Iconic card you Want but you don't like the set/image.

[Rookiemonster]

So what do you do here guys ?

Do you purchase the card just because?

Do you say, I think I'll get the second year card?

Do you just move on?

And I guess you could also ask the reverse question.

How about a set you love but a valuable card that you don't like in the set/image.

The first card that come to my mind is 1948 Bowman phil rizzuto rc .
This is a iconic card I don't really care for . I even like the 1949 Bowman Berra over the 1948 Bowman Yogi Berra .

[swarmee]

I figured you were talking about the 1970 Topps Thurman Munson...

[Bigdaddy]

I figured you were talking about the 1963 Pete Rose.

One of my fav's growing up and I have all his cards except the '63.

[Johnny630]

1972 Topps Clemente. My least favorite set of the post war era.

[rats60]

1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. The ugliest card ever made by Topps in my opinion.

[DBesse27]

1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. The ugliest card ever made by Topps in my opinion.

I don't care for 52 topps at all.

[geosluggo]

The '73 Schmidt rookie comes to mind. Not a bad card itself, but part of my least-favorite set. I was 8 years old when the 1973 cards came out and remember being hugely disappointed in them after the exuberant 1972 set. My feelings toward the '73 set, and 1973 in general, were largely influenced by the death of my favorite player, Roberto Clemente, on New Year's Eve and the first-series card of him that didn't acknowledge his passing (I was too young to appreciate printing schedules; but couldn't they have put out a commemorative card in the later series?). Years later, I still think the 1973 design was poor and many of the action photos were terrible. To me, the decline from 787 cards in 1972 to 660 cards in 1973 fits right in with Watergate, the tail end of Vietnam, gas shortages, avocado-colored appliances and other early-1970s blights.

[bobsbbcards]

Realizing I might be pummeled for the following opinion, but here goes. I would have loved to call the 53 Bowman Color set complete without buying the Pee Wee Reese card. I hate it. :eek:

[Neal]

Realizing I might be pummeled for the following opinion, but here goes. I would have loved to call the 53 Bowman Color set complete without buying the Pee Wee Reese card. I hate it. :eek:

LOL

Same here, and one of the biggest reasons I stopped working on it - I knew that I would have to not only buy that card, but also the horrible Berra, Bauer, Mantle card as well.

[mintonlyplz]

1959 Bob Gibson...

First...I don't care for the peek a boo design in 1959. Then...add the color pink on the Gibby card and it makes him look like a "Pink Nightmare" similar to Ralphy when he wore the Pink Bunny outfit on 'The Christmas Story'.

[Exhibitman]

1959 Bob Gibson...

First...I don't care for the peek a boo design in 1959. Then...add the color pink on the Gibby card and it makes him look like a "Pink Nightmare" similar to Ralphy when he wore the Pink Bunny outfit on 'The Christmas Story'.

Thank you! I so prefer the 60 to the 59.

Another dog, the 1973 Clemente. WTF were they thinking?

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous5/websize/1973%20Clemente.jpg

The 1972s are an acquired taste but they do have one of the great cards of all time:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous5/websize/1972%20OPC%20Martin.jpg

Whoops! Guess little Johnny learned some fun new hand gestures when he pulled this from a pack.

[spaidly]

The '73 Schmidt rookie comes to mind. Not a bad card itself, but part of my least-favorite set. I was 8 years old when the 1973 cards came out and remember being hugely disappointed in them after the exuberant 1972 set. My feelings toward the '73 set, and 1973 in general, were largely influenced by the death of my favorite player, Roberto Clemente, on New Year's Eve and the first-series card of him that didn't acknowledge his passing (I was too young to appreciate printing schedules; but couldn't they have put out a commemorative card in the later series?). Years later, I still think the 1973 design was poor and many of the action photos were terrible. To me, the decline from 787 cards in 1972 to 660 cards in 1973 fits right in with Watergate, the tail end of Vietnam, gas shortages, avocado-colored appliances and other early-1970s blights.

I feel the same way about the 1973 set.Steve Garvey was my hometown hero and that year's card is not only the worst Garvey of them all card but the worst in the entire 1973 set. Maybe one of the worst cards of all time. Thankfully, his 1974 card made up for it. The photo on that card is epic.

[mintonlyplz]

I feel the same way about the 1973 set.Steve Garvey was my hometown hero and that year's card is not only the worst Garvey of them all card but the worst in the entire 1973 set. Maybe one of the worst cards of all time. Thankfully, his 1974 card made up for it. The photo on that card is epic.

I believe the Garvey card was suppose to be the Wes Parker card ; )....

