 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23
07-20-2017, 12:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Cards aren't always supposed to be 'beautiful.' I like some of the candid shots, in part because they bring back childhood collecting memories and because they have character. All Carl Horner portraits would be boring. The 72-3 Topps definitely have some bizarre candid shots-- but that makes them interesting. Also cards are made for kids, so some silly and comic designs such as the Goudey Big Heads fit that bill. I've never been fond of some of the 1800s comic trade cards, but they were intended for kids.
Have to say I've never been fond of the 1952 Topps Mantle-- doesn't even look a lot like him. But, hey, as an art historian I know that beauty and art are in the eyes of the beholder. Last edited by drcy; 07-20-2017 at 12:31 PM. 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ugly (IMO) Ruth | w7imel | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 20 | 08-19-2014 10:36 PM |
| More Popular: 71 or 75 BB | mintacular | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 12 | 11-08-2013 09:34 PM |
| and the ugly | Matthew80 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 21 | 12-16-2012 08:17 PM |
| Popular set, but... WHY!? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 10-09-2007 11:07 PM |
| They`re Ugly I Know, But...... | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 08-10-2005 05:28 PM |
Threaded Mode