What are your 10 favorite vintage cards of all-time?

[rkrolewicz]

1970 Topps #252 Lowell Palmer (aka Elwood Blues)

[BosseFieldBoy]

Wow, tough one. If we're counting 1941 as post-war, here's my list:

1. 1941 Play Ball DiMaggio
2. 1975 Topps Pete Rose (check out his mutton chops!)
3. 1956 Topps Mantle
4. 1968 Topps Nolan Ryan
5. 1951 Bowman Mantle
6. 1961 Topps Maris
7. 1955 Topps Clemente
8. 1954 Topps Aaron
9. 1963 Topps Pete Rose (floating heads at their best)
10. 1941 Play Ball Ted Williams

[AMBST95]

This is so difficult.

1941 Playball Joe DiMaggio
1949 Leaf Jackie Robinson
1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle
1952 Topps Mickey Mantle
1953 Bowman Color Pee Wee Reese
1956 Topps Roberto Clemente
1957 Topps Ted Kluszewski
1957 Topps Brooks Robinson
1964 Topps Bill Mazeroski
1973 Topps Johnny Bench

[ValKehl]

I'm not posting a list of my 10 favorites because for the last 20-25 years my collecting focus has been mostly on prewar cards. But, I am a bit surprised that no one yet (unless I missed it) has included a 1959 Bazooka card on their list. IMHO, the 1959 Bazooka set is by far the best looking postwar set produced - yeah, even better than the 1953 Bowman & 1952 Topps sets - and, yes, the 1959 Bazooka Mantle is much nicer looking than the 1953 Bowman & 1952 Topps Mantles! I have some of these Bazookas (not a Mantle, regretfully), but I don't have any scans available to post right now. So, I am posting this scan of one of the absolute best looking postwar cards that is not a 1959 Bazooka:

[brian1961]

[QUOTE=ValKehl;1303716]I'm not posting a list of my 10 favorites because for the last 20-25 years my collecting focus has been mostly on prewar cards. But, I am a bit surprised that no one yet (unless I missed it) has included a 1959 Bazooka card on their list. IMHO, the 1959 Bazooka set is by far the best looking postwar set produced - yeah, even better than the 1953 Bowman & 1952 Topps sets - and, yes, the 1959 Bazooka Mantle is much nicer looking than the 1953 Bowman & 1952 Topps Mantles! I have some of these Bazookas (not a Mantle, regretfully), but I don't have any scans available to post

Val, I share your being perplexed that nary a member besides yourself has mentioned a 1959 Bazooka---baseball or football. You know they're fantastic; I know they're fantastic. I might not put the Mantle quite as high as you, but it is certainly grossly underrated. When I attended my first major convention in 1972, I had the privilege of seeing the 1959 Bazooka Mickey Mantle for the first time. I was so amazed at how beautiful it was! Couldn't take my eyes off of it. Stuck around the gentleman's shared table for a while just to gaze at it and burn it into my memory, basking in the enjoyment of seeing this card.

What happened next is recounted in chapter 18 of my hopefully forthcoming book, NEVER CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN. Forty-two years ago, and I still remember the occasion well. So did the gentleman who owned it, Lionel Carter, who wrote of our experience with his card.

Val, the absence of the Bazookas from a list of favorites may be attributed to other reasons, common and shared by some of us. If you're actively pursuing some cards that are notoriously tough to locate and are "a beauty extraordinaire", you find yourself speaking little to your fellow collectors for fear of unwittingly enticing further competition. Doing so potentially scotches your chances all the more of hunting down your prized game/trophy card.

Without trying to come off as a smart alec, it also takes a certain combination of intelligence and good taste to recognize where to place such cards on the echelon of hobby importance, and of course value. Many of our fellow collectors peacefully enjoy the merits of the mainstream. That's great for them and I love those cards as well. But you and I both have come to know some of the more harder to get, attractive, and condition rarities reside at the bottom of the Loch Ness, so to speak. So many of them are a monsters to find!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a swell day. --Brian Powell

P.S. Your Hires Test Willie Mays is a beaut! What a wonderful smile on Say Hey. Sometimes he was not wearing it when his card photo was snapped (61 Topps, 59 Bazooka, 54 Stahl-Meyer, 52 Topps)

[bobsbbcards]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Many of our fellow collectors peacefully enjoy the merits of the mainstream.

Not sure how Larry or Al's test issues qualify as the mainstream, and I chose my picks because I like them (more than the Bazookas, although if we were talking football cards, I would have picked the '59 Bazooka Gifford).

[bobsbbcards]

[bobsbbcards]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Without trying to come off as a smart alec, it also takes a certain combination of intelligence and good taste to recognize where to place such cards on the echelon of hobby importance, and of course value. Many of our fellow collectors peacefully enjoy the merits of the mainstream. That's great for them and I love those cards as well. But you and I both have come to know some of the more harder to get, attractive, and condition rarities reside at the bottom of the Loch Ness, so to speak. So many of them are a monsters to find!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not trying to belabor the point (okay, maybe a little), but the above paragraph just struck me the wrong way. The implication, intended or not, is that those who don't recognize where to place such cards in the echelon of hobby importance lack a certain combination of intelligence and good taste. I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound condescending, but it did. I'll add a smiley face here to show that I'm happy and that I like you. Here it comes.

