PDA

View Full Version : Combo (multi-player) cards


Archive
09-06-2007, 12:11 AM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Hi All,<br />These have become a relatively new interest of mine, and they seem to have started in the late 1950s - where they feature two more more players on a card, and then title it something catchy...I just posted my latest pickup over on the September pickup thread (the 1964 Aaron/Mays card).<br /><br />Anyone else collect these?<br /><br />Post your favorites!<br />Mine is that 1964 Aaron/Mays "Tops in NL"<br /><br />I also like the:<br />1959 Aaron/Mathews<br />1963 Aaron/Banks

Archive
09-06-2007, 01:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Jason:<br /><br />I started collecting similar cards last year as a side item to my normal interest. I believe I had acquired every multi-player card issued by Topps which pictured at least three players where everyone on the card was a HOF'er. Unfortunately, I found out quickly when I tried to sell them that there is very little interest in these types of cards even among the HOF collectors out there. If you are doing it for the enjoyment, I think it is a great endeavor. From my experience, it does not make a wise investment though.

Archive
09-06-2007, 01:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>The 1962 Mantle/Mays (#18) is the most gorgeous of these. I also like the '66 with Aaron, Clemente and Mays (215) and the '63 with the severed heads of 5 HOFers on it.

Archive
09-06-2007, 01:27 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Matt,<br /><br />You need to differentiate combo cards from League Leader cards. League Leader cards are even less popular than combo cards.<br /><br />My favorite combo card is in the '53 Color Bowman with Mantle, Berra, and Bauer.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
09-06-2007, 01:43 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Peter IMHO the presence of Bauer detracts from that 53 Bowman. The 62 Topps I mentioned is not a LL - you'd be hard pressed to have Mantle and Mays on the same LL card!

Archive
09-06-2007, 01:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>I'm glad to hear you say that and it is what I was noticing as well...these cards are not prized and premiums are not assigned...-which makes them even more attractive to me these days!<br /><br />I agree, not as good for investment, but I do truly like these cards, so the fact that they are more affordable makes them all the more sweet!<br /><br />I think some of the attraction for me is that those cards singlehandedly deliver something that a single player's card (or even a league leader card)does not: It places the players in context of their time. The pairings and the title combine to show what the feeling was about them at the time...does that make sense?<br />I recall getting excited to see the combo cards in the 1984 and 1985 fleer sets while I was growing up...I could see a few of my fave players at once, recognized for their dominance - I just thought it was cool.<br /><br />And to now be able to look back to 1963 or 64 and see pairings of legends that I never got to see play -that holds something special, I think.<br /><br /><br />

Archive
09-06-2007, 02:00 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jason,<br /><br />Agreed. Perhaps, that is one of the reasons that combo cards are preferred over league leader cards. In 1957, the Yankee fans flocked to the Mantle and Berra combo card. The Dodger fans had their own Dodgers' sluggers card.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
09-06-2007, 02:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Anyone ever compiled a checklist of these cards that they would like to share?<br /><br /><br />Peter, - good point...never thought about that dual NY team attention with regards to the 57 topps set...

Archive
09-06-2007, 02:38 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>I just re-read my issue of Baseball Cards Magazine from Fall of 1982 the other day, and they had a comprehensive list of combo cards (by player) at least for Topps and if I remember correctly, Bowman. I'll try and remember to scan the relevant pages this evening.<br /><br />Here's a few of those 1963 combo cards:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1963/1963topps/63Topps018BucBlasters.jpg"> <img src="http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1963/1963topps/63Topps068FriendlyFoes.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1963/1963topps/63Topps138PrideOfTheNL.jpg"> <img src="http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1963/1963topps/63Topps242PowerPlus.jpg">

Archive
09-06-2007, 02:44 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Bob,<br /><br />Beautiful cards, another favorite of mine from '63 Topps, is the Bronx Bomber card.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
09-06-2007, 02:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>Love this one<br /><img src="http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/1830/490/166906.jpg">

Archive
09-06-2007, 02:52 PM
Posted By: <b>nbrazil</b><p>combo cards are great...especially for getting autos. I was able to snag this from ebay about a year ago:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.geocities.com/nbbgmad/autos.jpg">

Archive
09-06-2007, 03:03 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Yes, if you have time, I would eagerly await that posting of those lists...<br /><br />May I ask what scanner and settings you use to get such great scans for those PSA8's ??? thanks

Archive
09-06-2007, 03:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Jason,<br /><br />I don't still use the same settings as I did when I scanned those cards--I think they're a bit too dark. I'll get you that info this evening too.

