Iconic cards YOU think are ugly.

[Lucas00]

I recently saw a new member looking for some iconic cards, and one of them is the e90 Joe Jackson. I have always thought this card of Joe made him look like a Porcelain Doll and was not appealing to me at all. I don't want to make this a fighting thread, just say the card and why you don't like it. If you see your favorite card here that someone else doesn't like, just post your own etc. Just make sure you say why you think the card is ugly.

Another example for me is Babes 1935 goudey 4 in 1. Just a bad photo used (I know it is the same as his green goudey, but the full image helps that out).

[BobbyStrawberry]

Before I even clicked on this thread I knew e90 Jackson would be mentioned...

[parkplace33]

1933 Goudey Ruth Green and Standing version. The green is not a good image and the standing version is just too tiny and hard to see.

I love the Red and Yellow versions. The others, well, not so much.

[Swadewade51]

The 1953 Bowman Pee Wee Reese. It features a terribly posed "action" image, it's blurry no matter how good the registration is, and a really poor card amongst a really beautiful set.

[D. Bergin]

The 1948/49 Leaf Jackie Robinson & Satchel Paige - Just not an attractive set. Prefer the 1949 Bowman for both of them...which is also not a beautiful set...but still a lot nicer then the Leaf.

1963 Topps Pete Rose - Those 4 tiny headed "Rookie Star" cards look atrocious.

1968 Topps Nolan Ryan - just kind of boring in every respect. Appreciate he shares a card with Koosman, who was pretty good himself, but those 68' borders and Nolan looking like he's ALL hat, is not pretty.

[darwinbulldog]

E90-1 Jackson
T206 Mathewson portrait, white cap
T205 Cobb
1916 M101-4/5 Ruth
1933 Goudey Gehrig
1933 Goudey Ruth #144, #149
1952 Topps Mantle
1986 Fleer Jordan

And, if we're being honest, any Cy Young card that accurately depicts his facial features.

[DeanH3]

I’ve never cared for the ‘32 Caramel Ruth. Not a fan of the pimped hat. lol!

[perezfan]

Agree on 1986 Fleer Jordan. It just looks cheap and mass-produced. Not even a clear image of Jordan, and is highly overrated. The "Emperors Clothes" comes to mind every time I see it.

Disagree on the Goudey Green Ruth. It's actually my favorite of the four and I really love that shade of green. He looks sick to his stomach in the Red and Yellow versions, and the fully body image is too distant and small, IMHO.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Agree on 1986 Fleer Jordan. It just looks cheap and mass-produced. Not even a clear image of Jordan, and is highly overrated. The "Emperors Clothes" comes to mind every time I see it.

Disagree on the Goudey Green Ruth. It's actually my favorite of the four and I really love that shade of green. He looks sick to his stomach in the Red and Yellow versions, and the fully body image is too distant and small, IMHO.

Goudey green Ruth is also my favorite of the four. The yellow one has an aesthetically pleasing palette, but I feel only the green one "captures" him correctly.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

E90-1 Jackson

T206 Mathewson portrait, white cap

T205 Cobb

1916 M101-4/5 Ruth

1933 Goudey Gehrig

1933 Goudey Ruth #144, #149

1952 Topps Mantle

1986 Fleer Jordan



And, if we're being honest, any Cy Young card that accurately depicts his facial features.

Originally Posted by perezfan

Agree on 1986 Fleer Jordan. It just looks cheap and mass-produced. Not even a clear image of Jordan, and is highly overrated. The "Emperors Clothes" comes to mind every time I see it.



Disagree on the Goudey Green Ruth. It's actually my favorite of the four and I really love that shade of green. He looks sick to his stomach in the Red and Yellow versions, and the fully body image is too distant and small, IMHO.

You guys accidentally typed “1986 Fleer” instead of “1984 Star.”

[bnorth]

The green T206 Cobb is an ugly card. Weirdly love the Red version.

[Brent G.]

Sorry, but he looks like shit.

[Casey2296]

[QUOTE=bnorth;2541490]The green T206 Cobb is an ugly card. Weirdly love the Red version.[/QUOTE-
-
Blasphemer!
-

[Bliggity]

Ugly background (one of the worst in the art deco sets IMO), and almost always out of registration so Joe D's face looks terrible. Has always been an easy pass for me. Give me the '39 Play Ball Joe D anyday instead, now that's a baseball card! (my avatar agrees)

[JJ McGraw]

This 1951 Bowman of Spahn isn’t much better. It’s like it has a wash over it, great pitching stance , but pretty uninteresting and bland…..his 1948 Bowman has to be one of the worst , it’s like part of his prison mug shot portfolio. C Why would someone this was a great shot for a baseball card. I have the 51 already and need to buy the 1948( as I collect Spahn cards) , but I can’t bring myself to spend the money on such an ugly card!

