|
Quote:
|
Tinker, Evers, and Chance are more likely legitimately great players who deserve to be in the HOF, rather than marginal players who got in because of a poem. The point of the game is to win, and the 1904-1913 Cubs won more games than any team in history over a decade. The only other HOFer on the team is Brown. The team won with by not only allowing fewer earned runs than anyone else, but fewer unearned runs. So who gets credit for all that winning?
Most of the Boys of Summer are overrated though, partly because of the bandbox they played in, and in Snider's case, because they never threw lefties against the Dodgers (I think Spahn started two games against Brooklyn over a span of several years in the mid-1950s). The 1960s Giants were the most underachieving team of all time. |
The '51/2 Berk Ross set is undervalued and under appreciated. Despite the cheap look of the cards, they offer an alternative to the high price of '51 Bowmans and '52 Topps. The Mickey, a faux '51 Bowman, Jackie, Joe D., Teddy W. have all shown big price increases in the past 18 mos. And the '51 Musial card is his only national issue for that year.
The set also contains the RC's of Ben Hogan and Bob Cousy. |
Quote:
|
4 Attachment(s)
My hobby goal (for over 15 years) is to correct a long held misconception and make the following statement less of a contrarian view:
The E91 American Caramel sets of cards do not have generic artwork. The E91A set features facial artwork that was derived from photographs of the player that is designated on the card. About 1/2 of the E91B cards are repeats from the E91A, and thus once again accurate facial depictions. The other 1/2 of the E91B set as well as all of the E91C set do not accurately reflect the player designated, but are still not 'generic', they just have inaccurate player designations on the card. As a related note, E254 Colgan's Chips cards do have a great portrait photos of players of this era, as was pointed out in a previous post, and many of the photos used in the Colgan set were the basis of the E91 facial artwork. Brian |
I don't waste my time trimming ungraded cards for profit.
I buy graded cards, crack them out of their slabs, and then trim them. I resubmit the cards I have trimmed to see if I can get a numerical grade or at least a purple sticker indicating that I am card board certified. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"I know there are probably none of you in the audience who don’t remember Nolan Ryan, but as an organizing device, I’m going to pretend there are, anyway. Nolan Ryan was the ultimate power pitcher. Ryan threw harder than any other pitcher of his generation or perhaps any generation, and it wasn’t like he did this once. Ryan could stand on the mound and throw a hundred miles an hour for 9 innings, 10 innings, 11, 12, 13. He would throw more than 200 pitches in a game, come back three days later ready to do it again. He did this for years in a four-man rotation, switched to a five-man rotation and pitched another fifteen years. He threw no-hitters almost as a matter of routine. He holds the single-season record for strikeouts, and broke the career record for strikeouts by some ridiculous margin. Nolan Ryan was Roger Clemens’ boyhood idol, but whereas Clemens became a genuinely great pitcher Ryan was not. Ryan was the most impressive pitcher who ever lived. He did absolutely phenomenal things with such regularity that people took it for granted. But he was not a great pitcher because he never compromised, which means that he never adjusted. He was, in a sense, a perpetual rookie. He was out there to strike the hitter out—period, even when he was 44 years old. He could be behind the number eight hitter 2-0 with the bases empty, and in his mind he was still working on a strikeout. The concept of “let him hit it and see what happens” absolutely wasn’t there for him." |
Nolan Ryan WAS a great pitcher. And because I am contrary, it is not something up for debate or discussion. I don't care how many stats you come up with, comparisons to any other pitchers you name, whatever. He was. Period. End of discussion.
|
Quote:
kidding aside, good contrarian post, I'll take those pesky CJ14 Cobbs and 53 Mantles off your hands if it would help. - |
1914 and 15 Cracker Jacks are the most virtually stunning cards ever created. Their beauty lies in their simplicity. They are the Natalie Wood of baseball cards.
