Share your contrarian hobby opinions

[brunswickreeves]

IMHO 1952 Topps cards (except Mathews, Camp, Jackie, Mays, and Mick) are hideous. To me they look like a bad airbrush job.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

IMHO 1952 Topps cards (except Mathews, Camp, Jackie, Mays, and Mick) are hideous. To me they look like a bad airbrush job.

I can't believe intelligent, well-heeled people would fork over colossal sums of money for either the 1952 or 1953 Topps Mantle cards. They look like something out of a comic book. No envy or jealousy. I find them both absolutely stupid looking. Laughably so. If you gave me the money I would buy something else. And then there's a Roy Campanella Bowman card that's even worse, a weird looking tiny hat on his otherwise big head that is just out and out ridiculous looking.

[jingram058]

I wish the baseball card so-called "hobby", the value of baseball cards, would crash to the floor. Then it could become a hobby again.

I wish card grading companies would all go bankrupt.

[Al C.risafulli]

-1938 Goudey low numbers are tougher than high numbers
-1938 Goudey is an attractive card set
-The N162 Kelly and the T205 Cobb are the most beautiful baseball cards
-1952 Topps is an overrated set and 1953 Topps is much better
-Grading has been a huge benefit to the hobby
-Modern collectors and investors are all collectors, there's room for all of us

-Al

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I wish the baseball card so-called "hobby", the value of baseball cards, would crash to the floor. Then it could become a hobby again.

I wish card grading companies would all go bankrupt.

Not me, I enjoy spending $100 to have someone tell me that my card is creased, then encasing it in plastic so no one can ever touch it again, and then take 2 years to return it to me. I guess that's necessary if I want to make 50K on a 20 dollar purchase and keep a child, or grandchild, from actually touching my card - they might put a crease in it - God forbid! Besides, I like keeping my graded cards in a safe or safe deposit box so no one will steal them or damage them. I can always take them out and look at them when I'm alone and no one is around. Maybe I'll buy one of those digital only cards that I'm the only one in the world that can see it - that part of the "Hobby" is sure to take off in the next few years! I'm sure it will, if someone can just figure out how to grade it.

AIJ (All in jest)

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I can't believe intelligent, well-heeled people would fork over colossal sums of money for either the 1952 or 1953 Topps Mantle cards. They look like something out of a comic book. No envy or jealousy. I find them both absolutely stupid looking. Laughably so. If you gave me the money I would buy something else. And then there's a Roy Campanella Bowman card that's even worse, a weird looking tiny hat on his otherwise big head that is just out and out ridiculous looking.

And that's why 1952 Topps is king and 54 Bowman is garbage
As time goes by, I love the 52 and 53 topps Mantle cards. They have 1 name. They don't need 6 names and be a 1 of 1 PSA 10 either.

The more I see of the Mantle 53 pig nose pose, the more I like it and the artwork.

[jingram058]

You picked 3 out of 4 of the ugliest cards of all-time...but laughing all the way to the bank anyway.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by jingram058

You picked 3 out of 4 of the ugliest cards of all-time...but laughing all the way to the bank anyway.

yup, 3 outta 4 ain't bad! See if I can go 5 outta 6 on the all important Ingram Scale? Not as nice as the maraca shaker trimmed 9, but a fake 4.5. Jackie? I happen to like the Topps better, the Bowman's not so much. Though many have grown on me over the years like this trimmed 53 Mantle

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

yup, 3 outta 4 ain't bad! See if I can go 5 outta 6 on the all important Ingram Scale? Not as nice as the maraca shaker trimmed 9, but a fake 4.5. Jackie? I happen to like the Topps better, the Bowman's not so much. Though many have grown on me over the years like this trimmed 53 Mantle

Now THAT's what I'm talking about, right there!

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

"When attending the National, it's huge and overwhelming. Bring a comfortable pair of shoes for all the walking you'll need to do. You'll need at least 2-3 days to even start getting through it all."

Not true for everybody. I cover all the ground I need within the first 2-3 hours of the first day, then I'm out of there. Haven't once regretted how I go about it. Actually, the only regret has sometimes been deciding to attend in the first place, which has been constant for my last several Nationals. But, I'm (mostly) not a card guy, so this contrarian opinion is more unique than if this thread was posted on the memorabilia/autograph side.

I've worked the show more than once from beginning to end. This has definitely played a part in my wanting to get in and out in a hurry in subsequent years! As noted elsewhere, I'm likely done with attending at all anymore. If you do bump into me at a future National, I guarantee you there must be a huge financial incentive that makes my presence unavoidable.

