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!