The ears are wrong...

Yes this would be news to me too. I have seen an 8x10 of the formation for the team card and no mention of Ryan that I recall.

This is genius. I have never heard of this. Not a Topps expert, but this is not widely known. I don't see him on the front, but he clearly is noted on the back. To me, it's his true rookie.

On Ryan, as an Astros fan, I would rather go to a Ryan game, but if they needed to win, there were better options, Niekro, Richard, etc.

commons vs stars
 

I actually think that's the majority opinion. Mine is contrarian :p. Here goes:

I much prefer collecting common players to HOFers. I already know what the HOFers look like. Part of it is that I can afford more of them, but I love picking up a card of a player I don't already have in any set. In fact I have a "Player Wantlist" consisting entirely of obscure dudes who only appeared in one or two sets.


Anybody got a 1934 Exhibit Len Koenecke or an E286 JuJu Drums of Harry Cheek (he had a MLB career BA of .500!)?

If I had a Harry Cheek, I would finally be able to support a full-on beard.


But seriously, Harry does have cards in the 1912 and 1913 Zeenut sets as well.

Brian

No. But his name is on the back.

But… Ken Griffey Jr. IS pictured on the back of his dad’s 1988 Topps Big card… sort of.

A friend of mine has a noticeably errant hair growing out of his cheek which he constantly misses when shaving. It's become a running joke: "Your 1910 baseball player is showing!"

As long as he doesn't whip out his Koenecke... I'd have to get out my fire extinguisher.

"When attending the National, it's huge and overwhelming. Bring a comfortable pair of shoes for all the walking you'll need to do. You'll need at least 2-3 days to even start getting through it all."

Not true for everybody. I cover all the ground I need within the first 2-3 hours of the first day, then I'm out of there. Haven't once regretted how I go about it. Actually, the only regret has sometimes been deciding to attend in the first place, which has been constant for my last several Nationals. But, I'm (mostly) not a card guy, so this contrarian opinion is more unique than if this thread was posted on the memorabilia/autograph side.

I've worked the show more than once from beginning to end. This has definitely played a part in my wanting to get in and out in a hurry in subsequent years! As noted elsewhere, I'm likely done with attending at all anymore. If you do bump into me at a future National, I guarantee you there must be a huge financial incentive that makes my presence unavoidable. :)

I'll play...

1. T206's are boring as hell and aside from a handful of cards, definitely not rare with a quarter million cards being graded so far and every major auction is full of them.
2. T210's and E91's are horrible looking cards.
3. It's a travesty that Roger Maris isn't in the Hall of Fame considering how watered down it's become.
4. The 1971 Topps set has the best photography of any vintage Topps set.
5. Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He bet on baseball, who cares? The problem is that people treat these guys like Gods, and then when they screw up it's the end of the world. Get over it.
6. These are just my opinions. Don't let it ruffle your feathers.:)

1) Any card with a crease, wax stain, miscut, wrinkle doesn't deserve to be graded. HOFer or not. These cards should be refused a number grade by all grading companies and just labeled Authentic "Creased". I don't care that's how they came from the factory etc. etc., they were a defect from day 1 and don't deserve a grade.
2) Any black and white card produced after 1939 (the invention of color TV) are really depressing with zero cool factor.
3) Postcards of baseball players are not baseball cards, they're postcards. You have a postcard collection...congrats?
4) Set collectors are more impressive than HOF and rookie collectors. It takes passion to chase down bum's nobody's ever heard of and then actually pay money to acquire them to complete your set.
5) If you keep your collection in a vault, PO BOX, anywhere other than your prime residence, you don't really enjoy your collection. Invest in a 2 hour fire safe and bolt it to the floor or a wall, and put your cards in a waterproof case if your that worried. That way you can look at your cards any time day or night.
6) If you collect anything 1976 - current, you're not a vintage collector.
7) Centering, Print Quality, Corners in that order
8) Investing in high end big name star vintage is a safer investment long term than the stock market. (still trying to convince my wife on this one)
9) Any Wilson Franks, Kahn's, or any card that came out of a hotdog package and survived without major staining is far more impressive than a tobacco, cracker jack or other candy card.
10) Guys that wear fanny packs and sweatpants to card shows are not dorks, their just dressed comfortably and likely do well financially. :rolleyes:

4) Set collectors are more impressive than HOF and rookie collectors. It takes passion to chase down bum's nobody's ever heard of and then actually pay money to acquire them to complete your set.

