Share your contrarian hobby opinions

[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

[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)

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

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

Now THAT's what I'm talking about, right there!

[drmondobueno]

1. 1936 R312 is the only Dimaggio card worth owning.
2. I like gum residue on the front or back of all my Topps HOFer cards. Reminds me of 1961.
3. Single malt scotch is better for you at baseball card conventions than pale american beer.
4. I hate hot dogs with ketchup. Mustard onions and sauerkraut a must.
5. I wish I had more 1990 Score baseball.
6. I had too many T206..

[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.

[JLange]

-The 1978 - 84 Sports Photo Associates Pinbacks, with more than 400 subjects, is one of the great underrated and underappreciated pinback sets of all time.

-Larry Doby's contributions to major league baseball are underappreciated

-There are still many baseball card issues yet to be fully investigated and catalogued.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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

There are people who think so. But if you search you will find an in-depth analysis. Conclusion: he isn't in the photo, but he has stats on the back from a 2 game call-up in 1966.

[here2havefun]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

T cards are boring.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

48 Leafs are probably the most beautiful set ever. And I think Andy Warhol ripped them off.

Came in here to say "pre-war is boring". I agree with both of these!

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jingram058

There are people who think so. But if you search you will find an in-depth analysis. Conclusion: he isn't in the photo, but he has stats on the back from a 2 game call-up in 1966.

Thank you. To me, just looking at each player shows that he is not pictured. I dare say, that no one even comes close to resembling him...but I do think I see Joe Jackson.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Centering is one of the most overrated aspects of a cards condition. I much prefer a card in the condition it was in when it was originally pulled from a pack.

I agree Bob. Unfortunately centering fanaticism now reigns. So we all most bow to the god of centering when considering what to pay or list a card for.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Thank you. To me, just looking at each player shows that he is not pictured. I dare say, that no one even comes close to resembling him...but I do think I see Joe Jackson.

The ears are wrong...

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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

Yes this would be news to me too. I have seen an 8x10 of the formation for the team card and no mention of Ryan that I recall.

[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.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't get the point of collecting most sets with 75 percent common players nobody gives a damn about. How someone can be psyched to pick up a Karger or Abbatachio or Hoblitzell or Dooin or whoever is beyond me.

I actually think that's the majority opinion. Mine is contrarian . Here goes:

I much prefer collecting common players to HOFers. I already know what the HOFers look like. Part of it is that I can afford more of them, but I love picking up a card of a player I don't already have in any set. In fact I have a "Player Wantlist" consisting entirely of obscure dudes who only appeared in one or two sets.


Anybody got a 1934 Exhibit Len Koenecke or an E286 JuJu Drums of Harry Cheek (he had a MLB career BA of .500!)?

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by timn1

Anybody got a 1934 Exhibit Len Koenecke or an E286 JuJu Drums of Harry Cheek (he had a MLB career BA of .500!)?

If I had a Harry Cheek, I would finally be able to support a full-on beard.


But seriously, Harry does have cards in the 1912 and 1913 Zeenut sets as well.

Brian

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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

No. But his name is on the back.

But… Ken Griffey Jr. IS pictured on the back of his dad’s 1988 Topps Big card… sort of.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by timn1

Anybody got a 1934 Exhibit Len Koenecke or an E286 JuJu Drums of Harry Cheek (he had a MLB career BA of .500!)?

A friend of mine has a noticeably errant hair growing out of his cheek which he constantly misses when shaving. It's become a running joke: "Your 1910 baseball player is showing!"

As long as he doesn't whip out his Koenecke... I'd have to get out my fire extinguisher.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

"When attending the National, it's huge and overwhelming. Bring a comfortable pair of shoes for all the walking you'll need to do. You'll need at least 2-3 days to even start getting through it all."

Not true for everybody. I cover all the ground I need within the first 2-3 hours of the first day, then I'm out of there. Haven't once regretted how I go about it. Actually, the only regret has sometimes been deciding to attend in the first place, which has been constant for my last several Nationals. But, I'm (mostly) not a card guy, so this contrarian opinion is more unique than if this thread was posted on the memorabilia/autograph side.

I've worked the show more than once from beginning to end. This has definitely played a part in my wanting to get in and out in a hurry in subsequent years! As noted elsewhere, I'm likely done with attending at all anymore. If you do bump into me at a future National, I guarantee you there must be a huge financial incentive that makes my presence unavoidable.

[LEHR]

I'll play...