[brian1961]

Hi Bob. Thanks for the smiley face. After what I'm about to say, you probably won't like me anymore, but I must confess you took that paragraph pretty much as I meant it. I was not trying to express that collectors "who don't collect as I do" have little intelligence or good taste. I mean, collecting mainstream vintage Topps are great cards, period. Done in good taste, absolutely. I mean that in all sincerity, no buts about it. In today's graded card world, the mainstream will suck up every cent a collector has to spend. I suppose it's just that some of us want more of a challenge that we also find visually appealing.

Let's use your gorgeous '59 Bazooka baseball set that you so thoughtfully displayed for us. These kind of cards require a fair amount of cognitive deduction to reason out all the qualities that represent these sets. Understanding and appreciating "the complete package" has led me and more than a few others to regard them among the postwar gems of the hobby, set apart from the norm.

When I said that most collectors focus on the mainstream, I was not at all likening that to wallowing in the mud. Mainstream cards are the foundation of our hobby, where myself, probably yourself, and most other collectors as kids have many cherished memories of collecting them. Where would we be without gum cards?

So what am I dealing with, then?

Repeat, it's NOT that most collectors lack the intelligence to understand and appreciate the various facets of these post-war gems. What I am saying is that most collectors are pretty much oblivious to those sorts of aspects. It's not something that occurs to them to ponder over. They simply just collect the items, admire the players' pictures, check the various price guides to see what their holdings are worth, and leave it at that. They don't seem to care (indifferent? apathetic?) about learning more about these cards, coins, etc. As such, these collectors are content to have scratched the surface. To them, if you've got the cards that's the main thing, and they're right. Perhaps I'm very mistaken; maybe most collectors would really get into knowing all the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW. Just getting on the computer will not tell them everything they want to know. That has frustrated a lot of researchers, as they expect instant gratification from going to web sites they think should tell them all this information. They'll get some, of course; I certainly did in researching parts of my book.

OK. Let's go back to your beautiful 1959 Bazookas. The hobby has recognized the importance of the '59 Bazookas since the year they were issued, I dare say. My point--when Beckett first listed the Bazookas in his price guides; not sure if it was in the inaugural guide of '79, but definitely by '81, the value of a common in VG-EX was $35. Whereas, the value of a '59 Topps common in VG-EX ranged, depending upon the series, from 20, 24, and 85 cents.

Not to incur your wrath, which may already have erupted, but WHY the stark difference in the two?

Where I work, we are attempting to reach a certain quality status I believe is called ISO 9000. When a mistake is made at work, the supervisor has to fill out the dreaded "5 Whys?" sheet. The purpose of the five whys is to get to the bottom of the problem and figure out how to rectify the issue so it won't happen again.

Well, it is an interesting cognitive exercise to apply the 5 whys to a given sport trading card set. Believe you me, when you start getting to the third, fourth, and fifth why, it gets really fascinating. So fascinating that many of those answers are what I brought to my book's subjects on postwar regional / food issues.

Most collectors are content with the merits of the mainstream, and there is enough of a challenge inherent in many of them, particularly if they have a scarce seventh series, or in the case of the '63 and '69 Topps, a series in mid-year that seems to have been virtually short-printed.

But Bob, some of us found the allure and attraction of cards that were much more challenging, and beautiful as well. I was that way even as a little kid. I played with my Tonka toys, then had a few dime store Tootsie Toys. But at age 4, while shopping with my mother at Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. I saw a display of the gorgeous Dinky Toys imported from Great Britain. Instantly I was hooked. The eye-appealing, not as easily attained, has always marked my life. I had my dime store toy soldiers---but then I got a MARX Battle of Gettysburg play set, along with two large groups of Marx Warriors of the World. They both put dime store soldiers to shame. And no, this wasn't last week; it was Christmas of '62. I remember it very well. In a year or two, I was privileged to get some of the higher quality Britains Toy soldiers and field guns.

I could go on and on. I'm sure you think I've gone much much too far.

In short, I collected the Topps and other mainstream cards of various sports as a kid and teen and loved them dearly, but the tricky, difficult to collect, and gorgeous stuff (several key hobby people labeled them "esoteric" in the 80s; after looking the word up and thinking about it, it seemed a most apropos label) was the bull's eye I was aiming for when I entered the adult hobby in 1972, ALONG with some badly wanted mainstream cards. I was glad, and very glad, most collectors wanted just the gum cards; LESS COMPETITION FOR ME!!!!

If you still hate me now and want to remove your smiling face, you go right ahead. ---Brian Powell

A mix to hard to pick

[pokerplyr80]

My top ten are:

52 Topps Mantle
68 Topps Ryan
53 Bowman Reese
51 Bowman Mantle
58 Topps Aaron/Mantle
41 Play Ball Dimaggio
48 Leaf Robinson
70 Topps Ryan
55 Topps Clemente
53 Topps Mantle

If the period included the 80s the 89 Upper Deck Griffey would be #3 on this list. RCs have always been my favorites, which is why there are so many on this list. And I think the 53 Bowman Reese is the coolest looking vintage card ever made.

[ALR-bishop]

Ron-- who is the player on deck in the Ted Williams card ?