[rats60]

I believe the Garvey card was suppose to be the Wes Parker card ; )....

Interesting that Parker, the long time Dodgers first baseman, is greeting his successor at home. It's too bad this photo wasn't take a moment later when Parker wasn't obscuring Garvey.

[mrmopar]

It is a bad shot for Garvey, but I have grown to like it all the same. It is in line with so many of the action shots of that set. I personally like them over the boring batting practice poses they use on so many other cards. The 78 Topps Garvey could have been so much more….

If I saw this card coming out of a pack as a young, first year collector who just discovered Garvey and would go on to collect his stuff for almost 40 years, I would have gone crazy even though you don't see his face. This is a fantasy card another Garvey collector i know created. I love it.

[ALR-bishop]

Bob-- it would be awesome if you would take a video of yourself burning your 53 Reese and post it in this thread. Or maybe pasting a different picture on the front of it.

[Zach Wheat]

I figured you were talking about the 1963 Pete Rose.......

+1

[bobsbbcards]

Bob-- it would be awesome if you would take a video of yourself burning your 53 Reese and post it in this thread. Or maybe pasting a different picture on the front of it.

Unfortunately, mine is entombed in plastic. Maybe I'll film myself burning your Reese. :rolleyes:

[campyfan39]

Me three. It's one of the most overrated cards of all time.

LOL

Same here, and one of the biggest reasons I stopped working on it - I knew that I would have to not only buy that card, but also the horrible Berra, Bauer, Mantle card as well.

[ALR-bishop]

Bob-- I left it at home. You know where to find it.

[ajquigs]

I'm a Mets collector yet I don't have either of their HOF RCs, Seaver or Ryan.
I guess the main reason is that I'm not a big fan of composite rookie cards. Also, while I don't tend to be driven by scarcity, the Ryan card just feels overpriced to me as it seems like there are a billion of them out there.
Part of me would definitely like to have both cards. If he didn't happen to be paired with Ryan, Koosman's RC would be a no-brainer; and Tom is, well, Tom. Plus I like that Tom's paired with the guy they traded (Denehy) to get Gil Hodges as their manager.
Still, thus far I've never come close to buying either card. I prefer my 1969s.

[Rookiemonster]

1959 Bob Gibson...

First...I don't care for the peek a boo design in 1959. Then...add the color pink on the Gibby card and it makes him look like a "Pink Nightmare" similar to Ralphy when he wore the Pink Bunny outfit on 'The Christmas Story'.

I agree with this to the Bob Gibson rookie is a let down.

many multi player rookie cards have less appeal to them as stated by many here.

[jchcollins]

1957 Topps. Yes, the famous first "genuine color" Topps set, and it has a few great cards, but on the whole I think the photography is dull and listless, and I can't imagine anything much more boring than trying to put a '57 Topps set together. Don't get me wrong, if anyone wants to give me the Mantle or Ted Williams (the #407 Mantle / Berra is really nice too...) I'd jump at the chance, but on the whole I'm just not a fan of the set. Also annoying that some cards when printed with the right colors can be beautiful, but the same card often turned out dull and ugly because of differences in (the ink? The cardboard? Something?) the printing process. I'll go out on a limb even to say I like '58 Topps more than '57 because on the whole, they are more colorful.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JustinD]

I don't care for 52 topps at all.

Yep, not a fan of the rushed cut and paste look and poorly colorized photos. I only have the Zernial because I like the pic.

To each their own.

[JustinD]

Realizing I might be pummeled for the following opinion, but here goes. I would have loved to call the 53 Bowman Color set complete without buying the Pee Wee Reese card. I hate it. :eek:

Bob!

...if I didn't owe you forever for giving me the card I was looking 10 years for.

lol. :)

[Paul S]

53B Musial - Stan, get out of that safe haven drab dugout and grab the Slaughter pose. Geez, you look like yer rockin' a baby or huggin' yer inner self. BE The Man!

53T Mays - I don't care how high the grade,. In a set full of great headshots, Willie looks like he just came up with a slow roller in short center field.

[irv]

1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. The ugliest card ever made by Topps in my opinion.

I don't care for 52 topps at all.

Yep, not a fan of the rushed cut and paste look and poorly colorized photos. I only have the Zernial because I like the pic.

To each their own.

You guys are killing me! It's the most recognized/worldly/universal set in existence! How can you not like them? :D (j/k, each to their own as was mentioned)

My least favorite, with my limited experience, would have to be the 55 Bowman set. Not sure what they were thinking with the T.V.'s, but going all the way back to the early 50's, I'm sure T.V.'s were the latest rage so Bowman thought they would try and capitalise on that?

