What popular cards have you never wanted to add to your collection?
 

So what cards that most people want in their collection have you personally never had a desire to own? For me, I've never had a desire to own any of the 33 Goudey Ruths.

e90-1 Jackson has never done it for me.

Ditto

I will go with the 52T Mantle, any T206 Cobb and any Goudey Ruth. I realize those are all iconic cards, but they are way too common to get me excited. Most of my excitement in the hobby is derived from seeing a card pop up for the first time in several years.

N172 Old Judge, SF Hess, any other albumen photo small card. I just don't like the way they look. Cabinets are entirely different; love those.

Any T206 rarer back: I just don't care about backs unless I am selling.

The E90-1 Jackson: good call on that FUGLY card. So are most of the 'drawing' E cards. They just don't hold a candle to the T cards. The ones I think are actually nice looking are few and far between, like some of the e95s.

1933 Goudey Gehrig. Looks generic to me. Same with the Foxx.

1955 Bowman and 1962 Topps: do not like the wood bordered designs.

1953 Topps: with very few exceptions, the artwork doesn't do it for me.

1948 Leaf Paige and Robinson. Marquee cards that are just lousy looking.

1935 Goudey 4 in 1 Ruth

Dislike the image and no longer on the yankees.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

1903 Breisch Williams E-107 set
 

I have never had any interest in collecting the 1903 Breisch Williams E-107 set.

The prices have always been super high, and the cards simply never excited me.

Patrick

‘48 leaf Jackie and ‘58 Brooks Robinson. Worst photos i have ever seen chosen for cards.

I don’t like the E95 set- I don’t like the Wagner pose and hate the way Cobb
looks; I think he looks like kind of Gollum (the hobbit) and an old time ship captain. I also don’t like Colgan’s Chips.

#this

I like the 1949 Leaf Jackie Robinson and Honus Wagner cards, but dislike the rest of the set. I never wanted to collect the set or other stars, Ruth, DiMaggio, Williams, Musial, Paige, etc.

e95 cobb rocks! you'll see! not e95 but same/similar pose!

1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese

I just have never liked this card and don't see the appeal at all. Sorry to those who love it.

Nice card Pete!

Wouldn't say I would turn it down if someone offered it to me for a dollar...but I think the card is ugly and would be low on my want list of Joe Jackson cards (T210 my #1 pick)...so that would probably be my answer as well

Two that most seem to like, that I don't care for at all are the T205 Cobb and the E90-1 Young. The only thing appealing about either is the Name under the picture.

Thx ryan...mike you’re wrong too!!!😀

'52 Topps Mantle, but only because I'm strictly a rookie card collector.

Pete, I've been told that many times.

+1. Eddie, you pretty much expressed my sentiments. Very scarce and rare cards are what excite me the most.

Any lithographic card, including T206s.

For me, it’s Pete Rose’s 1963 Topps rookie. First, I do not like multiplayer cards, especially 4-in1s. Secondly, I do not like the floating heads.

Any lipstick caramel that makes the player look like a completely different person. The previously mentioned E-90 Jackson, much of E96.

Black Sox players in general. I need some to complete a set, but I don’t pay premiums for guys who cheated in the worst possible way (cheating to lose) or enjoy them extra, as most do.

Ugly rookie cards, no matter how important or scarce or valuable.

+1

I dislike multi player RC. Rose, Nolan Ryan, Joe Morgan, Ripken. Those are all disappointing to me.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Ban me from Vintage Card Kingdom, and I fully understand its iconic status in our hobby, but I never fell under the sway of the T206 Honus Wagner. But of course I wouldn't mind having the card, as long as I were to pay 1970's prices for it, because then it could fund the rest of my hobby collecting for the decades to come when I sold it.

Brian

52 Mantle.

US Caramel Ruth.

Strip cards where Ruth looks like he’s wearing makeup and it looks nothing like him.

E90-1 Cy Young (Cleveland), D304 Napoleon Lajoie, any other cards where the image looks nothing like the player.

I know a lot of people like the Clemente rookie but I’ve always disliked it. I wish his 1957 Topps card was his rookie. One of my all time favorites.

I’ve never been a fan of the 41 Play Ball DiMaggio or Williams cards either.

As a life long Met fan any card with a player wearing a Yankees uniform. Makes collecting life a little bit easier too.

I second the 1963 Rose rookie. I still have one of those counterfeits that went around in the 80s in my main set as a sign of protest.

I’ll 3rd, for all previously stated reasons, plus “he’s a dingus”. :D

Any "Cy Young" card that actually pictures Irv Young. I never understand why people pay so much for these cards.

Was going to make the same comment - why overpay for a common with a popular name??

While it's grown on me somewhat, and I eventually will to complete his "card from every year he played" set, I really don't like the 55 Bowman Mantle.

