Share your contrarian hobby opinions

[skelly423]

Share your contrarian hobby opinions that go against accepted hobby norms. Not looking to pick fights, but it’s good to question long established hobby opinions.

Personally, I think the 1933 Goudey Ruth Red background is a nicer, and tougher, card than the yellow Ruth.

I also think the 1956 Topps set is overrated; huge print runs for each card (compared to earlier 1950s sets), and the color (or lack thereof) makes the set look boring.

[Vintagecatcher]

It is my personal opinion that the Red Kleinow (Catching) Boston is more common than the Red Kleinow (Catching) N.Y.

Patrick

[drcy]

I like the 1940s MP & Co. cards

The Armour Coins is one of the best ever issues

I don't like the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle

Collectors focus too much on centering. It's not that big of a deal.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by drcy

I like the 1940s MP & Co. cards

The Armour Coins is one of the best ever issues

I'm right there with you on both of these.

[gonefishin]

Two things:

1. I think the 57 Topps set the standard and model for the modern day card.

2. I think grading has done more harm than good for the hobby when it comes to young collectors and significantly contributed to the morphing of a hobby into an investment.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Two things:

1. I think the 57 Topps set the standard and model for the modern day card.

I wouldn't say this is even remotely contrarian.

[Tabe]

A couple of mine:

- those who praise the 33 Goudey Lajoie but rip modern cards for manufactured rarity are hypocrites

- the vast, vast majority of T206s are ugly

[CJinPA]

I believe the E92 dockmen are tougher to find in nice condition (PSA 5+) than people think.

[bnorth]

The T210 set is by far the best looking T set.

[Snapolit1]

T cards are boring.

[Belfast1933]

Great idea for a thread!

1953 Bowman cards…. Overrated Great pictures, but they don’t look like baseball cards to me.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.


(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.


(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

+1. If only it had a Ted Williams and even, maybe, a DiMaggio.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.


(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

Piggybacking on this, I think the 1952 Bowman is Willie Mays’ best card. The 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps are too dark, the ‘53 Topps isn’t a nice image, and 1954 onward have too many cards printed.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.


(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

I'll have my own contrarian opinions to add in due time, but in the meantime I agree with all of this.

[Leon]

I don't keep up with any major league (professional) sports.

and I think the E90-1 Jackson isn't good looking....
.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't keep up with any major league (professional) sports.

.

Well, since we all collect cards of players who haven't played in YEARS, I don't see how current pro sports are even relevant

[jsfriedm]

Action shots/poses are better than portraits.

It's stranger to love simple pieces of cardboard from before your parents were born than shiny, high-tech cards of contemporary players.

[jamest206]

I try to collect other cards, comics, memorabilia, but always find myself going back to T206.

[jingram058]

I think t205 and 1953 Bowman color are the best looking baseball cards ever.

I think 1953 Topps and 1955 Bowman are the worst looking ever. In fact, I think1953 Topps is just effing hideous.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by CJinPA

I believe the E92 dockmen are tougher to find in nice condition (PSA 5+) than people think.

Agreed
_

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by skelly423

Share your contrarian hobby opinions that go against accepted hobby norms. Not looking to pick fights, but it’s good to question long established hobby opinions.

Personally, I think the 1933 Goudey Ruth Red background is a nicer, and tougher, card than the yellow Ruth.

I also think the 1956 Topps set is overrated; huge print runs for each card (compared to earlier 1950s sets), and the color (or lack thereof) makes the set look boring.

Agree

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by skelly423

I also think the 1956 Topps set is overrated; huge print runs for each card (compared to earlier 1950s sets), and the color (or lack thereof) makes the set look boring.

I'm pretty OK with most of the opinions so far, but OP this one really triggered me

I don't know how ANYONE can not love 1956 Topps with the upclose portaits and full colored backgrounds. Maybe the best set ever. Yeah, huge print runs, but that way we can all get more of them!

[brunswickreeves]

IMHO 1952 Topps cards (except Mathews, Camp, Jackie, Mays, and Mick) are hideous. To me they look like a bad airbrush job.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

IMHO 1952 Topps cards (except Mathews, Camp, Jackie, Mays, and Mick) are hideous. To me they look like a bad airbrush job.

I can't believe intelligent, well-heeled people would fork over colossal sums of money for either the 1952 or 1953 Topps Mantle cards. They look like something out of a comic book. No envy or jealousy. I find them both absolutely stupid looking. Laughably so. If you gave me the money I would buy something else. And then there's a Roy Campanella Bowman card that's even worse, a weird looking tiny hat on his otherwise big head that is just out and out ridiculous looking.

[jingram058]

I wish the baseball card so-called "hobby", the value of baseball cards, would crash to the floor. Then it could become a hobby again.

I wish card grading companies would all go bankrupt.

