|
[QUOTE=ValKehl;1303716]I'm not posting a list of my 10 favorites because for the last 20-25 years my collecting focus has been mostly on prewar cards. But, I am a bit surprised that no one yet (unless I missed it) has included a 1959 Bazooka card on their list. IMHO, the 1959 Bazooka set is by far the best looking postwar set produced - yeah, even better than the 1953 Bowman & 1952 Topps sets - and, yes, the 1959 Bazooka Mantle is much nicer looking than the 1953 Bowman & 1952 Topps Mantles! I have some of these Bazookas (not a Mantle, regretfully), but I don't have any scans available to post
Val, I share your being perplexed that nary a member besides yourself has mentioned a 1959 Bazooka---baseball or football. You know they're fantastic; I know they're fantastic. I might not put the Mantle quite as high as you, but it is certainly grossly underrated. When I attended my first major convention in 1972, I had the privilege of seeing the 1959 Bazooka Mickey Mantle for the first time. I was so amazed at how beautiful it was! Couldn't take my eyes off of it. Stuck around the gentleman's shared table for a while just to gaze at it and burn it into my memory, basking in the enjoyment of seeing this card. What happened next is recounted in chapter 18 of my hopefully forthcoming book, NEVER CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN. Forty-two years ago, and I still remember the occasion well. So did the gentleman who owned it, Lionel Carter, who wrote of our experience with his card. Val, the absence of the Bazookas from a list of favorites may be attributed to other reasons, common and shared by some of us. If you're actively pursuing some cards that are notoriously tough to locate and are "a beauty extraordinaire", you find yourself speaking little to your fellow collectors for fear of unwittingly enticing further competition. Doing so potentially scotches your chances all the more of hunting down your prized game/trophy card. Without trying to come off as a smart alec, it also takes a certain combination of intelligence and good taste to recognize where to place such cards on the echelon of hobby importance, and of course value. Many of our fellow collectors peacefully enjoy the merits of the mainstream. That's great for them and I love those cards as well. But you and I both have come to know some of the more harder to get, attractive, and condition rarities reside at the bottom of the Loch Ness, so to speak. So many of them are a monsters to find!!!!!!!!!!!!!;) Have a swell day. --Brian Powell P.S. Your Hires Test Willie Mays is a beaut! What a wonderful smile on Say Hey. Sometimes he was not wearing it when his card photo was snapped (61 Topps, 59 Bazooka, 54 Stahl-Meyer, 52 Topps) |
|
I was by no means implying that Larry and Al's test issues were mainstream. I would never classify a test issue as mainstream. As we all know, Topps, the "mainstream" trading card company of the postwar, produced and printed a variety of test products whose print runs were micro-minuscule. These could never fit the mainstream category, though produced as they were by the mainstream company. Honestly, I'm puzzled you would derive such an implication from what I said.
OK, when I express the concept of "MAINSTREAM", I refer to items than are essentially penny apiece gum cards that were printed in large quantities at the time they were made, AND could be purchased cheaply for that one cent each, and were readily available to kids at various easily accessible outlets. Sure, we can make somewhat of an exception to Topps' seventh series, but by and large the same was true. It's just that by the time the seventh series was printed and made available, grocers, druggists, etc. did not seem to order very many boxes. In some instances, just one box. Some even skipped the last series and went right into offering football. Sure meant not to cause consternation here. Your taking the time to scan for us the 1959 Bazooka set is appreciated. I only own one card of those, and its AUTHENTIC, so I have nothing to crow about, but that's not my style anyway. Thanks again, Bob. Cheers. ---Brian Powell |
Quote:
|
Hi Bob. Thanks for the smiley face. After what I'm about to say, you probably won't like me anymore, but I must confess you took that paragraph pretty much as I meant it. I was not trying to express that collectors "who don't collect as I do" have little intelligence or good taste. I mean, collecting mainstream vintage Topps are great cards, period. Done in good taste, absolutely. I mean that in all sincerity, no buts about it. In today's graded card world, the mainstream will suck up every cent a collector has to spend. I suppose it's just that some of us want more of a challenge that we also find visually appealing.
