Share your contrarian hobby opinions

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

End the thread. No one can possibly top this outpouring of contrarian views. Fantastic. As to Wagner, the card is both sheet cut and then trimmed again on top of that. Question, if you can forgive the original sheet cut, does the further deliberate trimming matter?

Some comic collectors probably think the Wagner could be cleaned and pressed into a 9.8

[jsfriedm]

Tinker, Evers, and Chance are more likely legitimately great players who deserve to be in the HOF, rather than marginal players who got in because of a poem. The point of the game is to win, and the 1904-1913 Cubs won more games than any team in history over a decade. The only other HOFer on the team is Brown. The team won with by not only allowing fewer earned runs than anyone else, but fewer unearned runs. So who gets credit for all that winning?

Most of the Boys of Summer are overrated though, partly because of the bandbox they played in, and in Snider's case, because they never threw lefties against the Dodgers (I think Spahn started two games against Brooklyn over a span of several years in the mid-1950s).

The 1960s Giants were the most underachieving team of all time.

[Yoda]

The '51/2 Berk Ross set is undervalued and under appreciated. Despite the cheap look of the cards, they offer an alternative to the high price of '51 Bowmans and '52 Topps. The Mickey, a faux '51 Bowman, Jackie, Joe D., Teddy W. have all shown big price increases in the past 18 mos. And the '51 Musial card is his only national issue for that year.
The set also contains the RC's of Ben Hogan and Bob Cousy.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

End the thread. No one can possibly top this outpouring of contrarian views. Fantastic. As to Wagner, the card is both sheet cut and then trimmed again on top of that. Question, if you can forgive the original sheet cut, does the further deliberate trimming matter?

We know that Mastro admitted trimming the Wagner but I don't buy the speculation that it was cut from a sheet just prior to that by Alan Ray, Bob Sevchuck or anyone else. There would have been multiple examples of Wagner on the sheet and none have surfaced in past the 35+ years to support the speculation.

[brianp-beme]

My hobby goal (for over 15 years) is to correct a long held misconception and make the following statement less of a contrarian view:

The E91 American Caramel sets of cards do not have generic artwork.

The E91A set features facial artwork that was derived from photographs of the player that is designated on the card. About 1/2 of the E91B cards are repeats from the E91A, and thus once again accurate facial depictions. The other 1/2 of the E91B set as well as all of the E91C set do not accurately reflect the player designated, but are still not 'generic', they just have inaccurate player designations on the card.

As a related note, E254 Colgan's Chips cards do have a great portrait photos of players of this era, as was pointed out in a previous post, and many of the photos used in the Colgan set were the basis of the E91 facial artwork.

Brian

[frankbmd]

I don't waste my time trimming ungraded cards for profit.

I buy graded cards, crack them out of their slabs, and then trim them.

I resubmit the cards I have trimmed to see if I can get a numerical grade or at least a purple sticker indicating that I am card board certified.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Jackie Robinson Well Made Pants and Champs pictures are not a rookie card


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ha

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by rats60

Nolan Ryan is one of the greatest pitchers ever. He has one of the lowest FIPs of the live ball era, the lowest H/9 ever and his ERA of 3.19 is solid despite having some pretty bad defenses behind him. He should have won 4 Cy Young awards (1973, 1977, 1981 and 1987). Although his cards are as overrated/overvalued as his on field performance was undervalued.

i appreciate Bill James' take on Ryan:

"I know there are probably none of you in the audience who don’t remember Nolan Ryan, but as an organizing device, I’m going to pretend there are, anyway. Nolan Ryan was the ultimate power pitcher. Ryan threw harder than any other pitcher of his generation or perhaps any generation, and it wasn’t like he did this once. Ryan could stand on the mound and throw a hundred miles an hour for 9 innings, 10 innings, 11, 12, 13. He would throw more than 200 pitches in a game, come back three days later ready to do it again. He did this for years in a four-man rotation, switched to a five-man rotation and pitched another fifteen years. He threw no-hitters almost as a matter of routine. He holds the single-season record for strikeouts, and broke the career record for strikeouts by some ridiculous margin.

