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

[x2drich2000]

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.

[Leon]

e90-1 Jackson has never done it for me.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Leon

e90-1 Jackson has never done it for me.

Ditto

[Bored5000]

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.

[Exhibitman]

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.

[Jcosta19]

1935 Goudey 4 in 1 Ruth

Dislike the image and no longer on the yankees.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Vintagecatcher]

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

[conor912]

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

[Rhotchkiss]

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.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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

#this

[rats60]

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.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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.

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

[CobbSpikedMe]

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.

[Rhotchkiss]

Nice card Pete!

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Leon

e90-1 Jackson has never done it for me.

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

[Mikehealer]

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.

[ullmandds]

Thx ryan...mike you’re wrong too!!!😀

[shagrotn77]

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

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Thx ryan...mike you’re wrong too!!!😀

Pete, I've been told that many times.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

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.

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

[oldjudge]

Any lithographic card, including T206s.

[Tyruscobb]

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.

[G1911]

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.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

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.

+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

[brianp-beme]

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

[Snapolit1]

52 Mantle.

US Caramel Ruth.

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

[Andrew1975]

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

[packs]

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.

[Wanaselja]

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

[yomass]

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.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by yomass

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”.

[CobbSpikedMe]

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

[scooter729]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

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??

[Seven]

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.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by conor912

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

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.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Seven

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.

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.

[gonzo]

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

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

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.

Originally Posted by todeen

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

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.

[robw1959]

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.

[clydepepper]

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

...and any Joe DiMaggio - not a fan

...and the Joe Jackson cards previously mentioned.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by robw1959

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.

i always thought the 14's were thinner?

[robw1959]

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

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i always thought the 14's were thinner?

[pokerplyr80]

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.

[PowderedH2O]

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.

[7nohitter]

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

[Rich Falvo]

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.

[drcy]

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.

[C-mack]

Definitely e90 cobbs

[rats60]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

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 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.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

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.

+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