[rats60]

You guys are killing me! It's the most recognized/worldly/universal set in existence! How can you not like them? :D (j/k, each to their own as was mentioned)

My least favorite, with my limited experience, would have to be the 55 Bowman set. Not sure what they were thinking with the T.V.'s, but going all the way back to the early 50's, I'm sure T.V.'s were the latest rage so Bowman thought they would try and capitalise on that?

I just don't like the Mantle. Who uses a yellow bat? I would have never bought the card except I needed it to complete a run of Topps sets. I would agree that as a set, the 55 Bowman is the worst and the 55 Topps is my favorite.

[ALR-bishop]

Irv-- Not just TVs, but color TVs. Check out how many ( few) color TVs existed in 1955

[irv]

Irv-- Not just TVs, but color TVs. Check out how many ( few) color TVs existed in 1955

Good point, Al.

I don't recall how old I was when my folks got a colored T.V., but I can say, the 50's were long gone by then.

[ajquigs]

I was born in the 1960s and since I was a kid I loved the kitchiness of the wood paneled "Color TV" theme of the 55 Bowman's.
With the first mainstream color TVs available in 1954, it was an honest attempt to use something cutting edge to compete with Topps. Of course, even if people had color TV sets (in 1964 still only 3% of U.S. houses had one) there were very few color broadcasts.
I guess I'm glad these cards are relatively unpopular as it keeps them more affordable. I'll always consider it a truly classic set that reflects its time more than almost any other. Sort of like the Art Deco design of the Diamond Stars in the mid 30s.

[geosluggo]

When the '55 Bowmans were released, holding a color TV in your hand was unimaginable. Aside from the Mays and Aaron, I've never collected them, but I think it's a very cool, of-its-time design.

[clydepepper]

I don't know if it's iconic as its appearance makes it less desirable. Most of cards in the 1948 Bowman set are ugly, but a Rookie Card Mug Shot of a Hall-of-Famer takes the cake:

259704

[jchcollins]

Good point, Al.

I don't recall how old I was when my folks got a colored T.V., but I can say, the 50's were long gone by then.

Yeah this is definitely another "each unto his own" set. I absolutely love the '55 Bowmans and have never understood why they aren't more popular. The TV sets just scream 1950's. Yes, it's true that virtually nobody had a color set in 1955, although the technology did exist. I'll take the fact that it's not the most popular set (at least in comparison to '55 and '56 Topps) - just means I can get them for cheaper!

[Rookiemonster]

I love baseball I love TV I love cards so I'm cool with the 1955 bowman set. I don't however like the umpires. It might as well be a bunch of checklists.

[bnorth]

I love baseball I love TV I love cards so I'm cool with the 1955 bowman set. I don't however like the umpires. It might as well be a bunch of checklists.

I love the 55 Bowman set. I agree on the umpires sucking, they are also insanely overpriced. The Mantle and Aaron cards are the only 2 that sell for more than the umpire cards in the same condition. I know I have bought and sold a few Mays cards for less than I paid for several of the umpire cards I have.:(

I think it was the mid 70's before we had a color TV. Seen several B/W sets being used as second TVs in kids/parents bedrooms through the mid 80's.

[Puckettfan]

This will probably be unpopular but I think the 56 Topps Mantle is frightening. The head shot of the Mick makes him look like some kind of frog monster.
259723

[CW]

You're not the only one, Puckettfan. I love Mantle cards, and I love the '56 set. The '56 Mantle? Not so much.

[Rookiemonster]

I love the 55 Bowman set. I agree on the umpires sucking, they are also insanely overpriced. The Mantle and Aaron cards are the only 2 that sell for more than the umpire cards in the same condition. I know I have bought and sold a few Mays cards for less than I paid for several of the umpire cards I have.:(

I think it was the mid 70's before we had a color TV. Seen several B/W sets being used as second TVs in kids/parents bedrooms through the mid 80's.

I picked up a 1955 Bowman Mays for 25 buck last year. Obviously not mint but far from a beater for sure. And I've been eyeing up 1955 Bowman Aaron of late.


Puckett fan I also hate that head shot but love the leaping image in the back round. He looks odd to say the least in the head shot.

[ajquigs]

This will probably be unpopular but I think the 56 Topps Mantle is frightening. The head shot of the Mick makes him look like some kind of frog monster.
259723

I admit I'm far from being a Mantle collector (the only one I have ... '55 Bowman) but I'm with you that the '56 picture is one of his worst. To me, his mouth is almost clown like.