Archive
09-06-2007, 03:21 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>I don't think they are dark as much as the contrast is pumped a bit. The flips read the right white point reading on my browser.

Archive
09-06-2007, 03:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Anthony,<br /><br />That's what I meant. I didn't want to use the fancy word "contrast". <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Bob<br /><br />P.S. Nice pack by the way!!

Archive
09-06-2007, 03:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>This one is done with the current settings (contrast still pumped up a bit but not as much):<br /><br /><img src="http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1953/1953bowman/53Bowman044BerraBauerMantle.jpg">

Archive
09-06-2007, 03:45 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Anthony, what does this mean? : "the right white point reading" <br /><br />Bob, did you think I wouldn't understand the word "contrast" ?? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
09-06-2007, 04:01 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>Ok, but it might get a bit geeky.<br /> All parts of an image have a numerical value of 1-255. 1 being absolute black, 255 being absolute white. Generally if you want something to print with detail you need to be around 45 for black point and 243 for white, but it depends on how the image is being reproduced. <br /> If you take an image into photoshop and pass the color picker (eyedropper) over it your info pallette will give you readings in the R, G, and B channels of 1-255.<br />Whenever I scan images (actually in my case I shoot copy shots with a digital back, but it's the same for scanning) I make sure the white of the flip is at a reading of about 241. When that is done the card is of the correct exposure, assuming the lighting is even (which it always is on a scan, or on a properly lit copy shot). <br /> If you have photoshop the easy way to do this is open the scan, bring up curves (command-m on a mac, probably a similar way of those other computers) and then double click on the white eye dropper. It will bring up a menu with R, G, and B values, and you'd type in 241 for each. This makes them your new target colors. Now click on the flip with the white eyedropper, and it corrects both exposure and color shift (if any) in one move. Click ok to accept the new curve, click OK when it asks you if you want this to be the new target colors (you do) and you're good to go.<br /> This works for both PSA and SGC flips. Global you have to eyeball, due to the silver flip. Haven't seen the new GAI flips yet but should get a submission back this week. I think they are white now as well.<br />

Archive
09-06-2007, 04:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>A "bit" geeky? Um, no....not really........well, yes.

Archive
09-06-2007, 04:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>ah forget it, Bob won't take the bait

Archive
09-06-2007, 05:57 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Here's the "checklist." The article itself was written by Bob Lemke--excellent article by the way Bob! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><img src="http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/miscellaneous/combocards.jpg">

Archive
09-06-2007, 07:11 PM
Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>in part because they were good ole' Pennsylvania boys.<br /><br /><img src="http://images1.collectors.com/psa/set_registry/m548652/139BillyandBobbySchantzPSA8.jpg">

Archive
09-06-2007, 07:39 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Gorgeous '55 Bowman combo of teammates. These are the best type of combo cards.<br /><br />League Leader cards are generally less highly regarded. However, occasionally you will have a card like the '65 NL ERA Leaders card which features both Koufax and Drysdale, that card is pretty popular.<br /><br />The combo cards with 2 or more superstars fall in between the combo cards of teammates and league leaders.<br /><br />The combo cards of non teammates and/or non superstars are less valuable and are valued about as much as league leader cards.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
09-06-2007, 08:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Larry P.</b><p><img src="http://images1.collectors.com/psa/set_registry/m771438/001PSA9.jpg">

Archive
09-06-2007, 08:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>I always dug the combos and never understood why they got less respect. However, even a HOFer by himself on an All Star is considered a lesser value than that same player on his own "regular" player card (as a general rule, not including some scarce series, etc.) Collect what you like, I say!! Anyway, I had my Toops '58 within arms reach so here's a few I pulled. And don't forget those O'Brien brothers on the Topps '54.<br /><img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/topps_1958_Williams_Klu.jpg"> <img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/topps_1958_Mays_Snider.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/topps_1958_Mantle_Aaron-1.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/topps_1958_League_Presidents.jpg"><br />BTW, Doubtful the League Prezes were in the same room<br />at the same time.<br /><br />*edited because I kept screwing up the scans.