Have to agree. Pre-war set collecting is not for the weak at heart, I'm 3 cards away from my second set and will be hanging up my spurs after that one and get back to type collecting.

9) Any Wilson Franks, Kahn's, or any card that came out of a hotdog package and survived without major staining is far more impressive than a tobacco, cracker jack or other candy card.

I wouldn't say far more impressive than the super thin 14 Cracker Jacks that were inserted raw into cracker jack packages, but you make a good point.

1932 Delong Gehrig is the best looking card in the hobby followed by the 1953 Bowman Reese.
Modern cards are junk.
Strip cards are junk.
Mantle rookie is over rated.
Clemente rookie 100% over rated.

Gym sweat pants are not baseball pants, for cripe sake. Just look at Ted Williams above. THAT is how you wear the uniform.

Designated hitter sucks. The pitcher hits. Strategy. THAT is how a real manager manages.

Instant replay review sucks. The umpire is the last word. Period.

4 finger intentional walks suck. No more Johnny Bench reach-out home runs with this stupidity.

4 hour 9 inning games suck. Play the effing game already.

not sure how controversial any of these takes are, but:

* jersey/relic cards are one of the absolute worst creations ever. 99.999% of them are awful

* The SweetCap 150/649 OP sub-set is very underrated for multiple reasons

* the '51 Bowman Mantle is 10x cooler than the '52 Topps Mantle

* the Ty Cobb back is not a T206 back, and printers scrap backs (Old Mill Brown) should not be ranked among the backs that were actually issued in packs/pouches of tobacco

"2. T210's and E91's are horrible looking cards."

Paul, it puzzles me as to how you can be so right about the E91s and so wrong about the T210s! Joe Jax's T210 card is a great looking card! I suppose you also think T211s are horrible looking cards. :D

T cards
 

Went to the large Chicago show last week very few dealers { one or two} even
Knew what a t214, t215, or t216 is. But seen millions of boring t206’s on their tables!

I wonder if several years after T206's came out if people considered them the "junk tobacco" of that era...like I do now

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You don’t see the appeal of cards of some of the games all time greatest players? What do you collect for them? Seems like a very strange statement.

1. 19th century baseball cards astound me, EVERY. TIME. I absolutely love them!

2. I don't understand the hype for the 52 Topps Mantle, the 52 Bowman is WAY better aesthetically.

3. Anything made in the last few years with the exception of the Leaf Babe Ruth product is pretty awful, overproduced, and uninspired.

4. I dislike strip cards and post cards, I don't get the appeal.

5. I wish every card pre-WW2 would be slabbed and graded. I feel like they need to be perfectly preserved.

6. I'm guilty of loving perfectly centered cards, but if it's not centered, I want it horribly miscut. The more miscut the better.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I don't understand all this love for the first two Bowman Mantles over the '52 Topps. Those Mantles (and all 1950-52 Bowmans) are crude, almost child-like depictions. The artistry, if you want to call it that, is laughable (Paul Richards, anyone?). The best efforts look more like comic book illustrations rather than anything approximating portraiture. The 1950's also feels really late in the game for using simplistic artwork over actual photography. If that appeals to you, however, 1953 Topps would be a more sound option to me. Couple all of this with their odd and inconsistent sizing over just a few short years, and you've completely lost me. '53 Color-'55 are things of beauty. Bowman finally got a handle on crafting beautiful cards, and then they were gone.

1. I'd rather have a cool looking playing days card of a guy than his ugly rookie card. A cool rookie card is fine, but I'll never understand the craze to get a guy's first card. Same thing x10 with comic books. Cool covers beat first appearances any day.