[LEHR]

I'll play...

1. T206's are boring as hell and aside from a handful of cards, definitely not rare with a quarter million cards being graded so far and every major auction is full of them.
2. T210's and E91's are horrible looking cards.
3. It's a travesty that Roger Maris isn't in the Hall of Fame considering how watered down it's become.
4. The 1971 Topps set has the best photography of any vintage Topps set.
5. Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He bet on baseball, who cares? The problem is that people treat these guys like Gods, and then when they screw up it's the end of the world. Get over it.
6. These are just my opinions. Don't let it ruffle your feathers.

[1954 topps]

1) Any card with a crease, wax stain, miscut, wrinkle doesn't deserve to be graded. HOFer or not. These cards should be refused a number grade by all grading companies and just labeled Authentic "Creased". I don't care that's how they came from the factory etc. etc., they were a defect from day 1 and don't deserve a grade.
2) Any black and white card produced after 1939 (the invention of color TV) are really depressing with zero cool factor.
3) Postcards of baseball players are not baseball cards, they're postcards. You have a postcard collection...congrats?
4) Set collectors are more impressive than HOF and rookie collectors. It takes passion to chase down bum's nobody's ever heard of and then actually pay money to acquire them to complete your set.
5) If you keep your collection in a vault, PO BOX, anywhere other than your prime residence, you don't really enjoy your collection. Invest in a 2 hour fire safe and bolt it to the floor or a wall, and put your cards in a waterproof case if your that worried. That way you can look at your cards any time day or night.
6) If you collect anything 1976 - current, you're not a vintage collector.
7) Centering, Print Quality, Corners in that order
8) Investing in high end big name star vintage is a safer investment long term than the stock market. (still trying to convince my wife on this one)
9) Any Wilson Franks, Kahn's, or any card that came out of a hotdog package and survived without major staining is far more impressive than a tobacco, cracker jack or other candy card.
10) Guys that wear fanny packs and sweatpants to card shows are not dorks, their just dressed comfortably and likely do well financially.

[abothebear]

Cards with multiple players on them, like leaders cards or team composites or those action R-cards with the batter and catcher labeled, give you more bang for your buck.

1967 Topps Mets team card is Nolan Ryan's RC.

[brianp-beme]

Strip cards are great to collect. Why you might ask? Because despite how ugly some (note that I say some, not all) of them are, it is cool to think that a kid liked them enough to cut/rip them into individual cards, and then valued them enough that the kid didn't toss them away when he became an older kid, and by some twist of fate these cards survived decades of the urge to purge, or were hidden from view just long enough for most folks to realize that hey, having these things hanging around was not too painful.

Brian (sorry about the D381 card, but when the ugly bell for scanning rang, Egan just assumed it was for him)

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Cards with multiple players on them, like leaders cards or team composites or those action R-cards with the batter and catcher labeled, give you more bang for your buck.

1967 Topps Mets team card is Nolan Ryan's RC.

Are there people who claim Nolan Ryan is pictured on the 1967 Mets team card? I've never heard that one before.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Are there people who claim Nolan Ryan is pictured on the 1967 Mets team card? I've never heard that one before.

There are people who think so. But if you search you will find an in-depth analysis. Conclusion: he isn't in the photo, but he has stats on the back from a 2 game call-up in 1966.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jingram058

There are people who think so. But if you search you will find an in-depth analysis. Conclusion: he isn't in the photo, but he has stats on the back from a 2 game call-up in 1966.

Thank you. To me, just looking at each player shows that he is not pictured. I dare say, that no one even comes close to resembling him...but I do think I see Joe Jackson.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Are there people who claim Nolan Ryan is pictured on the 1967 Mets team card? I've never heard that one before.

Yes this would be news to me too. I have seen an 8x10 of the formation for the team card and no mention of Ryan that I recall.

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Are there people who claim Nolan Ryan is pictured on the 1967 Mets team card? I've never heard that one before.

No. But his name is on the back.

But… Ken Griffey Jr. IS pictured on the back of his dad’s 1988 Topps Big card… sort of.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Cards with multiple players on them, like leaders cards or team composites or those action R-cards with the batter and catcher labeled, give you more bang for your buck.

1967 Topps Mets team card is Nolan Ryan's RC.

This is genius. I have never heard of this. Not a Topps expert, but this is not widely known. I don't see him on the front, but he clearly is noted on the back. To me, it's his true rookie.

On Ryan, as an Astros fan, I would rather go to a Ryan game, but if they needed to win, there were better options, Niekro, Richard, etc.