For 3500, which Jackie would be your one/only?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

That is always a balancing act of trying to find an aesthetically pleasing card you will enjoy while also being able to build somewhat of a collection instead of having just one really good looking card. You need some beaters to build your collection.

With the high prices today, those beaters are becoming more attractive, like when wearing beer goggles...it still gets the job done

To wit:

[ClementeFanOh]

The train has derailed from the actual topic. I’ll side with Casey2296 and TouchEmAll. Great looking images of the player = 1953 and 56 Topps, especially in the stated price range which was central to the original post. Those are great images of Jackie. Trent King

[Leon]

This might be my top pic for the money too. Not really in my focus for collecting, but that doesn't mean I won't have one in the future.
.

Originally Posted by packs

If you can find one for sale:

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

The train has derailed from the actual topic. I’ll side with Casey2296 and TouchEmAll. Great looking images of the player = 1953 and 56 Topps, especially in the stated price range which was central to the original post. Those are great images of Jackie. Trent King

I prefer his 1955 Topps over his 1956. Yes, the background of Jackie sliding on his 1956 card is pretty cool, but I have always really disliked heavy outlining around a player's face, as is seen in his 1956 card. The 1955 of him has the same portrait without the heavy white outline.

Just a pet peeve maybe only a few might share, but if you do think in a similar way, now you have this invaluable information at your fingertips.

Brian

[Exhibitman]

FWIW, the BB portrait card seems to be popping up for sale very consistently lately.