2. Photo matched jerseys are a joke. I've seen so many fakes I can't believe people pay for them. I can only imagine how many "relics" came from some random guy's garage.

3. Shoeless Joe is overrated. His lifetime average would have declined like everyone else's had he not been ousted in his prime. Okay, I'm not even sure I believe this last one myself . . .

I can quite literally purchase a graded 52' Mantle at any time, on any day. There are multiples for sale at noon on Christmas Day and from a multitude of locations. It is far more difficult to locate a listing for thousands of other items. It is not even in my list of top 200 cards as they are a dime a dozen. I know I am far in the minority on this opinion, but seeing one is a complete meh...

70s-80s OPC cards are vastly undervalued for the same reason the Mantle is overvalued. Just try to locate PSA 9-10 80s OPC anything and you have to convince the 1 or 2 people with one to sell it. The QC was horrific, it's like Bob and Doug Mackenzie ran those cutters. :D

That said, both of those are going to likely stay in their own lane for value eternally. ;)

Oh, by the way... if you are the lovely owner of one of the 3 graded 1981 OPC Lance Parrish 9's (because a 10 doesn't exist) please let me know. Hell, if you have a Parrish that's just not 90-10 centering, doesn't look like it spent time in a kid's velcro wallet and gradable let me know, lol.

I'm with you on this. The same is true for most of the "big" cards in the hobby. The 1956 Mantle, 1955 Clemente, 1954 Aaron, 1933 Goudey Ruth #144, T206 Red portrait Cobb are everywhere. You can buy one any day of the year, all it takes is money. The demand supports the prices, but none of these cards are rare.

Tobacco cards are the "correct" size. Standard cards are too big!

Two things I'm fairly convinced on that most of the hobby probably disagrees with:

1. For my money, prewar cards are a bust / bad value compared to postwar vintage. While it's true that for most of my collecting life that they have not been readily affordable for me (I started with cards at age 9 in 1986...) - even today they simply don't hold a value for me that can compare with later cards: I can get a beater maybe up to G T206 common for the same price as I can a midgrade postwar HOF'er whose name is not Mantle. Guess which card I'm going to choose?

2. For those that care purely about the cards and not other things - even if only subconsciously - professional grading in the 21st century has become a farce. Graders have tried to convince the collecting world that something subjective is inherently objective - and have done a poor job of it at that. Between the scandals and shifting technical standards in practice if not in writing - I'm done. I've seen both PSA and SGC miss on honest grading as often as they get it right, and there is not a single, known-name accepted grading house today that has not survived at least one major scandal. Appreciate your cards for what they are and are not - and free them from their slabs - they are the work of an evil conjurer. :D Oh - and another thing - centering as the end all, be all of condition criteria was not accepted as a "thing" by anyone serious in the hobby before the advent of professional grading and PSA. Fact.

I do wonder if the manufacturers knew there would be an obsession about borders if they would have done away with them and just went with a solid color card with no borders. Or would they have liked the obsession?

I think your answer there lies in those that inherited the companies - when was the last time before this year that Topps made a base set with defined borders? They shied away from it for a very long time after grading became a thing. I'm not an expert on ultra modern, but that much seems obvious.

You’re right - modern has sort of done away with it.

The absence of a white border does not in any way eliminate centering from a grading platform or equation. It continues to be just as measurable and obvious to the collector from the visual clues of the card of photo and text.

I was just as concerned about centering as were the majority of collectors I knew in 1982 as I am in 2022. Grading just recognized that value was and is placed in the beauty of symmetry as has been recognized in art since its creation.

Thankfully, many reading this will agree with the following, but we know it's not the prevailing attitude for most these days.

This applies to your own collections and has nothing to do with maximizing profits when it's time to sell: Whatever you wish to collect, be it cards, autographs or memorabilia, relying solely on a TPA's opinion is ridiculous. Learn as much as you can and become your own authority. After all, it's your collection, so try and take some personal responsibility for it and not buy blindly into a third party opinion. How is there even any fun in that? Doing this with any sort of confidence takes years, and no matter how long you're involved with it, you'll never know everything. It's a constant, wonderful study.