Let's use your gorgeous '59 Bazooka baseball set that you so thoughtfully displayed for us. These kind of cards require a fair amount of cognitive deduction to reason out all the qualities that represent these sets. Understanding and appreciating "the complete package" has led me and more than a few others to regard them among the postwar gems of the hobby, set apart from the norm. When I said that most collectors focus on the mainstream, I was not at all likening that to wallowing in the mud. Mainstream cards are the foundation of our hobby, where myself, probably yourself, and most other collectors as kids have many cherished memories of collecting them. Where would we be without gum cards? So what am I dealing with, then? Repeat, it's NOT that most collectors lack the intelligence to understand and appreciate the various facets of these post-war gems. What I am saying is that most collectors are pretty much oblivious to those sorts of aspects. It's not something that occurs to them to ponder over. They simply just collect the items, admire the players' pictures, check the various price guides to see what their holdings are worth, and leave it at that. They don't seem to care (indifferent? apathetic?) about learning more about these cards, coins, etc. As such, these collectors are content to have scratched the surface. To them, if you've got the cards that's the main thing, and they're right. Perhaps I'm very mistaken; maybe most collectors would really get into knowing all the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW. Just getting on the computer will not tell them everything they want to know. That has frustrated a lot of researchers, as they expect instant gratification from going to web sites they think should tell them all this information. They'll get some, of course; I certainly did in researching parts of my book. OK. Let's go back to your beautiful 1959 Bazookas. The hobby has recognized the importance of the '59 Bazookas since the year they were issued, I dare say. My point--when Beckett first listed the Bazookas in his price guides; not sure if it was in the inaugural guide of '79, but definitely by '81, the value of a common in VG-EX was $35. Whereas, the value of a '59 Topps common in VG-EX ranged, depending upon the series, from 20, 24, and 85 cents. Not to incur your wrath, which may already have erupted, but WHY the stark difference in the two? Where I work, we are attempting to reach a certain quality status I believe is called ISO 9000. When a mistake is made at work, the supervisor has to fill out the dreaded "5 Whys?" sheet. The purpose of the five whys is to get to the bottom of the problem and figure out how to rectify the issue so it won't happen again. Well, it is an interesting cognitive exercise to apply the 5 whys to a given sport trading card set. Believe you me, when you start getting to the third, fourth, and fifth why, it gets really fascinating. So fascinating that many of those answers are what I brought to my book's subjects on postwar regional / food issues. Most collectors are content with the merits of the mainstream, and there is enough of a challenge inherent in many of them, particularly if they have a scarce seventh series, or in the case of the '63 and '69 Topps, a series in mid-year that seems to have been virtually short-printed. But Bob, some of us found the allure and attraction of cards that were much more challenging, and beautiful as well. I was that way even as a little kid. I played with my Tonka toys, then had a few dime store Tootsie Toys. But at age 4, while shopping with my mother at Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. I saw a display of the gorgeous Dinky Toys imported from Great Britain. Instantly I was hooked. The eye-appealing, not as easily attained, has always marked my life. I had my dime store toy soldiers---but then I got a MARX Battle of Gettysburg play set, along with two large groups of Marx Warriors of the World. They both put dime store soldiers to shame. And no, this wasn't last week; it was Christmas of '62. I remember it very well. In a year or two, I was privileged to get some of the higher quality Britains Toy soldiers and field guns. I could go on and on. I'm sure you think I've gone much much too far. In short, I collected the Topps and other mainstream cards of various sports as a kid and teen and loved them dearly, but the tricky, difficult to collect, and gorgeous stuff (several key hobby people labeled them "esoteric" in the 80s; after looking the word up and thinking about it, it seemed a most apropos label) was the bull's eye I was aiming for when I entered the adult hobby in 1972, ALONG with some badly wanted mainstream cards. I was glad, and very glad, most collectors wanted just the gum cards; LESS COMPETITION FOR ME!!!!:D If you still hate me now and want to remove your smiling face, you go right ahead. ---Brian Powell |
Quote:
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k4...psd1ex24v5.jpg http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k4...ps9zwnzien.jpg http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k4...psn8wfk4gc.jpg http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k4...psrccywm3w.jpg |
1956 Mantle
1953 Campanella 1953 Mantle 1956 Clemente 1958 Mantle 1954 Williams #1 1975 Brett 1954 Ford 1956 Aparichio 1962 Mantle |
I think the '72 Clemente is my all-time favorite postwar baseball card. The rest, based on artistic appeal and, of course, nastalgia:
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...psvnnstfx0.jpg |
The dregs
Just caught up with thread after a long time. Had never read Brian's comments. Now I feel all muddy. I hope to someday grow up to be a real sophisticated collector too. In the meantime I adopt Bob's smiley face :)
Edited-- weird to get exercised over something over a year old |
1941 Playball Ted Williams
1941 Playball Joe DiMaggio 1953 Topps Willie Mays 1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente 1955 Topps Sandy Koufax 1956 Topps Roberto Clemente 1965 Topps Sandy Koufax 1967 Topps Bill Mazeroski 1967 Topps Stand Up Roberto Clemente |
10 Attachment(s)
A mix to hard to pick
|
5 Attachment(s)
My top ten are:
52 Topps Mantle 68 Topps Ryan 53 Bowman Reese 51 Bowman Mantle 58 Topps Aaron/Mantle 41 Play Ball Dimaggio 48 Leaf Robinson 70 Topps Ryan 55 Topps Clemente 53 Topps Mantle If the period included the 80s the 89 Upper Deck Griffey would be #3 on this list. RCs have always been my favorites, which is why there are so many on this list. And I think the 53 Bowman Reese is the coolest looking vintage card ever made. |
Who is that guy....