33 Goudey Gehrig does nothing for me either. I much rather either of his cards from the 34 set.

Couldn’t agree with you more on the 58 Brooks and disagree with you more on the 48 Jackie. I always found that Brooks card as one of the funniest I’ve ever seen! Looks like a child whose angry over having to eat broccoli lol. The picture doesn’t match the character of the man in it at all. The Jackie to me though is iconic through and through. It’s probably not the greatest picture of him but it’s certainly nowhere in the same league as the Brooks.

Completely agree with you... the 33’s are so bland and the 34’s are beautiful, particular the yellow portrait one. I also dislike the Ruth dugout pose in the 33 set, indifferent to the red and yellow background cards, but do love the look of the double printed issue. Oddly enough I think the most aesthetically pleasing cards of the 33 set are common players (e.g. Demaree and Cuccinello) although I think the same somewhat for T206’s (My favorite cards are the Cambitz arm crossed, Jap Barbeau, and by far the Solly Hofman)... I supposed it comes down to personal preference though.

1938 Goudey Heads Up DiMaggio and 1933 DeLong Gehrig.
I just never liked the designs of those sets.

Interesting (and understandable). On the other hand, I like multiplayer rookie cards. I get a perverse kick out of seeing otherwise common players whose biggest claim to fame is that, by the grace of Sy Berger (or whoever made the final determination), they're the "other guys" on a superstar's rookie card.

I've never cared for any black & white cards. And believe it or not, I've never cared for the 1915 Cracker Jack issue. I like the 1914 issue, just not the 1915 issue because the "cards" are way too thin - more like magazine cutouts than cards, if you ask me.

'52 Mantle because I missed it before it shot up...

...and any Joe DiMaggio - not a fan

...and the Joe Jackson cards previously mentioned.

i always thought the 14's were thinner?

I'll take your word for it; I've only owned two in my whole life.

38 DiMaggio and 63 Rose are two examples of popular cards that would fit my collection, but I have never been able to pull the trigger on either.

To anyone who mentioned the 52 Mantle I would just say you won't be disappointed if you decide to pick one up. Of any card I've purchased I was most excited for my first 52 Mantle. I don't know how else to describe it, but there is just something special about that card.

I don't care about rookie cards. At all. When I look at my collection and I see Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Collins, Young, Johnson, Mathewson, etc. I don't care that they aren't rookie cards. I think "Man, I have a card of this amazing player from his playing days!" I have no desire to pay amazing prices for a rookie card, when I can get a card from the following year or soon thereafter for a fraction of the cost.

'53 Bowman Mantle....so boring and, I know it's modern but, '89 UD Griffey Jr.

Never really loved most strip cards or black and white cards. For more popular modern stuff, I agree with the people who don't like the Rose rookie. The 53 Topps Mantle is another I never liked.

I've never had a desire to have a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. And I like 1950s cards and had his 51 Bowman.

Doesn't have the mystique for me that it has for others.

Definitely e90 cobbs

I love the 1938 DiMaggio, but the 1952 Topps Mantle became my least favorite card in my collection when I bought it. I have never understood the fascination with it. It is his 2nd year card, it is a double print and it is ugly. I much prefer his rookie card, it is just as scarce and is a much better looking card. That is what makes the hobby interesting. We all have different tastes. Some of my favorite cards are on others lists of cards they don’t want.

+1 for vintage cards.

But RC just has a certain electricity when you have the chance to buy one. I have a 93 Topps Jeter. But I've got the hots for the 93 SP.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Not all rookie cards feel the same...thats fer sure! I've never owned a topps MAntle RC...I imagine it'd feel a little more special than most. Whereas I used to have the 51 bowman and it didn't really have that feel...I think partially because the berk ross has similar pose. Not unique like topps. Ryan/Koosman and Seaver rookies feel special to me...but most multi player cards do not.

Interesting point about the Ryan and Seaver rookies. Over the years, I have been conflicted over both. While I still do not own either, I have recently added them to my want list. I see them as products of their era. They both scream 60s to me.

Regarding the '52 Mantle, I have accepted the fact that I will probably never own one, but that doesn't mean that I don't aspire to own one. I love its look. In fact, I love that entire set. However, with the exception of Jackie, I don't own one single card from that set. This may sound sappy, but I am a set builder who loves the look of '52 Topps, and it is just plain painful to me to own cards from that set with the knowledge that I will never be able to complete it.

I too dislike rookie cards shared with other players. I also have hated that collared shirt on the 1958 Robinson. Not crazy about the 1963 Musial either. The weird facial expression does not reflect his personality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never been a fan of the 1939 or 1940 playball sets

1943 m p & co. R302-1 cards

I've never cared for Cracker Jacks.

The only card in either set which I care to own (from the BST). And definitely not a fan of the 1040 set..