I have encountered people who have collected for 50 years who can't seem to get the basics down pat and keep getting burned on common forgeries. It's always made me wonder why they're still in the hobby. Unless the person's motivation is purely financial, why would anybody immerse themselves personally and financially in a field of which they're completely ignorant? I'll never understand this, but have seen it so often over the years.

It's entirely possible to successfully collect, buy and sell without LOAs or plastic tombs clogging up your collection. For many ungraded, unauthenticated items, you actually can achieve similar prices to their TPA-certed counterparts. It may take you more time to find that buyer, but if you're not in a huge rush, you'll be fine. How many times have you found yourself being able to sell something uncerted, yet couldn't because it was languishing on a shelf for months or more at some TPA, waiting to get entombed? (I'm strictly involved with autographs, so this last bit of advice applies mostly to that end of the hobby.)

The absence of a white border doesn't mean that a card won't still be judged on centering by a TPG; correct. But it does make the problem of bad centering far less obvious to a collector ripping a pack.

You and your friends must have been ahead of your time. I knew nobody that was super concerned about centering (outside of miscuts maybe...) in the 1980's or 90's before PSA. Grading advancing centering issues was not a straightforward proposition. Before PSA, price guides that spoke to centering would refer to "uneven borders" or "slightly off center, OC, miscut". There was none of the paranoia trying to determine say the difference between 60/40 v. 65/35 that eventually came along after PSA. TPG's totally codified that - and a I think a lot of how collectors think of centering today is mainly the result of cognitive bias.

The Four Base Hits of King Kelly is the most beautiful baseball card ever produced.

I think the change in discussion only stemmed from dealers and the want and/or need to default only to a very inaccurate method of fair to near mint due to limitations of mail order. They did not recognize centering to make the ease of sending mail order clients the cards that did not move as fast in a storefront and show environment. While at shows and at brick and mortar any dealer of the time would say that the most visually pleasing cards always sold first and just as today the remainder were the more flawed examples.

The times and technology must be considered as to why you did not see this in advertising. It goes against ingrained human nature to ignore symmetry. It has determined human beauty and the progression of genetics since the dawn of biology. To state cognitive bias seems a misnomer and ignores the history of biology.

The comparison of actions toward consumer purchase tendencies during that time must use relatable comparisons. You have to toss a hand typed price list out as it would be certain death in today’s market. You have to be comparing similar sales methods. For example, the 1952 Mr. Mint find sold the high grade centered Mantles at a vast mark up over those less pleasing. Everyone knew they were the better cards and they were sold and treated as such.

The mail order dealers could be the single greatest reason for the success of large shows at the time as buying from them was such a poor experience as it was a true gamble. The need for large and local shows was the love for actually seeing what you were purchasing. Not sure of your age, but either imagine or remember the disappointment of waiting several weeks for your mint or near mint cards and opening something that had 3 full card creases or even was scorched from the great fire…it sucked.

Ps - I do want to say I respect your opinion, the point of this thread is to offer contrarian opinions and that is exactly what you are doing and I am hijacking your right to do that, sorry. I was just thinking my experience at the time may help put it in perspective. I wish I could somehow relate how frustrating blind mail order was, lol. Don’t miss it a bit.

This is the root of my centering OCD, when I pulled out my kid collection after 25 years most of the cards were centered. Symmetry is what makes a good card great.

564. Centerrifical Force
The way your eyes immediately tell you if a card is rightfully centered enough for you personally, independent of what other collectors or TPGs may think.

https://c.tenor.com/zmpDH_3TPEEAAAAC/beauty-bob.gif

Early OPC is really underrated all across the board. Those are some tough cards to find in nice shape and especially with nice centering. I was very happy to add this one recently:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ibson%201.jpeghttps://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ibson%202.jpeg

1948 Leaf Baseball
 

By far,collecting the 48-49 Leafs have given me the most enjoyment. A well registered example is truly beautiful. The set has only 98 cards. A high percentage of them are HOF'ers and rookies. What other set has DiMaggio, Ruth, Musial, Paige, Williams and Robinson in it? AND the Short prints are really Short prints.