[LEHR]

I dislike pretty much everything baseball printed in the 1920's aside from some of the exhibits.

[Kevlo17]

There are a few that come to mind off the top of my head that haven’t been mentioned yet:

1951 Bowman Mays
1949 Bowman Jackie
1952 topps Mays
1914/15 CJ Wagner
The far majority of Mantle Cards

[DHogan]

W512 Ty Cobb gives me nightmares

[bnorth]

As someone in the GOAT conversation Ted Williams has mostly extremely ugly cards. I have had 8 baseball cut card artwork pieces done and Ted was someone I wanted in that collection. I ended up going with the wrapper from the 59 Fleer set because I couldn't find a card I liked enough. Sorry for the bad picture.

[G1911]

All the expensive caramel cards that portray players who did not wear women's makeup as if they did.

[JJ McGraw]

Originally Posted by G1911

All the expensive caramel cards that portray players who did not wear women's makeup as if they did.

Maybe with Nap it’s a French thing

[Edwolf1963]

This was always one of my least favorite cards of the T206 set. Looks like an awkward drawing, cartoonish.

[Balticfox]

Does the card have to be Baseball?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Sorry, but he looks like shit.

The Graig Kreindler version is so, so much better:

FB_IMG_1759293684365.jpg

[Vintagedeputy]

Poor Brooksie.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Being a die hard Detroit Red Wings fan the 1968-69 OPC cards where they stuck Frank Mahovlich's head on the body of Dean Prentice and for Garry Unger's rookie card they stuck his head on Norm Ullman's body.
Oh the good old days of air brushing.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

Being a die hard Detroit Red Wings fan the 1968-69 OPC cards where they stuck Frank Mahovlich's head on the body of Dean Prentice and for Garry Unger's rookie card they stuck his head on Norm Ullman's body.
Oh the good old days of air brushing.

It's rather pathetic how long they continued to do this. There's a 1984-85 card with Ken Linseman's head atop Mike Krushelnyski's body.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

The Graig Kreindler version is so, so much better:

Attachment 673298

It certainly helps, but even Graig couldn't save that lazy-eyed image. It's just a horrible, horrible card and photo. As an aside, for an autograph collector, it is also a terrible card for that purpose. Naturally, none of this does anything to affect value and demand.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Edwolf1963

This was always one of my least favorite cards of the T206 set. Looks like an awkward drawing, cartoonish.

It reminds me of that Mexican portrait of Christ that was destroyed by the world's worst amateur "restoration".

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Somebody mentioned their distaste for the T205 Cobb. I suppose this serves to prove that there will always be someone on the other side of any opinion-based discussion. I can't remember hearing anyone else have this opinion, but it's refreshing in spite of my not sharing those feelings.

If I had to explain a collector's appreciation for the artistic beauty of prewar cards, the Cobb is the very example I would point to. That is everything a baseball card from that era should be.

[jsfriedm]

Some of my top picks were already taken (the Jackson rookie, obviously, the Rose rookie, the CJ Wagners where he looks 90 years old), and I am shocked by some of the picks (T205 Cobb? 1951 Mays? And Ted Williams has some of the most beautiful cards, esp his 1949 Leaf!), but I will throw one more on the pile:

1952 Topps Willie Mays. It still looks to me like they surprised him coming out of the bathroom in a dark clubhouse. I don't get how that was the image they used.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Somebody mentioned their distaste for the T205 Cobb.....

Speaking of Cobb, here is one his ugliest cards. The image is even backwards. His W 516 2-2 card...

[Bill77]

My picks would include the 1956 Topps Mantle, the 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr, and the 1993 SP Derek Jeter.

[Touch'EmAll]

I like Mike Schmidt, but I just can't choke down his rookie card. And the 1973 Reggie Jackson is a no go.

Love the '77 Seaver, '74 Ryan, '74 Steve Carlton, '77 Carlton Fisk, '76 Bench.

[jchcollins]

This to me is always an interesting topic, because a card doesn’t have to be aesthetically ideal to become “iconic.”

Examples to me would include the ‘68 Nolan Ryan RC, and even the ‘52 Topps Mantle. Neither picture just fantastic likenesses of the subjects which make them so expensive, but because they have been so famous / iconic for so long - this as a criteria anymore is out the window for most people. They are famous cards, and will remain that way.