Nolan Ryan was Roger Clemens’ boyhood idol, but whereas Clemens became a genuinely great pitcher Ryan was not. Ryan was the most impressive pitcher who ever lived. He did absolutely phenomenal things with such regularity that people took it for granted. But he was not a great pitcher because he never compromised, which means that he never adjusted. He was, in a sense, a perpetual rookie. He was out there to strike the hitter out—period, even when he was 44 years old. He could be behind the number eight hitter 2-0 with the bases empty, and in his mind he was still working on a strikeout. The concept of “let him hit it and see what happens” absolutely wasn’t there for him."

[jingram058]

Nolan Ryan WAS a great pitcher. And because I am contrary, it is not something up for debate or discussion. I don't care how many stats you come up with, comparisons to any other pitchers you name, whatever. He was. Period. End of discussion.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by rats60

The 1952 Topps set is the ugliest set ever made. As kids when we got a Flexichrome card (such as the 1959 Bob Gibson), they looked hideous and we hated them. What could be worse than a whole set of them?

The 1953 Topps set isn't much better. They look like failed High School art projects and many don't even look like the players. I don't know how Topps stayed in business in 1951-1954 with such poor designs compared to Bowman.

1949 Leaf and 1955 Bowman are ugly too. The printing quality was so bad on the Leafs, it is no wonder the 2nd series sold poorly and the rest of the set was never made. The color TVs are ridiculous on the 1955 Bowmans and it doesn't help that you open a pack and the cards are different sizes. It is no wonder that it was Bowman's last set, they clearly were out of good ideas.

For prewar cards, I don't get the fascination with Delongs, Diamond Stars or Cracker Jacks. An oversized player in an undersized stadium? No thanks. The backgrounds on Diamond Stars? Yuck. The only thing worse is all bright red backgrounds of Cracker Jacks.

The 1952 Topps Mantle is the 1951 Bowman Paul Richards of Topps cards. Who thought it would be funny to give Mickey a bright yellow bat? Flexichrome was bad enough, an ugly cartoonish card just made it the worst.

Lou Gehrig, Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente and Sandy Koufax cards are under valued. Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb cards are way over valued.

The PSA 8 t206 Honus Wagner belongs in a PSA 8 holder. PSA graded sheet cut cards for a long time. I believe Beckett still grades sheet cut cards. In the junk wax era, Topps sold uncut sheets by the pallet to other companies because they did a much better job of cutting them. I would be willing to bet most if not all PSA 10s from this era where cards not cut by Topps. Why do people pick on one card when there are thousands of sheet cut cards in PSA holders with numbers?

Speaking of the t206 Wagner, if a 52 Topps Mantle sells for 7 figures as do a few modern cards, all t206 Wagners should be 8 figures. Also, t206 Planks and 1933 Goudey Lajoies should be worth more than any post war card, as well as several other key prewar cards. Prewar cards and way under valued and postwar cards are way over valued.

Nolan Ryan is one of the greatest pitchers ever. He has one of the lowest FIPs of the live ball era, the lowest H/9 ever and his ERA of 3.19 is solid despite having some pretty bad defenses behind him. He should have won 4 Cy Young awards (1973, 1977, 1981 and 1987). Although his cards are as overrated/overvalued as his on field performance was undervalued.

Who hurt you?


kidding aside, good contrarian post, I'll take those pesky CJ14 Cobbs and 53 Mantles off your hands if it would help.

-

[Snapolit1]

1914 and 15 Cracker Jacks are the most virtually stunning cards ever created. Their beauty lies in their simplicity. They are the Natalie Wood of baseball cards.

Not a contrarian take; not a hot take; just a matter of fact.

[Carter08]

There are many cards that would be more valuable if they were less rare.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Carter08

There are many cards that would be more valuable if they were less rare.

Interesting point, can you give an example?

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Interesting point, can you give an example?

Gehrig Star Player

Leaf Premiums.

[Troy Kirk]

1. Collecting Vintage Movie Star Cards in 2022 = Collecting Vintage Baseball Cards in 1970

2. Standard sized 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" baseball cards are too big (they don't fit well in pockets)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

We know that Mastro admitted trimming the Wagner but I don't buy the speculation that it was cut from a sheet just prior to that by Alan Ray, Bob Sevchuck or anyone else. There would have been multiple examples of Wagner on the sheet and none have surfaced in past the 35+ years to support the speculation.