[Al C.risafulli]

-1938 Goudey low numbers are tougher than high numbers
-1938 Goudey is an attractive card set
-The N162 Kelly and the T205 Cobb are the most beautiful baseball cards
-1952 Topps is an overrated set and 1953 Topps is much better
-Grading has been a huge benefit to the hobby
-Modern collectors and investors are all collectors, there's room for all of us

-Al

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I wish the baseball card so-called "hobby", the value of baseball cards, would crash to the floor. Then it could become a hobby again.

I wish card grading companies would all go bankrupt.

Not me, I enjoy spending $100 to have someone tell me that my card is creased, then encasing it in plastic so no one can ever touch it again, and then take 2 years to return it to me. I guess that's necessary if I want to make 50K on a 20 dollar purchase and keep a child, or grandchild, from actually touching my card - they might put a crease in it - God forbid! Besides, I like keeping my graded cards in a safe or safe deposit box so no one will steal them or damage them. I can always take them out and look at them when I'm alone and no one is around. Maybe I'll buy one of those digital only cards that I'm the only one in the world that can see it - that part of the "Hobby" is sure to take off in the next few years! I'm sure it will, if someone can just figure out how to grade it.

AIJ (All in jest)

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I can't believe intelligent, well-heeled people would fork over colossal sums of money for either the 1952 or 1953 Topps Mantle cards. They look like something out of a comic book. No envy or jealousy. I find them both absolutely stupid looking. Laughably so. If you gave me the money I would buy something else. And then there's a Roy Campanella Bowman card that's even worse, a weird looking tiny hat on his otherwise big head that is just out and out ridiculous looking.

And that's why 1952 Topps is king and 54 Bowman is garbage
As time goes by, I love the 52 and 53 topps Mantle cards. They have 1 name. They don't need 6 names and be a 1 of 1 PSA 10 either.

The more I see of the Mantle 53 pig nose pose, the more I like it and the artwork.

[jingram058]

You picked 3 out of 4 of the ugliest cards of all-time...but laughing all the way to the bank anyway.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by jingram058

You picked 3 out of 4 of the ugliest cards of all-time...but laughing all the way to the bank anyway.

yup, 3 outta 4 ain't bad! See if I can go 5 outta 6 on the all important Ingram Scale? Not as nice as the maraca shaker trimmed 9, but a fake 4.5. Jackie? I happen to like the Topps better, the Bowman's not so much. Though many have grown on me over the years like this trimmed 53 Mantle

[abothebear]

Cards with multiple players on them, like leaders cards or team composites or those action R-cards with the batter and catcher labeled, give you more bang for your buck.

1967 Topps Mets team card is Nolan Ryan's RC.

[brianp-beme]

Strip cards are great to collect. Why you might ask? Because despite how ugly some (note that I say some, not all) of them are, it is cool to think that a kid liked them enough to cut/rip them into individual cards, and then valued them enough that the kid didn't toss them away when he became an older kid, and by some twist of fate these cards survived decades of the urge to purge, or were hidden from view just long enough for most folks to realize that hey, having these things hanging around was not too painful.

Brian (sorry about the D381 card, but when the ugly bell for scanning rang, Egan just assumed it was for him)

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Cards with multiple players on them, like leaders cards or team composites or those action R-cards with the batter and catcher labeled, give you more bang for your buck.

1967 Topps Mets team card is Nolan Ryan's RC.

Are there people who claim Nolan Ryan is pictured on the 1967 Mets team card? I've never heard that one before.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Cards with multiple players on them, like leaders cards or team composites or those action R-cards with the batter and catcher labeled, give you more bang for your buck.

1967 Topps Mets team card is Nolan Ryan's RC.

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.

[BioCRN]

1913 National Game/Tom Barker Game cards are underappreciated considering the quality of image for a smaller non-exhibit/postcard sized card.

1911 Sporting Life (M116) has been undervalued for way too long considering it's size and checklist.

Neither issues are common or mega-rare, but it's not too hard to find examples of either of these issues in great shape when you do run across them.

[Lucas00]

1953 topps is boring and ugly, especially compared to ‘53 bowman color.

[JollyElm]

519. Fool’s Sold
Adding a new post to your own thread (that everyone is now forced to read) to declare that the card has been sold, instead of simply editing the title to reflect this fact.

[rhettyeakley]

-T212 Obak's are superior to T206, and it isn't close.

-1910-1920's cards with actual photos of players are superior to cartoonish representations from most of the litho sets made in the 1910's and 1930's.

-Cards of obscure players are more interesting than those of stars

-True rarity trumps Condition rarity

-People that don't collect sets are doing it wrong

[bn2cardz]

T202 is the best pre-war set. It has bios, stats, action photos, portrait photos, b/w photos, and color art... All on one card. Plus it has rare variations and back/front combos.

It essentially has everything. The only real knock on it is the size, but even then some have decided to collect the panels themselves.

[Bigdaddy]

With all due respect to Kevin Costner in Bull Durham, "Well, I believe in the soul... the c*ck...the p&$$y... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap... I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

Personally, I believe:

With the exception of Conlon photos, generally color cards are superior to black and white cards

T206 portraits are overrated.

T205 cards are superior to T206.