I know a lot of people dislike the ‘63 Rose floating head, and I understand why so it doesn’t bother me - but to me the early Topps multiplayer RC’s are in themselves iconic due to what I will call “period correctness” - if for lack of a better term. No, it’s not great image of Rose, but that’s how Topps treated most all rookies at the time, and the fact that he was just lumped in with 3 other guys to me kind of speaks to the innocence of the time. Clearly had Topps known Pete Rose would turn out to be Pete Rose, he would have gotten his own card. I don’t mind the floating heads, but do think it’s kind of funny that the LL cards like that might be a “cheap” way to get a Mantle or an Aaron or a Mays, but the Rose floating head because it’s a RC is the most expensive Rose out there. You gotta laugh at how things turn out sometimes…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Poor Brooksie.

I once had a conversation with Brooks as to why he looked like that in the photo. He had just finished running sprints and the photographer immediately stuck his camera in his face.

[Luke]

I'm absolutely floored that I'm the first person to mention the ugliest card of all time, the T207 Walter Johnson.

This will probably be unpopular, but also t3 Cobb for me. Incredibly beautiful card until you look closely at his face.

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Poor Brooksie.

I always think Peyton Manning everytime I see this card.

[fisherboy7]

I'm actually a fan of a bunch of the cards mentioned in this thread, including the e90-1 Jackson

In my opinion the ugliest prewar sets are the strip cards: W512, W515, and W516 especially. etc. I'll make an exception for W514 which is slightly more appealing but still not great....

[Kutcher55]

Agree most of those strip cards are ugly. Some of the babe Ruth images are comically bad. Would also include the 63 Rose RC in the discussion. Spahn 48 bowman no doubt although Spahn is one of those guys who was so ugly that he was good looking.

[luciobar1980]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

Ugly background (one of the worst in the art deco sets IMO), and almost always out of registration so Joe D's face looks terrible. Has always been an easy pass for me. Give me the '39 Play Ball Joe D anyday instead, now that's a baseball card! (my avatar agrees)

I agree.. never liked this card much and can never fathom why it goes for more than the 39! Must be print run, etc, but still!

[Johnny630]

The Neck !!

[Balticfox]

There's evidence aplenty in this thread for not stressing out to complete sets on which one is working. Acquiring a certain number of ugly cards is understandable if they're part of an attractively priced bulk lot, but why pay up for specific cards if they're ugly?

[puckpaul]

Great set…horrible image. Doesnt look like him at all. Weird stance. Huge square shoulders.

Would still love to own one!

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

There's evidence aplenty in this thread for not stressing out to complete sets on which one is working. Acquiring a certain number of ugly cards is understandable if they're part of an attractively priced bulk lot, but why pay up for specific cards if they're ugly?

Exactly. Any project is complete once the collector deems it to be. That can be one way of looking at it. It can also be more relaxing if you can allow yourself that freedom, not to mention more cost efficient.

[puckpaul]

Completing sets is relaxing. Trying to complete them too. It’s fun and challenging.

Not sure the point of this comment. Stress? What stress? we all have a lot of stress in our lives, completing sets is NOT one of them.

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by Luke

This will probably be unpopular, but also t3 Cobb for me. Incredibly beautiful card until you look closely at his face.

To me the shoes are the worst part of the image

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Completing sets is relaxing. Trying to complete them too. It’s fun and challenging.

Not sure the point of this comment. Stress? What stress? we all have a lot of stress in our lives, completing sets is NOT one of them.

"Stress out" is probably the wrong term.

Now I've been a completist on the Hockey, CFL and non-sport cards I've been collecting since 1979 when I took up re-amassing the cards of my formative years. But the 2nd series of 1964-65 Topps Hockey Tall Boys and the hundreds of ugly, head shots (many even hatless) included in the 1954-65 Topps Baseball sets have resulted in an attitude adjustment since I retired in 2020. I mean "Hey, why am I forcing myself to pay mega $ for that ugly thing? (e.g. 1960 Roger Maris, 1961 Willie Mays) There are better cards/places on which to spend my money." Yeah, yeah, I guess I won't complete any of those Baseball sets but so what?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Does the card have to be Baseball?

I don't know. It's a scary headshot, but still Mr. Hockey personified as a grizzled old man, with a half smirk that almost says, "I'm bout to break you in two, if you so much as go NEAR those boards around me.".

If we're talking "iconic" cards. His Parkhust Rookie card is pretty atrocious looking.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

If we're talking "iconic" cards. His Parkhust Rookie card is pretty atrocious looking.

And he is identified as Gordon Howe on the card...how tastelessly grown-up.

Brian