Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>Donald Johnson</b><p>I'd definitely replace some of the players but a neat piece nonetheless.<br /><br /><a href="http://sports.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=705&Lot_No=19223" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://sports.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=705&Lot_No=19223</a>

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Drum</b><p>real neat piece assuming they are all real!

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Mike Gutierrez now works for Heritage. This doesn't mean he's looked at every<br />autograph lot in the auction, but it might.

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>The Roy Campanella at catcher really completes it!??????! Huh?<br /><br />Rob M.

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>Maybe Cochrane would have been a better choice since itd be an older auto but campanella is a damn fine catcher in my book. <br />He played in the All-Star Game every year from 1949 to 1956.<br />He received the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award in the National League three times: in 1951, 1953, and 1955. In 1953, he hit 40 home runs in games in which he appeared as a catcher, a record that lasted until 1996, when it was broken by Todd Hundley. Lets not forget that he wouldve put up even bigger numbers had he been allowed in MLB earlier. It wasnt until 1947 that colored players were allowed in MLB leaving him a career that only lasted from 1948-57. Not to mention his autograph before his accident which left him paralyzed from the chest down in January of '58 is valued and pretty rare, which is the one shown in the card for sale.<br />

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>I have to disagree Donald, I think that piece is uglier than sin. It seems like they did the display work themselves. Also, the cut off autographs are nauseating. If I want an "Y Youn" autograph, this would be the piece for me!

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>Man the cuts on these autos SUCK. Everthing is cut so close to the auto and some are even matted out.<br /><br />I think that hurts the piece a ton and I don't really like the look of it.<br /><br />Honestly I am not sure I like to look of any of these cards.<br /><br />Why cut the auto off a check, why not just make it a redemption card and send the person the full check.<br /><br />I would rather have the full check and it would mean more to me then seeing this jack ass company cut down a check to make a crappie looking card.<br /><br />James Gallo <br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p>I agree with James . . . & James. It looks like a dog's breakfast.

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>t206king</b><p>I looked at the Ruth auto. looks fishy to me!!! BABE looks very fishy. 35-50% of UD's autos are fake anyways, i stay away........

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>That Upper Deck logo really adds to the antique look they were going for.

Thought this piece was pretty neat.
 

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>Wasnt the piece just up for auction on ebay? Guess it didnt hit that tens of thousands of dollars min bid wanted. Card states all autos were authenticated by Spence. The thing I dislike most about these "10 of 10" cuts is that they cut off letters for the display. And even if they didnt cut the autos short, several of these cuts are not of 10 of 10 quality that is claimed in auction.