Share your contrarian hobby opinions

[skelly423]

Share your contrarian hobby opinions that go against accepted hobby norms. Not looking to pick fights, but it’s good to question long established hobby opinions.

Personally, I think the 1933 Goudey Ruth Red background is a nicer, and tougher, card than the yellow Ruth.

I also think the 1956 Topps set is overrated; huge print runs for each card (compared to earlier 1950s sets), and the color (or lack thereof) makes the set look boring.

[Vintagecatcher]

It is my personal opinion that the Red Kleinow (Catching) Boston is more common than the Red Kleinow (Catching) N.Y.

Patrick

[drcy]

I like the 1940s MP & Co. cards

The Armour Coins is one of the best ever issues

I don't like the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle

Collectors focus too much on centering. It's not that big of a deal.

[gonefishin]

Two things:

1. I think the 57 Topps set the standard and model for the modern day card.

2. I think grading has done more harm than good for the hobby when it comes to young collectors and significantly contributed to the morphing of a hobby into an investment.

[CJinPA]

I believe the E92 dockmen are tougher to find in nice condition (PSA 5+) than people think.

[bnorth]

The T210 set is by far the best looking T set.

[Snapolit1]

T cards are boring.

[Belfast1933]

Great idea for a thread!

1953 Bowman cards…. Overrated Great pictures, but they don’t look like baseball cards to me.

[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)

[Leon]

I don't keep up with any major league (professional) sports.

and I think the E90-1 Jackson isn't good looking....
.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by skelly423

Share your contrarian hobby opinions that go against accepted hobby norms. Not looking to pick fights, but it’s good to question long established hobby opinions.

Personally, I think the 1933 Goudey Ruth Red background is a nicer, and tougher, card than the yellow Ruth.

I also think the 1956 Topps set is overrated; huge print runs for each card (compared to earlier 1950s sets), and the color (or lack thereof) makes the set look boring.

Agree

[jsfriedm]

Action shots/poses are better than portraits.

It's stranger to love simple pieces of cardboard from before your parents were born than shiny, high-tech cards of contemporary players.

[jamest206]

I try to collect other cards, comics, memorabilia, but always find myself going back to T206.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't keep up with any major league (professional) sports.

.

Well, since we all collect cards of players who haven't played in YEARS, I don't see how current pro sports are even relevant

[jingram058]

I think t205 and 1953 Bowman color are the best looking baseball cards ever.

I think 1953 Topps and 1955 Bowman are the worst looking ever. In fact, I think1953 Topps is just effing hideous.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by skelly423

I also think the 1956 Topps set is overrated; huge print runs for each card (compared to earlier 1950s sets), and the color (or lack thereof) makes the set look boring.

I'm pretty OK with most of the opinions so far, but OP this one really triggered me

I don't know how ANYONE can not love 1956 Topps with the upclose portaits and full colored backgrounds. Maybe the best set ever. Yeah, huge print runs, but that way we can all get more of them!

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Well, since we all collect cards of players who haven't played in YEARS, I don't see how current pro sports are even relevant

+1 agree with every word.

[jsfriedm]

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)

+1. If only it had a Ted Williams and even, maybe, a DiMaggio.

[Snapolit1]

48 Leafs are probably the most beautiful set ever. And I think Andy Warhol ripped them off.

[joshleon]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I think t205 and 1953 Bowman color are the best looking baseball cards ever.

I think 1953 Topps and 1955 Bowman are the worst looking ever. In fact, I think1953 Topps is just effing hideous.

I think t205s are the 1953 Topps of tobacco cards.

Agree on both counts re: Bowman

[skelly423]

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)

Piggybacking on this, I think the 1952 Bowman is Willie Mays’ best card. The 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps are too dark, the ‘53 Topps isn’t a nice image, and 1954 onward have too many cards printed.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

+1. If only it had a Ted Williams and even, maybe, a DiMaggio.

Yes, since Bowman didn't appear to reuse any poses from prior years in 1952 (unlike some repeats from '50 to '51) it's fun to think what a new Ted Williams painting would have looked like. And yeah, a DiMaggio would have been amazing.

[Lorewalker]

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

[NiceDocter]

Strip cards are awesome! Plus…. I don’t give a darn if they include a dotted line on the edge or not as long as they have some even borders…. And this includes Bazookas too! You are really going to pay 10x for a 9 vs an A just to see that dotted line???????

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by CJinPA

I believe the E92 dockmen are tougher to find in nice condition (PSA 5+) than people think.

Agreed
_

[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. ��

[Republicaninmass]

Exhibits, postcards, photos, cards cut from magazines have never been as desirable, widely collected or valued as gum or candy cards. I just dont see it. Sure they have a nice image what have you, but they were not a side promotion for the gum/candy and subsequently thrown away. Hence the entire collectibility aspect of the hobby. My mom threw out my postcards...doesnt have the same ring to it.

[trambo]

T205 is a much better set than T206 and the master set of t205 is far harder to finish than a 522 of t206

[butchie_t]

Upper Deck and card grading forever changed the hobby of card collecting, and NOT FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE HOBBY.

[jingram058]

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. ��

PLEASE...keep going! I agree with every word.

Calling super-whamadyne expensive cards a hobby is laughable, unless you're made out of money.

[brunswickreeves]

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

[G1911]

I could care less what some unknown person working for a company that is corrupt or incompetent or both thinks about a cards grade.

I don’t care about centering. Miscuts are better.

Creases are preferable to no creases.

95% of my vintage is not sleeved at all.

Hall of Famers are no more desirable than a common.

Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Mickey Mantle and Current Years Hot Rookie are greatly overvalued.

I’d love for the market to keep declining. Would be thrilled if it totally crashed.

Claims about cards and card sets are not true because of who makes the claim or how long they have floated about the hobby; actual evidence makes them true.

I don’t hate modern. A lot of the base looks very nice.

Non-sports are as cool as sports.

[Orioles1954]

Centering doesn’t matter.

Modern collectors deserve respect.

Obaks are way better than T206

Delongs are better than Goudey

1930s cards are more interesting than tobacco cards.

[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.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Delongs are better than Goudey

I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. DeLongs are the best

[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

[JollyElm]

• Any Dave Kingman at-bat was the most exciting thing ever for a fan.

• The 1967 Topps Mickey Mantle is a great portrait.

• Any card/picture of Hughie Jennings showing his mouth wide open, hands flying all over the place and once again shouting, "Ee-Yah!" is a complete annoyance. You were exuberant. We get it!!!

• Jeff Kent unquestionably should've been a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

• The 1973 Topps Willie Davis card, showing him getting plinked, is the greatest piece of cardboard in history!!

[ValKehl]

For pre-War cards, collecting cards from obscure sets is more fun than collecting T206s, T205s, and 1933 Goudeys.

For post-War cards, collecting cards from regional sets is more fun than collecting Bowman & Topps. The neatest Bowman set is the 1955 TV set.

[Casey2296]

Ee-Yah!
_

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

• Jeff Kent unquestionably should've been a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Just the facts.

[ValKehl]

More Ee-Yah beauty!!

[HistoricNewspapers]

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]

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.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

More Ee-Yah beauty!!

Wow, great run!

[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)

[brunswickreeves]

I LOVE that the 56 Topps set is packed with a combo of HOFers: Mick, Jackie, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Williams, and on, and on...Plus Jackie's last card and Mick's triple crown year, depicting an amazing catch and the absolute most joyous smile ever.

[notfast]

I dont like postcards.

[jingram058]

Grading has ruined the hobby.

[Casey2296]

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