Net54baseball.com Forums - the better looking 64 rose!

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - the better looking 64 rose! (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=225018)

the better looking 64 rose!

I have always favored the 1964 Topps Pete Rose over the 1963. Having gotten both of them in their respective year of issue, even as a kid I noticed the re-use of the same picture. However, it was a "no-brainer" for me as a 9-year-old way back then in the spring of 1964---the card of Pete Rose, and only Pete Rose, was one hundred times better, aesthetically, than the '63.

So many of these discussions are predicated on the notion that the rookie card is the most important, most significant, most valuable, and relegates any of his other cards/coins/items to substandard, poor second cousins, and a "oh yeah, that's nice too." How ridiculous! Particularly when the concept of rookie card collecting was simply a popular collecting theme that started to take off in the middle years of the organized adult hobby. It was about the late 70s when the theme started gaining more momentum. Funny, that coincided with dealers sniffing out a way to make a lot more moulah out of collectors by jacking up the price of ANY star player rookie cards. Tunnel-visioned collectors figured the much higher asking prices meant the rookie cards were much more significant than they thought, and fed on the frenzy for rookies, like throwing high octane fuel on a raging fire.

It got so bad that the better-looking cards of the players, and even the genuine scarce regional cards became nonentities, forever to be in the shadow of the rookies. What a bunch of dumb ass thinking.

A popular saying of today is appropriate, "it is what it is." I'm genuinely glad I did not fall for this fallacious way of judging what's a cardboard gem. I'm far from alone, though we're likely to remain in the minority. That's OK; less competition for me at what remains on my sights.

Just another reason why I'm so glad I have other hobbies! ---Brian Powell

This response might be taken as a verbal M-80 by some; fine, a nice 5th of July leftover firecracker!

Ditto.

Another great example...The 71 Topps Thurman Munson is arguably the best looking card ever made. In fact, you could make the argument that any multiplayer card is less attractive than the single player cards for those players that typically followed the next year. Seaver, Ryan, Lynn, Dawson, Ripken, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1961 (Post 1558545)

I have always favored the 1964 Topps Pete Rose over the 1963. Having gotten both of them in their respective year of issue, even as a kid I noticed the re-use of the same picture. However, it was a "no-brainer" for me as a 9-year-old way back then in the spring of 1964---the card of Pete Rose, and only Pete Rose, was one hundred times better, aesthetically, than the '63.

So many of these discussions are predicated on the notion that the rookie card is the most important, most significant, most valuable, and relegates any of his other cards/coins/items to substandard, poor second cousins, and a "oh yeah, that's nice too." How ridiculous! Particularly when the concept of rookie card collecting was simply a popular collecting theme that started to take off in the middle years of the organized adult hobby. It was about the late 70s when the theme started gaining more momentum. Funny, that coincided with dealers sniffing out a way to may a lot more moulah out of collectors by jacking up the price of the rookie cards of the stars of the time. Tunnel-visioned collectors figured the much higher asking prices meant the rookie cards were much more significant than they thought, and fed on the frenzy for these cards, like throwing high octane fuel on a raging fire.

It got so bad that the better-looking cards of the players, and even the genuine scarce regional cards became nonentities, forever to be in the shadow of the rookies. What a bunch of dumb ass thinking.

A popular saying of today is appropriate, "it is what it is." I'm genuinely glad that I did not fall for this fallacious way of judging what's a cardboard gem. I'm far from alone, though we're likely to remain in the minority. That's OK; less competition for me at what remains on my sights.

Just another reason why I'm so glad I have other hobbies! ---Brian Powell

This response might be taken as a verbal M-80 by some; fine, a nice 5th of July leftover firecracker!

I'd say the '64 definitely looks better than the RC, but I also think the '65 looks better than the '64. It never ends! :)

How about we take the best pose and place it with the dest design to make the ultimate card!

I really like the 79 Rose card, but the design is great too. I might suggest the 79 shot with the 77 design.

Topps used the same photo for both years…

Attachment 237324

Bob, you and I have had this conversation on other boards and I agree. I always prefer the "first solo card" over the RC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBesse27 (Post 1558631)

Bob, you and I have had this conversation on other boards and I agree. I always prefer the "first solo card" over the RC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CW (Post 1558550)

I'd say the '64 definitely looks better than the RC, but I also think the '65 looks better than the '64. It never ends! :)

I agree 100%, love the 65.

I think the Ryan RC is another example. One of my favorite all time cards is the 1969 Topps Ryan, his first solo card. His RC is downright ugly. On the flip side though, growing up during the "rookie" card chaos of the 80's, cards like the Rose RC are so iconic they transcend beauty to me.

Though Bench's rookie isnt as ugly as some of the other multi-player rookies, his second year solo card is much nicer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orly57 (Post 1560549)

Though Bench's rookie isnt as ugly as some of the other multi-player rookies, his second year solo card is much nicer.

+1.

Up and down the line-up of Topps multi-player rookie cards from the 60s-70s, virtually every one of those player's first solo cards trumps the rookie, MASSIVELY, in the aesthetic sense.

Agree with all of you, nice as the 1964 Pete Rose is, his 1965 is much better. The image, the design, the colors---it all just comes together perfectly!!!:)

--Brian Powell

The added problem with the Rose RC, in particular, is that the deign for the Rookie Stars that year was just awful. Just 4 heads floating...

The 64 Rose is awesome. Love the overall look with the All-Star Rookie trophy right next to him as if he is accepting it on the card. Personally, think it's his best looking card, but that's me..