Another T205 vs T206

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

just looking at a grouping of cards, Post #21 and Post #24 how can there even be an argument that the T205s are way more artistic??

You think the cards in post 21 ARE artistic? They don't even look like the players...just glorified strip cards.

If you have problems with t205 art, you would have to take it up with Frank Chance's mom and dad, not the artist.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You think the cards in post 21 ARE artistic? They don't even look like the players...just glorified strip cards.

If you have problems with t205 art, you would have to take it up with Frank Chance's mom and dad, not the artist.

yea thats what im saying 205's are way better that the 206's.

[Tcards-Please]

Eric,

And I'm sure you know that Marty had a brother who also played ball

r/
Frank

[Ease]

Originally Posted by T's please

Eric,

And I'm sure you know that Marty had a brother who also played ball

r/
Frank

Never heard of the guy

[frankbmd]

T205s remind me of the designated hitter rule. Personally I prefer the National League in both cases. No funky diamond around the portrait and no DH. As a result of the two formats the National Leaguers all have bigger heads, ergo they must be smarter. If the whole set had the NL format, I would in all likelyhood prefer it to their T206 counterparts. I like big heads.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You think the cards in post 21 ARE artistic? They don't even look like the players...just glorified strip cards.

But they all look much different from each other. When someone uses the phrase "generic" they usually mean they all look the same. These cards don't support that notion. Whether they look like the players or not is hardly relevant when you can't compare them to action shots in T205 because there are only a handful there.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

If you have problems with t205 art, you would have to take it up with Frank Chance's mom and dad, not the artist.

Evidently you credit the T205 artists with choosing that horrible mugshot instead of this classic pose:



That's just further evidence that the T205 artists had little or no skill in presentation. Maybe they were just trying to use as many ugly shots as possible in an effort to turn the public off of baseball.....

[T206Collector]

See the problem is even people who hate T206 have to tip their caps to an awful lot of the images -- frankly, most people who hate T206 don't like the fact that they are generally easy to obtain; and also get a ton of publicity.

But the reason I hate T205 is because I really do find it hard to look at. Like staring at the floor of a 1970s casino. Floating pink heads with no necks, many of the players looking sad, in pain, or slightly deformed. Are there exceptions? Sure. And I've conceded that in my posts above. But as a whole, taking a stack of T205s at a time, the images are just wholly unappealing. No reason to preserve so many of those images for all hobby history.

Maybe the reason so many people focus on the gold borders is because the images contained within the borders are so often unpleasant.

[ullmandds]

Hmmm...interesting debate...to me...they are 2 very very different sets. The t206 has many many qualities that make it appealing to many...there are so many ways to collect it...not so with t205.

T206 backs are very appealing in their bold statements...whereas t205 backs have never had any real appeal to me...and the brands are secondary to the bios/stats...which I DO like!!!!

I can't really compare the images...they're like apples to oranges...the t206's can be cartoony...fuzzy...somewhat non-descript at times...whereas the t205's are a window into many players souls! Some poses are dogs...in both sets...so to me this is a non-issue!

So to me...T206 is infinitely more collectible...but T205 images are 2nd to none in their close...detail...look at the eyes...in many cases they look 3D...and it's not due to registration issues!!!!

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

...but T205 images are 2nd to none in their close...detail...look at the eyes...in many cases they look 3D...and it's not due to registration issues!!!!

That is exactly the attraction for me, but to each their own.

[Leon]

There are a lot of great T206 poses. I like both T205 and T206. Personally, I think the T205s are better looking cards but I know many others like t206s better. Kind of like chocolate and vanilla. There isn't really a winner and loser. They are both winners!! How can you not think this is a good looking card? (shown many, many times but is a pretty card, imo.....)

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Leon

There are a lot of great T206 poses. I like both T205 and T206. Personally, I think the T205s are better looking cards but I know many others like t206s better. Kind of like chocolate and vanilla. There isn't really a winner and loser. They are both winners!! How can you not think this is a good looking card? (shown many, many times but is a pretty card, imo.....)

Cobb has no neck, and looks like he has a bloated head. He looks plain weird in that image. Sorry, may be a good looking card, but the weird image of the player distracts me from the other benefits.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

But they all look much different from each other. When someone uses the phrase "generic" they usually mean they all look the same. These cards don't support that notion. Whether they look like the players or not is hardly relevant when you can't compare them to action shots in T205 because there are only a handful there.



Evidently you credit the T205 artists with choosing that horrible mugshot instead of this classic pose:



That's just further evidence that the T205 artists had little or no skill in presentation. Maybe they were just trying to use as many ugly shots as possible in an effort to turn the public off of baseball.....

The 206s would have been a far better set had they just stuck with portraits. Many of those are solid, but the majority of the action shots are crap. They don't look anything like the player. They remind me of W514s...not that there is anything wrong with collecting strip cards. Every 205 strongly resembles the player.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You think the cards in post 21 ARE artistic? They don't even look like the players...just glorified strip cards.

If you have problems with t205 art, you would have to take it up with Frank Chance's mom and dad, not the artist.

Originally Posted by T206Collector

But they all look much different from each other. When someone uses the phrase "generic" they usually mean they all look the same. These cards don't support that notion. Whether they look like the players or not is hardly relevant when you can't compare them to action shots in T205 because there are only a handful there.



Evidently you credit the T205 artists with choosing that horrible mugshot instead of this classic pose:



That's just further evidence that the T205 artists had little or no skill in presentation. Maybe they were just trying to use as many ugly shots as possible in an effort to turn the public off of baseball.....

t206collector that photo was already used twice in a set distributed by ATC why would they use it again?