Pete and Joe Jax should have to buy a ticket to get into the HOF.

Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Smokey Joe Wood and Lefty O'Doul should be in the HOF.

1954 Topps is the worst Topps set of the 1950s.

The A's of the 1970's are underrated.

90% of the shiny new stuff will severely depreciate in the next five years.

Teddy Ballgame was a better player (on the field) than Joltin' Joe. Off the field is another story.

Baseball cards from the mid 1930's to 1950 suck.

1954 Bowman cards have gotten better with age.

TPAs have brought more money into the hobby.

More money in the hobby has ushered in more bad actors.

How many 1971 Thurman Munson's are enough? Just one more.

[Eggoman]

OK, I'll stick my neck on the chopping block, too!

I NEVER liked the 1953 Bowman Pee Wee card and I do NOT think that The Mick looks good on his 1956 Topps, either!

There, I said it and I feel better now. I should probably run and hide, too!

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Eggoman

OK, I'll stick my neck on the chopping block, too!

I NEVER liked the 1953 Bowman Pee Wee card and I do NOT think that The Mick looks good on his 1956 Topps, either!

There, I said it and I feel better now. I should probably run and hide, too!

Pee Wee card is indeed highly overrated. So blurry you can't make out details. Is it a painting or a photo? Musial card is his best, however. Same for Hodges and Lockman.

[Eric72]

Contrarian views:

• T205 cards look hideous
• Nolan Ryan was overrated (and his rookie card is U-G-L-Y)
• I have a great deal of respect for the Baseball Hall of Fame
• The two greatest team sports are Baseball and Hockey. Watching football or basketball instantly lowers the intelligence level of the viewer.
• 1955 Bowman Baseball cards are beautiful
• Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens belong in the Hall of Fame

[Jerry G]

I really dislike horizontal cards like 1955 and 1956 Topps. My hands were perfectly made to hold and appreciate cards vertically. With a horizontal card I need to twist my hand down awkwardly. This is supposed to be fun? A premium price for T206 Pelty because it is sideways? Please.

1953 Bowman set is beautiful but, that Pee Wee Reese card? The majority of the picture is sky and dirt. Reese's whole body is represented by less than an inch tall. Why is he wearing a red sweatshirt? Is that a Dodger teammate laying on second base? Why is there no flying dust? Where are the other players and umpires? AND it's horizonal!

[rats60]

The 1952 Topps set is the ugliest set ever made. As kids when we got a Flexichrome card (such as the 1959 Bob Gibson), they looked hideous and we hated them. What could be worse than a whole set of them?

The 1953 Topps set isn't much better. They look like failed High School art projects and many don't even look like the players. I don't know how Topps stayed in business in 1951-1954 with such poor designs compared to Bowman.

1949 Leaf and 1955 Bowman are ugly too. The printing quality was so bad on the Leafs, it is no wonder the 2nd series sold poorly and the rest of the set was never made. The color TVs are ridiculous on the 1955 Bowmans and it doesn't help that you open a pack and the cards are different sizes. It is no wonder that it was Bowman's last set, they clearly were out of good ideas.

For prewar cards, I don't get the fascination with Delongs, Diamond Stars or Cracker Jacks. An oversized player in an undersized stadium? No thanks. The backgrounds on Diamond Stars? Yuck. The only thing worse is all bright red backgrounds of Cracker Jacks.

The 1952 Topps Mantle is the 1951 Bowman Paul Richards of Topps cards. Who thought it would be funny to give Mickey a bright yellow bat? Flexichrome was bad enough, an ugly cartoonish card just made it the worst.

Lou Gehrig, Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente and Sandy Koufax cards are under valued. Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb cards are way over valued.

The PSA 8 t206 Honus Wagner belongs in a PSA 8 holder. PSA graded sheet cut cards for a long time. I believe Beckett still grades sheet cut cards. In the junk wax era, Topps sold uncut sheets by the pallet to other companies because they did a much better job of cutting them. I would be willing to bet most if not all PSA 10s from this era where cards not cut by Topps. Why do people pick on one card when there are thousands of sheet cut cards in PSA holders with numbers?

Speaking of the t206 Wagner, if a 52 Topps Mantle sells for 7 figures as do a few modern cards, all t206 Wagners should be 8 figures. Also, t206 Planks and 1933 Goudey Lajoies should be worth more than any post war card, as well as several other key prewar cards. Prewar cards and way under valued and postwar cards are way over valued.

Nolan Ryan is one of the greatest pitchers ever. He has one of the lowest FIPs of the live ball era, the lowest H/9 ever and his ERA of 3.19 is solid despite having some pretty bad defenses behind him. He should have won 4 Cy Young awards (1973, 1977, 1981 and 1987). Although his cards are as overrated/overvalued as his on field performance was undervalued.

[maniac_73]

Jackie Robinson Well Made Pants and Champs pictures are not a rookie card


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Jackie Robinson Well Made Pants and Champs pictures are not a rookie card


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ha

[mordecaibrown1]

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!

[orioles70]

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