- T207's are the best looking of the tobacco card sets.
- T201's are incredibly underrated.
- The 1973 Topps set has some of the best photography of all time.
- Vintage Basketball is incredibly undervalued.
- Some of the designs of the junk wax era are right up there with the golden years of Topps/Bowman.
- I'm from Cincinnati and a huge Reds fan but I think Pete Rose and Johnny Bench are two of the most overrated players in the history of the game.
- I collect prewar more for the history aspect than my love of baseball.
- Autographs of living HOF players during the 70's-90's should be viewed as the junk was era of autos.
- By 2050 baseball will again be the favorite national sport.
- The hobby is unfortunately now viewed as an asset class and there's no turning back. Prices will continue to climb over time. Many similarities with the art market.

100% agree about Doby being underappreciated. The same could be said for most of the African American players who came over shortly after. What Jackie did was obviously amazing but the others who came shortly after had to endure a lot of the same heat that Jackie took and could arguably be considered just as important.

Trying to land a 49 Bowman Doby right now at seems hard so maybe it’s coming around.

My contrarian view would be that the lowest grade is as safe as investment as the highest grade. It’s the ones in between that have a little more risk.

Share your contrarian hobby opinions
 

We can agree to disagree. Miscut cards or 90/10 cards being recognized as ugly in the 1980's, - yes. 70/30 cards? No, or at least not in the majority. I think cognitive bias came into play in the early 2000's, when people would begin to understand / recognize the difference between a PSA 8 and 8 (OC) as being only centering. Both are sharp cards, and often the OC qualifier card is not egregiously OC. Would most collectors have shunned the qualified card in 1989? Maybe they would have, maybe not. I tend to think not. That's my only point with OC, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I love a perfectly centered card - who doesn't? My position is simply that a card that is somewhat off centered is not necessarily "not" a good looking card just because of that. I state cognitive bias because with the advent of PSA - you had a whole population of collectors suddenly shunning mildly OC cards at a time when just a few years earlier - nobody much cared. New people to the hobby were told by experienced collectors to "avoid OC cards" before they even fully comprehended what centering was. Your points about biology and centering are valid - but understand that at Topps in 1990 and earlier, nobody gave the first hoot about centering. A worker taking cards out of a cut tray was not looking at something like that. It wasn't part of their criteria. A card then was mint whether it came out of the pack 50/50 all the way around or 100/0. Part of why I think it's all at least partially cognitive bias is that cards that were never intended to be a certain thing are now being judged by a criteria which would have been considered utterly ridiculous at the time they were produced. So yes, inherently - truly centered cards look better. But not appreciating the ones that aren’t is at least partially cognitive bias IMO. We shun them because the hobby has told us to for more than 20 years now.

I’m 45. I would agree with you that mail order when I was a kid was a gamble at best, a nightmare at worse. I remember getting a 1955 Bowman Pee Wee Reese in a mailer I think from Bill Henderson. The card was raw - no toploader, no penny sleeve - sandwiched in-between thick, stapled cardboard. I'll give him credit - it was in the condition described. But I got lucky.

Hey Mike Ryan...... I hope to see you at the National in July.

I am surprised that you are referring to these LEAF cards as a "1948" or a "1948-49" issue. You have probably the best looking 1949 LEAF set of anyone on Net54.

I know you know that the 1949 LEAF Premiums were in the same wax-pack boxes as the cards were. So, why do PSA and SGC have the Premiums correctly identified
1949, but the cards not 1949 ?