Archive
09-06-2007, 09:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Due to popular demand I am uploading the identical twins O'Brien. Now please, everybody stop flooding my email box.<br /><br />Also, how about Ted and the Babe? Does it get any better?<br /><br />Peter Chao, I expect a full report out of you re these. What's your take on them? It's like I can almost read it already!<br /><br /><img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/topps_1954_O_Brien_twins.jpg"> <img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/Fleer_Williams_Ruth.jpg">

Archive
09-06-2007, 09:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>that one of the more famous pitching duos was never featured together: Spahn and Sain (ya know, pray fer rain...)<br /><br />

Archive
09-06-2007, 10:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>I personally hate nearly all combo cards. I especially hate combo cards with Mantle. Not that I dislike Mantle cards, but there always seems to be multiple Mantle combo cards in nearly every set in the 50's and 60's (WS, LL, team, etc.), and they normally sell for far more than I like to pay for these type of cards. I would have rather seen multiple REAL cards of the same player in the same year. I'm looking forward to one day putting together the 1954 set purchasing two different Ted Williams (real cards).

Archive
09-07-2007, 01:14 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Nice combo cards. The Obrien brothers in the '54 Topps card is an underrated card. It was Topps first attempt at a combo card and people forget that the twins really were pretty good ballplayers. Card is difficult to find in nice condition.<br /><br />I also like your Fleer card with Babe and Ted together. This set is collectible because of Ted, but in general, sets focused on one superstar don't do well.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
09-07-2007, 01:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>for that checklist<br />very helpful!

Archive
09-07-2007, 01:42 PM
Posted By: <b>CLAUDE</b><p>Here is a recent submission to PSA....nice for an OPC from the 60's.<br /><br />-Claude<br /><br /><img src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c291/1966CUDA/za.jpg">

Archive
09-07-2007, 06:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Peter C said: "This set is collectible because of Ted, but in general, sets focused on one superstar don't do well."<br /><br />Don't do well? Please clarify. My set's doing fine! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
09-07-2007, 06:35 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Paul S.,<br /><br />Off the top of my head your Fleer set and the '34 Goudey set are the only 2 sets that have focused on one player and done pretty well.<br /><br />In other sets, perhaps it's simply too much of a good thing and the sets don't do well. Think of all the sets that were made of Michael Jordan or Nolan Ryan.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
09-07-2007, 06:49 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Peter, I still don't know what you mean by<br />"do well"/"don't do well." I don't believe that was<br />implied in my original post.<br /><br />*edited to manually wrap text.<br />

Archive
09-07-2007, 07:05 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i don't want to speak for peter but i think he means they are not popular with collectors. an example would be that if ted williams had a card in the 59 topps set it would be more popular/expensive than any card in the 59 ted williams fleer set.(EXCEPT THE SHORT PRINT) another example is the fleer greats 1960 set has a ted williams card and he was still active but the nature of this set (old-timers) makes that williams card less valuable than if he had a card in the '60 topps set.well back on topic here's a couple of my favorites.<br /><img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/dcc1/combo.jpg">

Archive
09-07-2007, 07:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>Here are a couple of my favorites, featuring great early photos of two of my favorites, Frank and Hank ...<br /><br /><img src="http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e278/ccmcnutt/58reds.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e278/ccmcnutt/58braves.jpg">

Archive
09-07-2007, 07:35 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p><img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/dcc1/pastprime.jpg">

Archive
09-07-2007, 08:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Thanks Dennis. I was probably pulling Peter's leg<br />somewhat. My bad. Here's a couple more as atonement.<br /><br /><img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/topps_1964_Mays_Cepeda.jpg"> <img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/topps_1964_Fox_Killebrew.jpg">

Archive
09-07-2007, 09:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason Leinberger</b><p>Is it me, or is the 1964 Topps set the king of the Combos?<br />They have several that I find appealing!<br />Aaron/Mays<br />Mays/Cepeda<br />Yz/Schilling<br />Killebrew/Fox<br />...<br /><br /><br />Agree or fancy another year?<br />

Archive
09-07-2007, 10:13 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Jason -- I know what you mean, especially with the<br />players involved. I'm not sure I have a fave combo year<br /> but I think the 64 design lends itself well to combo<br />cards: sleek, clean, crisp (mostly), and uncluttered.<br />In 1958 though, Topps just seems to really have gone to town. <br /><br /><img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/topps_1958_Kuenn_Kaline_andSnider_A.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/Topps_1967_Mays_McCovey.jpg"> <img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/Topps_1966_Williams_Epstein.jpg"><br /><br />What's up with Ted choking up!? He's telling Epstein to? LOL