1. T206's are boring as hell and aside from a handful of cards, definitely not rare with a quarter million cards being graded so far and every major auction is full of them.
2. T210's and E91's are horrible looking cards.
3. It's a travesty that Roger Maris isn't in the Hall of Fame considering how watered down it's become.
4. The 1971 Topps set has the best photography of any vintage Topps set.
5. Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He bet on baseball, who cares? The problem is that people treat these guys like Gods, and then when they screw up it's the end of the world. Get over it.
6. These are just my opinions. Don't let it ruffle your feathers.

[1954 topps]

1) Any card with a crease, wax stain, miscut, wrinkle doesn't deserve to be graded. HOFer or not. These cards should be refused a number grade by all grading companies and just labeled Authentic "Creased". I don't care that's how they came from the factory etc. etc., they were a defect from day 1 and don't deserve a grade.
2) Any black and white card produced after 1939 (the invention of color TV) are really depressing with zero cool factor.
3) Postcards of baseball players are not baseball cards, they're postcards. You have a postcard collection...congrats?
4) Set collectors are more impressive than HOF and rookie collectors. It takes passion to chase down bum's nobody's ever heard of and then actually pay money to acquire them to complete your set.
5) If you keep your collection in a vault, PO BOX, anywhere other than your prime residence, you don't really enjoy your collection. Invest in a 2 hour fire safe and bolt it to the floor or a wall, and put your cards in a waterproof case if your that worried. That way you can look at your cards any time day or night.
6) If you collect anything 1976 - current, you're not a vintage collector.
7) Centering, Print Quality, Corners in that order
8) Investing in high end big name star vintage is a safer investment long term than the stock market. (still trying to convince my wife on this one)
9) Any Wilson Franks, Kahn's, or any card that came out of a hotdog package and survived without major staining is far more impressive than a tobacco, cracker jack or other candy card.
10) Guys that wear fanny packs and sweatpants to card shows are not dorks, their just dressed comfortably and likely do well financially.

[Casey2296]

4) Set collectors are more impressive than HOF and rookie collectors. It takes passion to chase down bum's nobody's ever heard of and then actually pay money to acquire them to complete your set.

Have to agree. Pre-war set collecting is not for the weak at heart, I'm 3 cards away from my second set and will be hanging up my spurs after that one and get back to type collecting.

9) Any Wilson Franks, Kahn's, or any card that came out of a hotdog package and survived without major staining is far more impressive than a tobacco, cracker jack or other candy card.

I wouldn't say far more impressive than the super thin 14 Cracker Jacks that were inserted raw into cracker jack packages, but you make a good point.

[cammb]

1932 Delong Gehrig is the best looking card in the hobby followed by the 1953 Bowman Reese.
Modern cards are junk.
Strip cards are junk.
Mantle rookie is over rated.
Clemente rookie 100% over rated.

[jingram058]

Gym sweat pants are not baseball pants, for cripe sake. Just look at Ted Williams above. THAT is how you wear the uniform.

Designated hitter sucks. The pitcher hits. Strategy. THAT is how a real manager manages.

Instant replay review sucks. The umpire is the last word. Period.

4 finger intentional walks suck. No more Johnny Bench reach-out home runs with this stupidity.

4 hour 9 inning games suck. Play the effing game already.

[53toppscollector]

not sure how controversial any of these takes are, but:

* jersey/relic cards are one of the absolute worst creations ever. 99.999% of them are awful

* The SweetCap 150/649 OP sub-set is very underrated for multiple reasons

* the '51 Bowman Mantle is 10x cooler than the '52 Topps Mantle

* the Ty Cobb back is not a T206 back, and printers scrap backs (Old Mill Brown) should not be ranked among the backs that were actually issued in packs/pouches of tobacco

[ValKehl]

"2. T210's and E91's are horrible looking cards."

Paul, it puzzles me as to how you can be so right about the E91s and so wrong about the T210s! Joe Jax's T210 card is a great looking card! I suppose you also think T211s are horrible looking cards.

[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

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I do not see the appeal of any of the hugely popular T206 or 1933 Goudey cards.

You don’t see the appeal of cards of some of the games all time greatest players? What do you collect for them? Seems like a very strange statement.

[Rad_Hazard]

1. 19th century baseball cards astound me, EVERY. TIME. I absolutely love them!

2. I don't understand the hype for the 52 Topps Mantle, the 52 Bowman is WAY better aesthetically.

3. Anything made in the last few years with the exception of the Leaf Babe Ruth product is pretty awful, overproduced, and uninspired.