I wholeheartedly agree with the Mantle having a certain mystique that other cards - especially modern - completely lack (1950s and up).

It's surprising many on here are stating it's a card they don't care to own when it's value dictates that it's the hands-down most desirable of all post war cards, and arguably one of if not THE most venerated card in existence (Wagner aside). It's the type of item that transcends baseball card collecting and registers as a cultural icon befitting the greatest specimens of Americana.

I think it has to do with the lore of Mantle. You had an entire generation of people who revered him as a god. He was affable, could do everything well, hell his name just screams Americana. A Son of a coal miner from the middle of nowhere that can hit the ball a country mile. Then all of those kids who grew up loving him, pass that love and those stories down to their children and so on. And as the years go on the legend increases. It doesn't surprise me that people go against the grain. Really when you think about it a 52 right now, even a PSA 1 goes for about 9-10 Grand? You can buy a bunch of different cards for that amount of money. Granted the prices seem to be going up but you could still probably buy a T206 Red Cobb and one of the Ruth's cards from 33 Goudey together, for that money.

Looks like the lost Manning brother in that photo.

1963 Pete Rose. Even though it is his rookie card, the floating heads are always so ugly. And he has to share the spotlight with 3 other guys.

'14's are thinner, 15's are on thicker stock, usually less stained as you could order a complete set that didn't come in box, the bio is flipped and in the sub text there are 176 subjects instead of 144.

Cracker Jack Collecting Cliff Notes.

The only card I will never own.
 

Mariano Rivera rookie card. I am a life long yankee fan, can't stand the card. I'm good with everything else.

to all the leaf haters, I hold those in high regard, flaws and all. Though the Jackie shot is not a great one, (though splitting hairs with the '49 Bowman), when you really dig into the set, as the first full color post war set, the prints and images are pretty great. Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio are ICONIC cards, and the technique and color blocking I would (falsely) claim paved the way for the works of Andy Warhol a decade later. So much more aesthetically pleasing than just a photo, 1953 Bowman I'm looking at you. My two cents, not worth a penny.

I think we all have certain players that are real popular but do nothing for us.

For me, its Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron, for whatever reason, their cards just don't interest me at all.

Felt the same way about my 52T mantle, however Id also add that if you can find one centered which is next to impossible, that makes the card that much more special. To hold that card in your hand and look at it, especially a centered copy is truly an incredible feeling. Also, I think the TYPE 1 52T Mantle looks better than the TYPE 2. Type one has more defined color and registration and I prefer the full surround of the yankees logo.

Mantle affable? In numerous books I've read he was nasty, moody, and usually pretty obnoxious. And that's when he was sober.

I have tried so hard to find a way to like the '33 Goudey set; and I just don't.

My favorite cards have always been from sets with a ton of consistency/simplicity.

1913/14 National Game/Polo Grounds
E98
1914/15 CJ
The '39 Play Ball's

they're all so uniform/simple, I see beauty in that.

It does help to find one centered

You can't collect it all. I really like the T206 HOFers, big name Exhibits, Colgan's, Hank Aaron cards, Assorted random semi-key's of major HOFers. Much, much rather put my money into those rather than rookies. Y'all can go for the rookies, I'll pass. Back when, someone decided that rookies were the deal, and that mentality has stuck along with huge prices, not that rare compared to other early players' cards.

That’s what I’m talking about, very nice!

Richard - I have enjoyed this thread and rather than hijack it, I will start a similar thread with a kind-of opposite subject, 'What do you consider your most Aesthetically pleasing card?'

I was referring more to the way he was projected to the general public. Not how he actually was. Maybe affable is the wrong term.

I agree with everything you stated... he's a beloved cultural icon few if any could equal. And yes, that hefty price tag could definitely get you other great marquee cards. It's expensive to own the very best. :D

Thats exactly it. Theres a reason this card carries the hefty price tag it does. Its the kind of card you sell other big cards to get this one card and hold. Its also the kind of card you regret selling.

1949 Leaf, can't stand them. Ugly and the calling them 1948's really wrecks it for me. Only key set that I refuse to build a Tiger team set for.

Especially the Robinson, Paige, and Newhouser. All 3 are hideous.

I can't say there are any cards I don't want to add to my collection. And none that I haven't wanted.

There are lots of cards that I don't want to add at the usual price....

My impression is that Mantle was a nice, polite guy except when drinking.

Obviously, he drank often.

It's the whole Mantle lovefest combined with the fact that it's his first TOPPS card. When the general public thinks of baseball cards they think of Topps, they're not going to care about Bowman.

I wonder... if Topps had included DiMaggio in their '52 set, would it have eclipsed the Mantle in terms of iconic stature?

I wouldn't wonder too much the answer is no, and it wouldn't even be close. It wouldn't even be near the iconic status of the 52 Mays.

Probably would have ended up about where Ted Williams fits into the mid '50s sets