Not a contrarian take; not a hot take; just a matter of fact. |
There are many cards that would be more valuable if they were less rare.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Leaf Premiums. |
1. Collecting Vintage Movie Star Cards in 2022 = Collecting Vintage Baseball Cards in 1970
2. Standard sized 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" baseball cards are too big (they don't fit well in pockets) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=12350 |
1 Attachment(s)
Isn't this one of the most horrible cards of Mantle every made? Look how childish he looks!
|
Napolean Lajoie does not appear in the 1933 Goudey set. He does have a card in the 1934 Goudey issue with a peculiar number.
|
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Attachment 521673 Attachment 521674 |
If the Wagner came from uncut material, my presumption would be it wasn’t actually a full sheet and was a strip. A sheet or even a panel of a sheet should have multiple Wagners (and Plank’s, if the Plank came from the same source).
|
I gave away a Wagner. It was a fake.
I gave away a 52 Mantle. It also was a fake. It used to be that the fakes were totally obvious. |
Quote:
|
The only true way to determine a card's value at any one point in time is via auction.
|
1950 Bowman is the best set of the decade, and it’s not especially close
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The green Ruth is the best of the four Goudeys
The 50s were the greatest decade for cards |
Quote:
|
There is no comparison between the Peck and Snyder Cincinnati trade card and the various c1869 Cincinnati CdVs. The trade card is much, much rarer, especially untrimmed.
|
I don’t understand the cult-like fascination with Piedmont 350 examples of the so-called Elite 11 T206 150/350 subjects which were short printed with Piedmont 350. These are common fronts with the most common back. I get that the front/back *combination* is tough but there are many other front/back combinations that are tougher and don’t exact nearly as big of a premium.
Schulte (Front View) with Piedmont 350 excepted. That’s a legit 1-of-1 as far as I know. |
If your goal is to build a collection that represents the history of baseball, if needs to include Pedro Martinez as well and Walter Johnson, Mike Trout as well as Tris Speaker.
Also many 1950s cards are currently radically overpriced in mid grade. There is more than an ample supply. |
Quote:
https://i.psacard.com/cardfacts/1950...026.jpg?h=1000 |
Topps 1959 is a great set.
Topps 1953 Satchel Paige is a horrible looking card. |
Quote:
|
Centering is one of the most overrated aspects of a cards condition. I much prefer a card in the condition it was in when it was originally pulled from a pack. Subsequent handling of a card should define it's condition, not how it came out of the factory prior to being handled.
The amount a card was enjoyed is reflected by it's condition. I sometimes struggle with top grade cards, and think that the person who originally pulled it never looked at them, never played with them, and likely never appreciated them as much as someone who originally had a (now) lower condition card. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I wasn't using it as factual information I've already stated I don't believe the Wagner was cut from a sheet in the 1980's by anyone, it was in response to Peters post questioning the claim ever being made. |
Quote:
I'll add every hobby turns into an investment that pushes out the little people that love it for hobby, and the love of the hobby for people that just have huge bank accounts. Greed kills every part of life for common people. If a card holds no value other than $$$ or prestige IMO you're an investor. Stop holding cards from people that want them for personal reasons like a local small town hero or family member or family friend just to have a complete set you care little about the cards themselves. Signed bitter pill. |
Scarcity is scarcity whether designed or not.
|
I hate 1962 Topps and 1955 Bowman. That wood grain is FUGLY and the cards are dull and washed out. Though I do like this card:
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...Minoso%201.jpg |
Quote:
|
I think that people are too generous when grading the cards they advertise. My cards would range from very-good to excellent to near mint, but mostly in ex-mint. I'm not strict on centering, just as long they're not miscut. Cards that I receive at times are either damaged or worn. Grading is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but cards with four rounded corners or creasing aren't in ex-mint to near-mint condition.
Phil aka Tere1071 1953 Bowman Color set Topps Baseball complete sets 1971, 1972, 1974, and 1975 Working on completing 1970 and 1973 Topps Baseball sets |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
4 Attachment(s)
Quote:
As time goes by, I love the 52 and 53 topps Mantle cards. They have 1 name. They don't need 6 names and be a 1 of 1 PSA 10 either. The more I see of the Mantle 53 pig nose pose, the more I like it and the artwork. |
You picked 3 out of 4 of the ugliest cards of all-time...but laughing all the way to the bank anyway.
|
Cards with multiple players on them, like leaders cards or team composites or those action R-cards with the batter and catcher labeled, give you more bang for your buck.
1967 Topps Mets team card is Nolan Ryan's RC. :D |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:04 AM. |