Card Art...The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

[jingram058]

This is just my opinion here, and to each his own.

I can't help noticing (I have in fact noticed for decades) that some card sets have truly beautiful artwork in the days before color photography became prevalent, and some, quite frankly, contain examples that are somewhat hideous. I like to think that the good Lord blessed me with exquisite taste, you, on the other hand, might think somewhat differently.

Here are some examples of what I would classify as "The Good". To me, these are as beautiful (perhaps even more so) as a color photograph, if that technology had existed when these cards were originally distributed, and were no doubt reproduced from actual photography:

[jingram058]

Now, for some examples of what I consider to be less-than-beautiful card art. Some of these are held in VERY high esteem, but they are to me nevertheless less than flattering depictions of the subject. Some of these are nothing less than cartoonish. These are the cards I consider to be among "The Bad" and "The Ugly". Yes, some of these I actually possess despite my criticisms of the artwork, but others, such as 1952 and 1953 Topps Mickey Mantle, are simply beyond my means. I cannot help but wonder what it is about these cards that would drive someone to shell out the kind of money they sell regularly for. You could by a 1968 hemi Dodge Charger in mint condition for what the 52 Mantle goes for. The Payne-Walsh double folder is another example. What was the artist thinking here? The Walsh depiction is just nuts. Remember the old Puppet Master films? He looks like that guy with the big shoulders and tiny head. And what's going on with Roy Campanella? I guess he had a large head, but that tiny hat looks borderline ridiculous:

[yanks87]

There is certainly an aesthetic appreciation for the cards and the composition of the images. I think the photo/gold leaf combo of the T204 Ramly's are amazing, T205's are much fancier than the T206's (though I like the t206's more), Diamond Stars are the best "Art Nouveau" Card hands down, and I think the 1949 Leaf cards are an amazing nod to contemporary Pop art that was emerging at that time, though I am convinced the guys who were on press were drunk most of the time. 1965 Topps is the embodiment of a baseball card in my book, followed by the 1956 Topps. Everything after 1986 is tough to look at, the dawn of the glossy gold stamped crap.

[chadeast]

"Truly beautiful artwork" brings this card immediately to mind. It's not mine, but I wish I owned one.



and sometimes the classics are classics for a reason.

[irishdenny]

Mr Carter had(at times!?) a Lasor beam eye'

[drcy]

Like "So Bad They're Good," the goofy and strange choice for images (including on 1950s-80s Topps) make the hobby interesting.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by chadeast

"Truly beautiful artwork" brings this card immediately to mind. It's not mine, but I wish I owned one.



and sometimes the classics are classics for a reason.

Very nice choices

[howard38]

Originally Posted by yanks87

There is certainly an aesthetic appreciation for the cards and the composition of the images. I think the photo/gold leaf combo of the T204 Ramly's are amazing, T205's are much fancier than the T206's (though I like the t206's more), Diamond Stars are the best "Art Nouveau" Card hands down, and I think the 1949 Leaf cards are an amazing nod to contemporary Pop art that was emerging at that time, though I am convinced the guys who were on press were drunk most of the time. 1965 Topps is the embodiment of a baseball card in my book, followed by the 1956 Topps. Everything after 1986 is tough to look at, the dawn of the glossy gold stamped crap.

I agree with most of this but unless I'm confusing the sets I don't see art nouveau in Diamond Stars cards. More like deco, IMO.

[JollyElm]

Here's a post-war "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" thread that didn't get too much traction, but it follows the same theme with regards to specific players...

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=249319

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Here's a post-war "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" thread that didn't get too much traction, but it follows the same theme with regards to specific players...

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=249319

You did all the work and still it didn't go that far.

If you're not talking about graded cards or card graders, or "the National", or if you aren't in the clique, it seems that threads go nowhere around here anymore.

[Jay Wolt]

T3 Turkey Red cabinet cards are as good as it gets

[cardsagain74]

Always enjoyed the '50 Bowman (football as well). Though there are naturally so many amazing examples from pre and early post war.

On the other side, the '48 Leaf is awful

[rats60]

Agree with the OP on those earlier Mantles. He could have his own good bad and ugly post.

The good



I never understood why this card doesn't get more love. It is his rookie card and an example of good artwork. Along with the 1953 Bowman and 1965 Topps, his best looking cards in my opinion.

The bad

1953 Topps is just bad artwork. Most of the cards in the set are poor representations of the subjects and amatuerish in my opinion.

The ugly

The 1952 Topps is just plain ugly. Giving Mantle a yellow bat makes no sense to me. Also another weak Topps design.

[JustinD]

I was actually surprised to not see a 1951 Bowman Paul Richards mentioned in anything.

[Casey2296]

The Good.
-