[irv]

This will probably be unpopular but I think the 56 Topps Mantle is frightening. The head shot of the Mick makes him look like some kind of frog monster.
259723

We all have different tastes and likes, and that's a good thing, trust me, but personally, I love the 56 Mantle card. Next to my 52 Topps copy, that is definitely my next favorite.

[ValKehl]

I think the 1956 Topps Mantle is the ugliest of all the regular-issue Bowman and Topps cards of Mantle. This said, I still have this 1956 Topps Mantle card that I pulled from a pack when I was a kid! But, I'll happily trade it for a pre-War cards I want.

1955 may have been the year my folks got our first (b&w) TV set. Perhaps this is why I have always liked the 1955 Bowmans. Bowman cards weren't available where I bought my cards as a kid, but I was able to get some from my buddies via trades. IMHO, the 1955 Bowman Mantle is a much nicer looking card!
Val

[campyfan39]

It is fascinating the way different people view things. 56 Mantle is in my all time top 5 favorite and maybe #1.

I think the 1956 Topps Mantle is the ugliest of all the regular-issue Bowman and Topps cards of Mantle. This said, I still have this 1956 Topps Mantle card that I pulled from a pack when I was a kid! But, I'll happily trade it for a pre-War cards I want.

1955 may have been the year my folks got our first (b&w) TV set. Perhaps this is why I have always liked the 1955 Bowmans. Bowman cards weren't available where I bought my cards as a kid, but I was able to get some from my buddies via trades. IMHO, the 1955 Bowman Mantle is a much nicer looking card!
Val

[JollyElm]

To me, there's a bit of a weighted balancing act in play with regard to the '56 Mantle card. I, personally, think he looks quite creepy in the headshot. Yowza. But that background is one of the greatest in-action images in the history of baseball cards. So it's easy to give less weight to his face and a helluva lot more weight to him catching that ball in the stands to deem it a beautiful card overall.

[SAllen2556]

About 4 years ago I bought a starter set of about 350 '69 Topps. I loved the photography of the cards especially compared to my sets from the 70's. It seemed like a great set to put together because the high numbers weren't expensive. But what I didn't realize was that were a ton of just ugly, strange cards that year. The Houston cards and all the other black-hatted / no hatted cards made for a pretty disappointing set to collect the entire thing. I wish I had just collected the hall of famers. The Bench card is still one of my favorites.

259815

[Rookiemonster]

I wonder if they would have made a 1955 topps mantle if it would have had that
Face shot. As I know that the 1955 -56 share the head shot image. We could have had two years of that mug !!!! Aaaaahhhhhh shucks

[Drift]

E95 caramel Ty Cobb, I'm torn because it looks like he has lipstick on and can go transgender. If it wasn't for that it'd be my favorite Cobb issue next to the T206 portrait.

[pokerplyr80]

63 Rose is an obvious choice. I'm also not crazy about the image on the e90-1 Joe Jackson but would still love to own one. Hopefully some day I will have both.

[Rookiemonster]

https://www.google.com/search?q=1955+topps+mickey+mantle&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=simvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia8OObl_LRAhUOzGMKHVFqDR8Q_AUICCgC&biw=375&bih=559#imgrc=qKDEbZ1iDaf9CM:

[jchcollins]

It is fascinating the way different people view things. 56 Mantle is in my all time top 5 favorite and maybe #1.

Have to agree with you. The '56 Mantle is an iconic card and one of his best looking issues, period. His face looks weird how? He's smiling, and that's what Mick looked like when he smiled, you can see it in film too from that period. That is also one sweet catch he's reaching out to make in the action shot. '56 Topps is generally considered one of the best looking sets of all time - and the Mantle is one of the best looking cards in it. :)

[ALR-bishop]

A little like Jack Nicholson's smile in The Shining :eek:

[jchcollins]

Here's a card from a set that most people like, but I've seen more than a few complaints about the image: the 1965 Topps Ernie Banks. Most cards from the set are either posed batting shots or normal portraits. But Ernie for some reason seems to be a super close profile shot. I've seen people say it's cropped too close. I've always loved the card and don't really care, but this could meet the requirement for an "iconic set" but a bad image...

[Gr8Beldini]

Here's a card from a set that most people like, but I've seen more than a few complaints about the image: the 1965 Topps Ernie Banks. Most cards from the set are either posed batting shots or normal portraits. But Ernie for some reason seems to be a super close profile shot. I've seen people say it's cropped too close. I've always loved the card and don't really care, but this could meet the requirement for an "iconic set" but a bad image...

I think they took a bunch of profile shots for the awful Embossed insert set. Topps didn't have a better picture of Ernie than this? I equally hate the 1970/72 Dick Allen cards.