Larry Doby cards
 

Why didn't Larry Doby have cards in the 1951, 53, or 55 Topps sets?

1951 and 53 were likely contract issues with Bowman since he is in those year's Bowman sets. 1955 I don't have any idea. :confused:

I think the bigger question is ‘Why are Doby’s cards so underpriced, especially compared to Jackie?’ They came into MLB the same year in their respective leagues. They were both great players, yet Doby’s cards are not priced much above a common.

Jackie was officially the first though then came Doby. Jackie in the NL and Doby in the AL.

From what I have seen lately, decent looking Doby cards have been receiving a premium, at least with his 52 Topps cards. I purchased mine back in 2016 I believe, and have seen a fairly decent increase in the last year or 2. Not Jackie type increases mind you but his card definitely sells for more than a common.

Doby was 2nd; Jackie was first. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Two words: Buzz Aldrin.

My thoughts exactly. Nobody remembers second (place).

Who was the second guy to climb Everest? :D

...and dancing.

Well, Tenzing Norgay (the Babe Ruth of sherpas) was there with 'Eddie,' so who knows which of them actually summited first?? :D

Larry might have been first....
 

Doby is in the 1951 Topps Major League All-Stars set. Granted, not a very popular or well-known set, but there it is...:)

I vaguely recall reading an article by long-time Cleveland sportswriter Hal Lebowitz back in the '80's that claimed Bill Veeck wanted to bring Larry up to the Indians when the team went north from spring training in '47. But, Veeck may have deferred to Branch Rickey's desire to have the public spotlight on Robinson, since he was to play in a much larger market. So, the nonsensical argument about second place versus first place seems kind of pointless.

Maybe not well known but from my standpoint the best of the 5 Toops 1951 sets

There is that Dodgers vs Indians factor too. Wouldn't explain it all, but partially.

Are the All-Star set and the Connie Mack All Stars a subset of the same set?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Yes, but that set is very hard to find particularly with the backing intact. That Doby would be quite a find for a collector of his cards.

No, they were separate sets. The All-Star set is very hard to find. Somewhere there should be an article online about the set.

As an 18-year-old kid I bought the Berra for $400 in 1979. About 10 months later I sold it for $650 and used the money to purchase my first running car. I had the car less time than I did the Berra. I wished that I'd never sold the card.

I have all five of the 1951 Topps sets, minus the 3 unissued Current All Stars, Roberts, Stankey and Constanty. They were not issued at retail and only a couple examples of each exist. In my experience the Current All Stars were the toughest of the 51s to assemble in unseparated complete format. The Connie Macks were the next toughest. It is also tough to assemble both versions of the 9 Team cards ( date or no date). The Blue backs are a little tougher than the Reds.

Did anyone else picture the Fred Flintstone mobile when "running car" was mentioned? No? Okay, I'm the odd one. :rolleyes:

... but not peculiar

Let me explain, my first car was a 1959 Chevy Impala Sport Coupe. I bought it with stars in my eyes (it needed a ton of work) just before my 18th birthday, even before I had my license. I was not allowed to drive it and eventually, the car wouldn't start and I ended up selling it when I got my first running car that I drove-a 1970 Mercury Marquis sedan for the princely sum of $650 in June of 1980. It used oil and after an accident that damaged the driver side doors, I sold it that December for $400. In hindsight, having a car was more important than the Berra at the time, it wasn't until later that I learned how unique that card is. Admittedly, I drove some cars until my late 20s that weren't too far removed from the Flintstone mobile, the difference being mine had a motor and brakes, in other words, "buckets."

But there are the movies and tv shows, the retirement of #42 across the majors, etc. Ask a non-fan of baseball to name a player and you are probably going to hear Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson, maybe Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente or Lou Gehrig. JR has transcended the game itself. Doby, not.

Need another Doby card...

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20Doby%201.jpg

But I do believe that if Doby would have been first, and Jackie a few months behind him, that we would be talking about Doby and Jackie would be the footnote. Nothing against Jackie, just that 'first' matters. 'Second', not so much.

If if's and but's were candy and nuts....
 

Ya know, Tom, I have to disagree. My speculative opinion is that, even if Veeck had been allowed to bring Doby up at the same time as Rickey elevated Robinson - or even if Doby had debuted with the Indians a day before Jackie had with the Dodgers, the national dominance of New York marketing would have put Larry on page two of the sports section as a one graph note from the hinterland, while page one would have been splashed with pics and stories of Jackie's much more significant appearance in New York. And, the relative importance of each player's breakthrough would have remained in Robinson's favor because of the market he enjoyed. I think the greatly unappreciated value of Doby's cards today compared to Robinson's, given their similar career stats, informs that possibility.:)

Because he wasn’t as good as Jackie Robinson.

"If you ain't first, you're last." - Ricky Bobby

Their career stats might tell a different story.

One of the most quoted movies of all time, at least in our house by my teenage boys.

Jackie Robinson: 10 year career 61.7 WAR
Larry Doby: 13 year career 49.3 WAR

Mike Trout: 10 year career 74.4 WAR

Larry Doby
 

In 1947, Larry had only 32 At Bats. The following year when Satchell Paige joined the Indians, Doby played in 121 games (BA = .301).
He batted .318 in the World Series.
I think he was overshadowed by Paige's enormous popularity back then.


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...obypaige_1.jpg


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...ryDoby1951.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Does Larry have any cards that aren't great looking?



.

I picked this one up recently, and have always loved the balanced shot. Topps did a great job with the layout...

Attachment 428002

This just got posted in the ugly card thread but his 1949 R302-2 M.P & CO. is real ugly

True, but all the cards in that set are pretty ugly. All of his other cards are nice though.