Share your contrarian hobby opinions

Belfast1933 · #1 06-17-2022, 03:42 PM

Great idea for a thread!

1953 Bowman cards�. Overrated Great pictures, but they don�t look like baseball cards to me.

thatkidfromjerrymaguire · #2 06-17-2022, 03:56 PM

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.

(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

jsfriedm · #3 06-17-2022, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.

(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

+1. If only it had a Ted Williams and even, maybe, a DiMaggio.

thatkidfromjerrymaguire · #4 06-17-2022, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

+1. If only it had a Ted Williams and even, maybe, a DiMaggio.

Yes, since Bowman didn't appear to reuse any poses from prior years in 1952 (unlike some repeats from '50 to '51) it's fun to think what a new Ted Williams painting would have looked like. And yeah, a DiMaggio would have been amazing.

NiceDocter · #5 06-17-2022, 04:18 PM

Strip cards are awesome! Plus�. I don�t give a darn if they include a dotted line on the edge or not as long as they have some even borders�. And this includes Bazookas too! You are really going to pay 10x for a 9 vs an A just to see that dotted line???????

oldjudge · #6 06-17-2022, 04:35 PM

These views have evolved over time and I realize that some of my past actions are in direct conflict with them. They are mine and some or all may be incorrect or certainly subject to debate, a debate I have no interest in partaking in.

1. Set collecting is a waste of time and money. Collect the players you like and forget the others. The biggest waste of time and money is registry set collecting. This just gives you an opportunity to overpay for a 10 that on another day might have been a 9 (or an A).
2. The T206 set is the most overhyped set of all time. Some cards are nice looking (Cobb bat off, for example) but many are ugly.
3. Collecting rookie cards was a pursuit thought up by dealers to make money
4. A significant portion of high dollar signed cards are forged
5. At $10 apiece cards were a hobby, at $10,000 apiece they are an asset class.
6. A National at Atlantic City is a horrible idea
7. Cap Anson’s bust should be removed from the HOF.

Have I pissed off enough people yet, I can keep going. ��

Republicaninmass · #7 06-17-2022, 04:42 PM

Exhibits, postcards, photos, cards cut from magazines have never been as desirable, widely collected or valued as gum or candy cards. I just dont see it. Sure they have a nice image what have you, but they were not a side promotion for the gum/candy and subsequently thrown away. Hence the entire collectibility aspect of the hobby. My mom threw out my postcards...doesnt have the same ring to it.

butchie_t · #8 06-17-2022, 04:49 PM

Upper Deck and card grading forever changed the hobby of card collecting, and NOT FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE HOBBY.

jingram058 · #9 06-17-2022, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

These views have evolved over time and I realize that some of my past actions are in direct conflict with them. They are mine and some or all may be incorrect or certainly subject to debate, a debate I have no interest in partaking in.

1. Set collecting is a waste of time and money. Collect the players you like and forget the others. The biggest waste of time and money is registry set collecting. This just gives you an opportunity to overpay for a 10 that on another day might have been a 9 (or an A).
2. The T206 set is the most overhyped set of all time. Some cards are nice looking (Cobb bat off, for example) but many are ugly.
3. Collecting rookie cards was a pursuit thought up by dealers to make money
4. A significant portion of high dollar signed cards are forged
5. At $10 apiece cards were a hobby, at $10,000 apiece they are an asset class.
6. A National at Atlantic City is a horrible idea
7. Cap Anson�s bust should be removed from the HOF.

Have I pissed off enough people yet, I can keep going. ��

PLEASE...keep going! I agree with every word.

Calling super-whamadyne expensive cards a hobby is laughable, unless you're made out of money.

Vintage Vern · #10 06-19-2022, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

These views have evolved over time and I realize that some of my past actions are in direct conflict with them. They are mine and some or all may be incorrect or certainly subject to debate, a debate I have no interest in partaking in.

1. Set collecting is a waste of time and money. Collect the players you like and forget the others. The biggest waste of time and money is registry set collecting. This just gives you an opportunity to overpay for a 10 that on another day might have been a 9 (or an A).
2. The T206 set is the most overhyped set of all time. Some cards are nice looking (Cobb bat off, for example) but many are ugly.
3. Collecting rookie cards was a pursuit thought up by dealers to make money
4. A significant portion of high dollar signed cards are forged
5. At $10 apiece cards were a hobby, at $10,000 apiece they are an asset class.
6. A National at Atlantic City is a horrible idea
7. Cap Anson’s bust should be removed from the HOF.

Have I pissed off enough people yet, I can keep going. ��

+1 on 1, 5 and 7 for me

I'll add every hobby turns into an investment that pushes out the little people that love it for hobby, and the love of the hobby for people that just have huge bank accounts. Greed kills every part of life for common people. If a card holds no value other than $$$ or prestige IMO you're an investor. Stop holding cards from people that want them for personal reasons like a local small town hero or family member or family friend just to have a complete set you care little about the cards themselves. Signed bitter pill.

skelly423 · #11 06-17-2022, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.

(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

Piggybacking on this, I think the 1952 Bowman is Willie Mays� best card. The 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps are too dark, the �53 Topps isn�t a nice image, and 1954 onward have too many cards printed.

Lorewalker · #12 06-17-2022, 04:14 PM

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

HistoricNewspapers · #13 06-17-2022, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

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

I second this, which leads into mine,

Mine is that I prefer black and white cards, such as 1921/22 Caramel cards that contain actual photos of the player as opposed to the artwork type cards such as T206 and 1933 Goudey where the resemblance to the player is often sketchy.