Ron-- who is the player on deck in the Ted Williams card ?
|
My Favorites
Honestly, trying to add a few new ones to the thread as well 1. 1966 Topps Willie Mays 2. 1956 Topps Mickey Mantle 3. 1957 Topps Hank Aaron 4. 1971 Topps Thurman Munson 5. 1970 Kellogg's Roberto Clemente 6. 1958 Topps Roger Maris 7. 1967 Topps Rocky Colavito 8. 1974 Topps Tom Seaver 9. 1971 Topps Vada Pinson 10. 1961 Morrell Meats Sandy Koufax |
Quote:
I have to say, I sort of agree with this. (my top 10 notwithstanding). I love this one for 1) the mixture of photo/picture 2) the fact that it's his sole Topps card 3) he's a on-field and off-field legend 4) I'm from Cleveland and in 1948 he went 6-1 down the stretch to win the pennant, and he drew the largest baseball crowds to that time to a baseball game (a doubleheader with the Yankees, upper 70Ks attendance) 5) It's an uncorrected error card 6) It portrays a now-defunct team (the Browns, though I know they moved) |
Quote:
|
1942
My next questions were going to be who was batting and where was Ted Williams :)
Topps did not do much better with the 65 embossed or 68 Plak offerings |
Quote:
|
1943
It's ok Ron, I get it.
|
#1-5: the Topps Ted Williams base cards from 1954-57. I've just always thought the Teddy Ballgame cards from then came out a cut above the rest of the set.
#6: 1949 Bowman Bobby Doerr. First vintage card I ever owned. I remember saving up my allowance for about three months to buy it. #7: 1953 Topps Warren Spahn. The last card to show him as a Boston Brave. #8: 1953 Topps Wayne Terwilliger. How can you not love a guy with that last name? If you haven't looked up his war record, it's well worth your time, especially if you're a history nut like me. #9-11: 1941 Play Ball Bobby Doerr, Ted Williams and Dom Dimaggio. The Teammates (minus Johnny Pesky). 'Nuff ced. |
Quote:
|
Getting
Glad one of us did
|
Quote:
|
1957 Topps Hank
http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...IRDTRY_NEW.JPG
... I figured a lot of the entries would be Aaron cards...this is the one I can't stop looking at whenever I'm playing with my Beckett-Graded '57's. ..Subgrades are : 9 , 8 , 7.5 , 8.5 ......my scanner doesn't dole true justice to Beckett-slabbed cards. .. |
By far the most exciting card in baseball history (to me), is the 1916 ZEENUT Jimmy Claxton card. First ever African-American featured on a baseball card, with a cool story on how it all happened. What makes this extra special to me is that he was born and raised in a small mining town which is the same place that I live in BC, Canada. I would love to own a copy of this card, but the high price tag may keep it from ever happening. If you do not know the story, here is a neat article:
http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp...vkey=news_milb Edit- I cheated and mis read the OP.. clearly this card does not fit into the designated time period... I refuse to delete my comment though as the card is too awesome. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:57 AM. |