	Golfcollector	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	13	01-07-2019 11:19 AM
Hobby history: Card dealers of the 1960s: James T. Elder (+ hobby drama, 1968-69)	trdcrdkid	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	03-08-2017 06:23 PM
OT, but a great share! State of the hobby	7nohitter	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	23	03-12-2014 07:57 PM