4. I dislike strip cards and post cards, I don't get the appeal.

5. I wish every card pre-WW2 would be slabbed and graded. I feel like they need to be perfectly preserved.

6. I'm guilty of loving perfectly centered cards, but if it's not centered, I want it horribly miscut. The more miscut the better.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I don't understand all this love for the first two Bowman Mantles over the '52 Topps. Those Mantles (and all 1950-52 Bowmans) are crude, almost child-like depictions. The artistry, if you want to call it that, is laughable (Paul Richards, anyone?). The best efforts look more like comic book illustrations rather than anything approximating portraiture. The 1950's also feels really late in the game for using simplistic artwork over actual photography. If that appeals to you, however, 1953 Topps would be a more sound option to me. Couple all of this with their odd and inconsistent sizing over just a few short years, and you've completely lost me. '53 Color-'55 are things of beauty. Bowman finally got a handle on crafting beautiful cards, and then they were gone.

[JimC]

1. I'd rather have a cool looking playing days card of a guy than his ugly rookie card. A cool rookie card is fine, but I'll never understand the craze to get a guy's first card. Same thing x10 with comic books. Cool covers beat first appearances any day.

2. Photo matched jerseys are a joke. I've seen so many fakes I can't believe people pay for them. I can only imagine how many "relics" came from some random guy's garage.

3. Shoeless Joe is overrated. His lifetime average would have declined like everyone else's had he not been ousted in his prime. Okay, I'm not even sure I believe this last one myself . . .

[JustinD]

I can quite literally purchase a graded 52' Mantle at any time, on any day. There are multiples for sale at noon on Christmas Day and from a multitude of locations. It is far more difficult to locate a listing for thousands of other items. It is not even in my list of top 200 cards as they are a dime a dozen. I know I am far in the minority on this opinion, but seeing one is a complete meh...

70s-80s OPC cards are vastly undervalued for the same reason the Mantle is overvalued. Just try to locate PSA 9-10 80s OPC anything and you have to convince the 1 or 2 people with one to sell it. The QC was horrific, it's like Bob and Doug Mackenzie ran those cutters.

That said, both of those are going to likely stay in their own lane for value eternally.

Oh, by the way... if you are the lovely owner of one of the 3 graded 1981 OPC Lance Parrish 9's (because a 10 doesn't exist) please let me know. Hell, if you have a Parrish that's just not 90-10 centering, doesn't look like it spent time in a kid's velcro wallet and gradable let me know, lol.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I can quite literally purchase a graded 52' Mantle at any time, on any day. There are multiples for sale at noon on Christmas Day and from a multitude of locations. It is far more difficult to locate a listing for thousands of other items. It is not even in my list of top 200 cards as they are a dime a dozen. I know I am far in the minority on this opinion, but seeing one is a complete meh...

I'm with you on this. The same is true for most of the "big" cards in the hobby. The 1956 Mantle, 1955 Clemente, 1954 Aaron, 1933 Goudey Ruth #144, T206 Red portrait Cobb are everywhere. You can buy one any day of the year, all it takes is money. The demand supports the prices, but none of these cards are rare.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Tobacco cards are the "correct" size. Standard cards are too big!

[jchcollins]

Two things I'm fairly convinced on that most of the hobby probably disagrees with:

1. For my money, prewar cards are a bust / bad value compared to postwar vintage. While it's true that for most of my collecting life that they have not been readily affordable for me (I started with cards at age 9 in 1986...) - even today they simply don't hold a value for me that can compare with later cards: I can get a beater maybe up to G T206 common for the same price as I can a midgrade postwar HOF'er whose name is not Mantle. Guess which card I'm going to choose?

2. For those that care purely about the cards and not other things - even if only subconsciously - professional grading in the 21st century has become a farce. Graders have tried to convince the collecting world that something subjective is inherently objective - and have done a poor job of it at that. Between the scandals and shifting technical standards in practice if not in writing - I'm done. I've seen both PSA and SGC miss on honest grading as often as they get it right, and there is not a single, known-name accepted grading house today that has not survived at least one major scandal. Appreciate your cards for what they are and are not - and free them from their slabs - they are the work of an evil conjurer. Oh - and another thing - centering as the end all, be all of condition criteria was not accepted as a "thing" by anyone serious in the hobby before the advent of professional grading and PSA. Fact.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Two things I'm fairly convinced on that most of the hobby probably disagrees with:

1. For my money, prewar cards are a bust / bad value compared to postwar vintage. While it's true that for most of my collecting life that they have not been readily affordable for me (I started with cards at age 9 in 1986...) - even today they simply don't hold a value for me that can compare with later cards: I can get a beater maybe up to G T206 common for the same price as I can a midgrade postwar HOF'er whose name is not Mantle. Guess which card I'm going to choose?