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...BabeRuth50.jpg . . . . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ouGehrig25.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...DiMaggio50.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...iMaggio50b.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...abeRuth50x.jpg .http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...abeRuth25b.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...afPaige25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...fPaige25xb.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I think T207s are overlooked because the biggest name (Walter Johnson) is a legitimately ugly card. Most of the set looks fantastic, but there are plenty of collectors who never look past the Johnson when they look at this set

That's actually a really interesting and IMO accurate observation. I've noticed through a bunch of downturns and rebounds that lower grade moves in all economic climates; you won't get burned unless you buy way too high. I've steadily downgraded my postwar from 7-8 to 3-6 caliber cards, with no difference in enjoyment of them. And I use the extra money to buy more cards, which is always a good thing.

The general obsession with spot-on centering can cut it out. Did you get in this hobby for the perfect borders or what's contained within? Don't let your OCD determine how much more enjoyment you'll derive from a card when you could have a gorgeous 65/35 for a fraction of the cost.

Whoever convinced collectors to pay more for perfect borders was a genius. They should also be tarred and feathered.

I have grown to really appreciate and love "crudely" drawn cards...like many strips...33' eclipse...late 40's m & p...as long as the drawings accurately resemble the players...I think they are a really cool snapshot of the resources available at the time.

ok...maybe the henrich isn't such a great example!!!

[QUOTE=JollyElm;2235173]• Any Dave Kingman at-bat was the most exciting thing ever for a fan.

FACT CHECK: TRUE

You say this, but it is honestly biological for some people. I look at a card that is really off center and it just throws everything off in my brain. Because that is how MY brain is wired. If your brain accepts off center cards and does not mentally flag them or downgrade them, then bully for you. But for some people, the way their brain is wired won't allow that.

Fair enough, and you can be assured I'm not making light of that. Most people who are passionate about collecting things seem to have OCD in some form or other. That's been my experience, anyway.

When it comes to perfect border OCD, I do wonder how less prevalent this would have been without this information having been ingrained into collectors, which stemmed from the first person who afforded a premium to perfectly centered cards. (Chances are, that person was both a good salesman AND suffered himself from PBOCD!) If nobody had made mention of it, the extent of the obsession would be greatly lightened.

Corner issues and creases are easier for me to understand, I guess, as those things represent actual damage. An O/C card was just made that way. ETA: I more easily understand anyone's aversion when it comes to miscuts, though. That's beyond O/C; the card is missing part of itself! ;)

The 53 bowman color mantle is OC, I can't look at it without getting a headache.


I love the people arguing in this thread. The whole friggin point is a CONTRARIAN point of view!

Here goes nothing....

1. Cards with poorly drawn pictures (eg W551) suck

2. Set collecting rules. If you buy the 15 HoFers in a set, you have some great cards but it's just have a small percentage of the set. I can buy the grill from a 38 Ford....it might look good on the wall but it doesn't compare to a complete car.

3. Oddball sets are cool. Kelloggs, Red Man, Kahns, Wilson Frank's are often much more interesting that the Topps or Bowman of the same year.

4. Memorabilia trumps cards... Memorabilia is often rarer, displays better and has more interesting history.

5) Corners, Print Quality, and then centering in that order

Couldn’t agree more. Most cards 70/30 or better one way I have absolutely no problem with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oddly enough I really dislike the sizing of early Topps. I much prefer the smaller Bowmans from 48-52 and I enjoy the size differences. I probably like 1950 sizing the best. As for the art it's just much more appealing to me on 50-52 Bowman than either 52 or 53 Topps. The bold black outlines are somewhat of an OCD thing with me and art, and they add a LOT visually for me on early Bowman art cards. The 52 and 53 Topps sets are just meh when I compare them side by side with 50-52 Bowman.

I like 'em all a lot but my sentimental favorite is the 1952 Bowman because I got one at a card show auction for $3.25 in 1978. The rates have gone up...

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20Mantle.jpeghttps://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0SGC%2040.jpeghttps://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...box%20view.jpg

Beautiful! The 52 Bowman really stands out to me among this bunch. That is a beaut of a 1 for the Topps though, very nice!