G1911 · #14 06-17-2022, 06:11 PM

I tend to like color artwork over photographs but:

All of the cards featuring bright red lipstick on players are ugly and overpriced. Nap Lajoie did not look like his E96. He was a baseball player, not a drag queen.

glynparson · #15 06-24-2022, 08:29 AM

Quote:

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 · #16 06-24-2022, 09:25 AM

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 · #17 06-24-2022, 09:43 AM

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 · #18 06-24-2022, 09:47 AM

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 . . .

darwinbulldog · #19 06-18-2022, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

1952 Bowman is a better set than 1952 Topps for these reasons:

1. Better artwork
2. Prices aren't inflated which makes it more collectible
3. Smaller set which makes it more collectible
4. Mays is a scarce high number but still more affordable than it's Topps counterpart, despite it's better image and lower population.
5. The Stan Musial card is one of the best looking baseball cards EVER (and Topps is lacking Musial)
6. The image on the 1952 Mantle makes me think of the Mona Lisa...while the double printed Topps Mantle is sort of ugly.

OK, I'll admit the omission of Jackie Robinson in Bowman is a pretty big downside...but overall Bowman is still better.

(OK, feel free to kick me off the boards for these opinions)

I'll have my own contrarian opinions to add in due time, but in the meantime I agree with all of this.

Yoda · #20 06-18-2022, 05:21 PM

The only true way to determine a card's value at any one point in time is via auction.

skelly423 · #21 06-18-2022, 05:45 PM

1950 Bowman is the best set of the decade, and it�s not especially close

oldjudge · #22 06-18-2022, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoda

The only true way to determine a card's value at any one point in time is via auction.

This is the biggest fallacy in the hobby. The value of an item is what a seller and a buyer can agree to. An auction values an item based on what the second highest bidder is willing to pay. There probably isn't much difference for generic items. For rare items with a limited collector base there is a huge difference.

edhans · #23 06-19-2022, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

This is the biggest fallacy in the hobby. The value of an item is what a seller and a buyer can agree to. An auction values an item based on what the second highest bidder is willing to pay. There probably isn't much difference for generic items. For rare items with a limited collector base there is a huge difference.

+1. I've been trying to explain that to people for decades.

Tere1071 · #24 06-19-2022, 11:04 AM

I think that people are too generous when grading the cards they advertise. My cards would range from very-good to excellent to near mint, but mostly in ex-mint. I'm not strict on centering, just as long they're not miscut. Cards that I receive at times are either damaged or worn. Grading is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but cards with four rounded corners or creasing aren't in ex-mint to near-mint condition.

Phil aka Tere1071

1953 Bowman Color set

Topps Baseball complete sets
1971, 1972, 1974, and 1975

Working on completing 1970
and 1973 Topps Baseball sets

Yoda · #25 06-19-2022, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

This is the biggest fallacy in the hobby. The value of an item is what a seller and a buyer can agree to. An auction values an item based on what the second highest bidder is willing to pay. There probably isn't much difference for generic items. For rare items with a limited collector base there is a huge difference.

Thank you, Jay. You nailed it. But I fear my contrarian view is the one held by many who play in auctions for high ticket cards.

Leon · #26 06-17-2022, 03:56 PM

I don't keep up with any major league (professional) sports.

and I think the E90-1 Jackson isn't good looking....
.

thatkidfromjerrymaguire · #27 06-17-2022, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't keep up with any major league (professional) sports.

.

Well, since we all collect cards of players who haven't played in YEARS, I don't see how current pro sports are even relevant

jingram058 · #28 06-17-2022, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Well, since we all collect cards of players who haven't played in YEARS, I don't see how current pro sports are even relevant

+1 agree with every word.

Snapolit1 · #29 06-17-2022, 04:05 PM

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

here2havefun · #30 06-19-2022, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

T cards are boring.

Quote:

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!

jsfriedm · #31 06-17-2022, 03:57 PM

Action shots/poses are better than portraits.

It's stranger to love simple pieces of cardboard from before your parents were born than shiny, high-tech cards of contemporary players.

jamest206 · #32 06-17-2022, 03:59 PM

I try to collect other cards, comics, memorabilia, but always find myself going back to T206.

jingram058 · #33 06-17-2022, 04:03 PM

I think t205 and 1953 Bowman color are the best looking baseball cards ever.

I think 1953 Topps and 1955 Bowman are the worst looking ever. In fact, I think1953 Topps is just effing hideous.

joshleon · #34 06-17-2022, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jingram058

I think t205 and 1953 Bowman color are the best looking baseball cards ever.

I think 1953 Topps and 1955 Bowman are the worst looking ever. In fact, I think1953 Topps is just effing hideous.

I think t205s are the 1953 Topps of tobacco cards.

Agree on both counts re: Bowman

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wantlists - to share or not to share (and why?)	Angyale	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	27	09-13-2021 05:44 AM
Share a great hobby story	Aquarian Sports Cards	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	29	06-07-2020 10:58 PM
2019 Net 54 Card Set Post #4 - Card front layouts! Share your opinions!	Golfcollector	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	13	01-07-2019 11:19 AM
Hobby history: Card dealers of the 1960s: James T. Elder (+ hobby drama, 1968-69)	trdcrdkid	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	03-08-2017 06:23 PM
OT, but a great share! State of the hobby	7nohitter	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	23	03-12-2014 07:57 PM