2. For those that care purely about the cards and not other things - even if only subconsciously - professional grading in the 21st century has become a farce. Graders have tried to convince the collecting world that something subjective is inherently objective - and have done a poor job of it at that. Between the scandals and shifting technical standards in practice if not in writing - I'm done. I've seen both PSA and SGC miss on honest grading as often as they get it right, and there is not a single, known-name accepted grading house today that has not survived at least one major scandal. Appreciate your cards for what they are and are not - and free them from their slabs - they are the work of an evil conjurer. Oh - and another thing - centering as the end all, be all of condition criteria was not accepted as a "thing" by anyone serious in the hobby before the advent of professional grading and PSA. Fact.

I do wonder if the manufacturers knew there would be an obsession about borders if they would have done away with them and just went with a solid color card with no borders. Or would they have liked the obsession?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I do wonder if the manufacturers knew there would be an obsession about borders if they would have done away with them and just went with a solid color card with no borders. Or would they have liked the obsession?

I think your answer there lies in those that inherited the companies - when was the last time before this year that Topps made a base set with defined borders? They shied away from it for a very long time after grading became a thing. I'm not an expert on ultra modern, but that much seems obvious.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I think your answer there lies in those that inherited the companies - when was the last time before this year that Topps made a base set with defined borders? They shied away from it for a very long time after grading became a thing. I'm not an expert on ultra modern, but that much seems obvious.

You’re right - modern has sort of done away with it.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I do wonder if the manufacturers knew there would be an obsession about borders if they would have done away with them and just went with a solid color card with no borders. Or would they have liked the obsession?

The absence of a white border does not in any way eliminate centering from a grading platform or equation. It continues to be just as measurable and obvious to the collector from the visual clues of the card of photo and text.

I was just as concerned about centering as were the majority of collectors I knew in 1982 as I am in 2022. Grading just recognized that value was and is placed in the beauty of symmetry as has been recognized in art since its creation.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Thankfully, many reading this will agree with the following, but we know it's not the prevailing attitude for most these days.

This applies to your own collections and has nothing to do with maximizing profits when it's time to sell: Whatever you wish to collect, be it cards, autographs or memorabilia, relying solely on a TPA's opinion is ridiculous. Learn as much as you can and become your own authority. After all, it's your collection, so try and take some personal responsibility for it and not buy blindly into a third party opinion. How is there even any fun in that? Doing this with any sort of confidence takes years, and no matter how long you're involved with it, you'll never know everything. It's a constant, wonderful study.

I have encountered people who have collected for 50 years who can't seem to get the basics down pat and keep getting burned on common forgeries. It's always made me wonder why they're still in the hobby. Unless the person's motivation is purely financial, why would anybody immerse themselves personally and financially in a field of which they're completely ignorant? I'll never understand this, but have seen it so often over the years.

It's entirely possible to successfully collect, buy and sell without LOAs or plastic tombs clogging up your collection. For many ungraded, unauthenticated items, you actually can achieve similar prices to their TPA-certed counterparts. It may take you more time to find that buyer, but if you're not in a huge rush, you'll be fine. How many times have you found yourself being able to sell something uncerted, yet couldn't because it was languishing on a shelf for months or more at some TPA, waiting to get entombed? (I'm strictly involved with autographs, so this last bit of advice applies mostly to that end of the hobby.)

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JustinD

The absence of a white border does not in any way eliminate centering from a grading platform or equation. It continues to be just as measurable and obvious to the collector from the visual clues of the card of photo and text.

I was just as concerned about centering as were the majority of collectors I knew in 1982 as I am in 2022. Grading just recognized that value was and is placed in the beauty of symmetry as has been recognized in art since its creation.

The absence of a white border doesn't mean that a card won't still be judged on centering by a TPG; correct. But it does make the problem of bad centering far less obvious to a collector ripping a pack.

You and your friends must have been ahead of your time. I knew nobody that was super concerned about centering (outside of miscuts maybe...) in the 1980's or 90's before PSA. Grading advancing centering issues was not a straightforward proposition. Before PSA, price guides that spoke to centering would refer to "uneven borders" or "slightly off center, OC, miscut". There was none of the paranoia trying to determine say the difference between 60/40 v. 65/35 that eventually came along after PSA. TPG's totally codified that - and a I think a lot of how collectors think of centering today is mainly the result of cognitive bias.

[Yoda]

The Four Base Hits of King Kelly is the most beautiful baseball card ever produced.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

You and your friends must have been ahead of your time. I knew nobody that was super concerned about centering (outside of miscuts maybe...) in the 1980's or 90's before PSA. Grading advancing centering issues was not a straightforward proposition. Before PSA, price guides that spoke to centering would refer to "uneven borders" or "slightly off center, OC, miscut". There was none of the paranoia trying to determine say the difference between 60/40 v. 65/35 that eventually came along after PSA. TPG's totally codified that - and a I think a lot of how collectors think of centering today is mainly the result of cognitive bias.