Wasn't there a companion sheet cut Plank? In any case I don't understand anyone to be claiming Ray or Sevchuck had cut it, just that it was in fact sheet cut wherever it originated.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wasn't there a companion sheet cut Plank? In any case I don't understand anyone to be claiming Ray or Sevchuck had cut it, just that it was in fact sheet cut wherever it originated.

It's speculated that this Plank might have come from the same sheet.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=12350

[gonefishin]

Isn't this one of the most horrible cards of Mantle every made? Look how childish he looks!

[Jerry G]

Napolean Lajoie does not appear in the 1933 Goudey set. He does have a card in the 1934 Goudey issue with a peculiar number.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wasn't there a companion sheet cut Plank? In any case I don't understand anyone to be claiming Ray or Sevchuck had cut it, just that it was in fact sheet cut wherever it originated.

I've seen the claim on numerous occasions it was even in the book The Card.

img839.jpg
img840.jpg

[G1911]

If the Wagner came from uncut material, my presumption would be it wasn’t actually a full sheet and was a strip. A sheet or even a panel of a sheet should have multiple Wagners (and Plank’s, if the Plank came from the same source).

[jingram058]

I gave away a Wagner. It was a fake.

I gave away a 52 Mantle. It also was a fake.

It used to be that the fakes were totally obvious.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.


(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

I'll have my own contrarian opinions to add in due time, but in the meantime I agree with all of this.

[Yoda]

The only true way to determine a card's value at any one point in time is via auction.

[skelly423]

1950 Bowman is the best set of the decade, and it’s not especially close

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I've seen the claim on numerous occasions it was even in the book The Card.

Attachment 521673
Attachment 521674

OK now I recall that from the book. Why are you skeptical?

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Yoda

The only true way to determine a card's value at any one point in time is via auction.

This is the biggest fallacy in the hobby. The value of an item is what a seller and a buyer can agree to. An auction values an item based on what the second highest bidder is willing to pay. There probably isn't much difference for generic items. For rare items with a limited collector base there is a huge difference.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OK now I recall that from the book. Why are you skeptical?

Because there would have been several on a sheet and if it was cut from a sheet in 1985 other examples would have surfaced not only by now but a long time ago.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Because there would have been several on a sheet and if it was cut from a sheet in 1985 other examples would have surfaced not only by now but a long time ago.

What then, scrap?

[Neal]

The green Ruth is the best of the four Goudeys
The 50s were the greatest decade for cards

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I've seen the claim on numerous occasions it was even in the book The Card.

Attachment 521673
Attachment 521674

I am far from an expert on the Wagner topic but had heard from numerous people describing the author as a tabloid esque reporter and found many inaccuracies in The Card so I never read it.

[oldjudge]

There is no comparison between the Peck and Snyder Cincinnati trade card and the various c1869 Cincinnati CdVs. The trade card is much, much rarer, especially untrimmed.

[sreader3]

I don’t understand the cult-like fascination with Piedmont 350 examples of the so-called Elite 11 T206 150/350 subjects which were short printed with Piedmont 350. These are common fronts with the most common back. I get that the front/back *combination* is tough but there are many other front/back combinations that are tougher and don’t exact nearly as big of a premium.

Schulte (Front View) with Piedmont 350 excepted. That’s a legit 1-of-1 as far as
I know.

[bbcard1]

If your goal is to build a collection that represents the history of baseball, if needs to include Pedro Martinez as well and Walter Johnson, Mike Trout as well as Tris Speaker.

Also many 1950s cards are currently radically overpriced in mid grade. There is more than an ample supply.

[michael3322]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

48 Leaf/49 Bowman Jackies are some ugly ass cards. The 52 Topps Jackie is fine art.

Some say this is Jackie's finest looking card.

[Shemp]

Topps 1959 is a great set.

Topps 1953 Satchel Paige is a horrible looking card.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by michael3322

Some say this is Jackie's finest looking card.

That is a beautiful card Michael

[Stampsfan]

Centering is one of the most overrated aspects of a cards condition. I much prefer a card in the condition it was in when it was originally pulled from a pack. Subsequent handling of a card should define it's condition, not how it came out of the factory prior to being handled.

The amount a card was enjoyed is reflected by it's condition. I sometimes struggle with top grade cards, and think that the person who originally pulled it never looked at them, never played with them, and likely never appreciated them as much as someone who originally had a (now) lower condition card.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I am far from an expert on the Wagner topic but had heard from numerous people describing the author as a tabloid esque reporter and found many inaccuracies in The Card so I never read it.

I thought little of O'Keefe. Mint Condition by David Jameson is much better.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wasn't there a companion sheet cut Plank? In any case I don't understand anyone to be claiming Ray or Sevchuck had cut it, just that it was in fact sheet cut wherever it originated.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I am far from an expert on the Wagner topic but had heard from numerous people describing the author as a tabloid esque reporter and found many inaccuracies in The Card so I never read it.

I wasn't using it as factual information I've already stated I don't believe the Wagner was cut from a sheet in the 1980's by anyone, it was in response to Peters post questioning the claim ever being made.

[Vintage Vern]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

These views have evolved over time and I realize that some of my past actions are in direct conflict with them. They are mine and some or all may be incorrect or certainly subject to debate, a debate I have no interest in partaking in.

1. Set collecting is a waste of time and money. Collect the players you like and forget the others. The biggest waste of time and money is registry set collecting. This just gives you an opportunity to overpay for a 10 that on another day might have been a 9 (or an A).
2. The T206 set is the most overhyped set of all time. Some cards are nice looking (Cobb bat off, for example) but many are ugly.
3. Collecting rookie cards was a pursuit thought up by dealers to make money
4. A significant portion of high dollar signed cards are forged
5. At $10 apiece cards were a hobby, at $10,000 apiece they are an asset class.
6. A National at Atlantic City is a horrible idea
7. Cap Anson’s bust should be removed from the HOF.

Have I pissed off enough people yet, I can keep going. ��

+1 on 1, 5 and 7 for me

I'll add every hobby turns into an investment that pushes out the little people that love it for hobby, and the love of the hobby for people that just have huge bank accounts. Greed kills every part of life for common people. If a card holds no value other than $$$ or prestige IMO you're an investor. Stop holding cards from people that want them for personal reasons like a local small town hero or family member or family friend just to have a complete set you care little about the cards themselves. Signed bitter pill.

[ejharrington]

Scarcity is scarcity whether designed or not.

[Exhibitman]

I hate 1962 Topps and 1955 Bowman. That wood grain is FUGLY and the cards are dull and washed out. Though I do like this card:

[edhans]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

This is the biggest fallacy in the hobby. The value of an item is what a seller and a buyer can agree to. An auction values an item based on what the second highest bidder is willing to pay. There probably isn't much difference for generic items. For rare items with a limited collector base there is a huge difference.

+1. I've been trying to explain that to people for decades.

[Tere1071]

I think that people are too generous when grading the cards they advertise. My cards would range from very-good to excellent to near mint, but mostly in ex-mint. I'm not strict on centering, just as long they're not miscut. Cards that I receive at times are either damaged or worn. Grading is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but cards with four rounded corners or creasing aren't in ex-mint to near-mint condition.

Phil aka Tere1071

1953 Bowman Color set

Topps Baseball complete sets
1971, 1972, 1974, and 1975

Working on completing 1970
and 1973 Topps Baseball sets

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

This is the biggest fallacy in the hobby. The value of an item is what a seller and a buyer can agree to. An auction values an item based on what the second highest bidder is willing to pay. There probably isn't much difference for generic items. For rare items with a limited collector base there is a huge difference.

Thank you, Jay. You nailed it. But I fear my contrarian view is the one held by many who play in auctions for high ticket cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Troy Kirk

1. Collecting Vintage Movie Star Cards in 2022 = Collecting Vintage Baseball Cards in 1970

2. Standard sized 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" baseball cards are too big (they don't fit well in pockets)

I hope you're right about movie cards as I collect them, but I can't see where the necessary surge in demand is going to come from.

[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.

[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.