I think the change in discussion only stemmed from dealers and the want and/or need to default only to a very inaccurate method of fair to near mint due to limitations of mail order. They did not recognize centering to make the ease of sending mail order clients the cards that did not move as fast in a storefront and show environment. While at shows and at brick and mortar any dealer of the time would say that the most visually pleasing cards always sold first and just as today the remainder were the more flawed examples.

The times and technology must be considered as to why you did not see this in advertising. It goes against ingrained human nature to ignore symmetry. It has determined human beauty and the progression of genetics since the dawn of biology. To state cognitive bias seems a misnomer and ignores the history of biology.

The comparison of actions toward consumer purchase tendencies during that time must use relatable comparisons. You have to toss a hand typed price list out as it would be certain death in today’s market. You have to be comparing similar sales methods. For example, the 1952 Mr. Mint find sold the high grade centered Mantles at a vast mark up over those less pleasing. Everyone knew they were the better cards and they were sold and treated as such.

The mail order dealers could be the single greatest reason for the success of large shows at the time as buying from them was such a poor experience as it was a true gamble. The need for large and local shows was the love for actually seeing what you were purchasing. Not sure of your age, but either imagine or remember the disappointment of waiting several weeks for your mint or near mint cards and opening something that had 3 full card creases or even was scorched from the great fire…it sucked.

Ps - I do want to say I respect your opinion, the point of this thread is to offer contrarian opinions and that is exactly what you are doing and I am hijacking your right to do that, sorry. I was just thinking my experience at the time may help put it in perspective. I wish I could somehow relate how frustrating blind mail order was, lol. Don’t miss it a bit.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by JustinD

The times and technology must be considered as to why you did not see this in advertising. It goes against ingrained human nature to ignore symmetry. It has determined human beauty and the progression of genetics since the dawn of biology. To state cognitive bias seems a misnomer and ignores the history of biology..

This is the root of my centering OCD, when I pulled out my kid collection after 25 years most of the cards were centered. Symmetry is what makes a good card great.

[JollyElm]

564. Centerrifical Force
The way your eyes immediately tell you if a card is rightfully centered enough for you personally, independent of what other collectors or TPGs may think.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by JustinD

70s-80s OPC cards are vastly undervalued for the same reason the Mantle is overvalued. Just try to locate PSA 9-10 80s OPC anything and you have to convince the 1 or 2 people with one to sell it. The QC was horrific, it's like Bob and Doug Mackenzie ran those cutters.

Early OPC is really underrated all across the board. Those are some tough cards to find in nice shape and especially with nice centering. I was very happy to add this one recently:

[leaflover]

By far,collecting the 48-49 Leafs have given me the most enjoyment. A well registered example is truly beautiful. The set has only 98 cards. A high percentage of them are HOF'ers and rookies. What other set has DiMaggio, Ruth, Musial, Paige, Williams and Robinson in it? AND the Short prints are really Short prints.

[ronniehatesjazz]

- T207's are the best looking of the tobacco card sets.
- T201's are incredibly underrated.
- The 1973 Topps set has some of the best photography of all time.
- Vintage Basketball is incredibly undervalued.
- Some of the designs of the junk wax era are right up there with the golden years of Topps/Bowman.
- I'm from Cincinnati and a huge Reds fan but I think Pete Rose and Johnny Bench are two of the most overrated players in the history of the game.
- I collect prewar more for the history aspect than my love of baseball.
- Autographs of living HOF players during the 70's-90's should be viewed as the junk was era of autos.
- By 2050 baseball will again be the favorite national sport.
- The hobby is unfortunately now viewed as an asset class and there's no turning back. Prices will continue to climb over time. Many similarities with the art market.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by JLange

-Larry Doby's contributions to major league baseball are underappreciated

100% agree about Doby being underappreciated. The same could be said for most of the African American players who came over shortly after. What Jackie did was obviously amazing but the others who came shortly after had to endure a lot of the same heat that Jackie took and could arguably be considered just as important.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

100% agree about Doby being underappreciated. The same could be said for most of the African American players who came over shortly after. What Jackie did was obviously amazing but the others who came shortly after had to endure a lot of the same heat that Jackie took and could arguably be considered just as important.

Trying to land a 49 Bowman Doby right now at seems hard so maybe it’s coming around.

My contrarian view would be that the lowest grade is as safe as investment as the highest grade. It’s the ones in between that have a little more risk.