Bad Card in a Great Set

[TAVG]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

what the hell?

[brian1961]

Just a few that come to mind:

1961 Topps Harmon Killebrew

1961 Willie Mays--- So grossly disappointing. They shouldda used his 7th Series All-Star photo for his regular Topps card. What a radiant smile. Willie could look so energetically happy, such as his '58, '62 & '66 Topps.

1962 Topps Mickey Mantle-- He does look kinda hung over.

1963 Topps Mickey Mantle-- I don't even like to look at this one.

Most of the duo, triple, and quad player rookie cards. I genuinely feel bad for guys that really enjoy collecting rookie cards. You're better off sticking with the guy's first solitary card. For example, I'd take the Topps 1964 Pete Rose over his lower left corner rookie card any time, except if I was selling it. Same with the '69 Nolan Ryan.

1965 Topps Don Drysdale---Granted, a great smile, but Topps did too many head shots of Big D through the years. My two favorite are 60 & 61, notwithstanding.

1952 Topps Bobby Thomson---Again, granted, a great smile!. I'd have loved to have seen a colorized shot of him hoisted by his teammates after his pennant-winning home run in the '51 playoff. Such an important, unforgettable baseball moment in time.

1970 Topps Henry Aaron---That look on his mug was awful, just awful. For that matter, the look on his face for his '69 was disgraceful. Or his 61 Topps All-Star. I love his '60, and his '59 Bazooka.

1966 Topps Sandy Koufax is OK at the most. After that career year of 1965, the card of the following year celebrating his many great achievements should have been so much better, such as a compelling posed action shot, or if you could get him to flash his endearing smile, say from the waist-up. Then that winds up being his last baseball card. Topps should have done a tribute to Sandy, but he announced his retirement shortly after the 66 season, so that was that.

Well, I've posted my usual nickel-pack's worth. ---Brian Powell

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Most of the duo, triple, and quad player rookie cards. I genuinely feel bad for guys that really enjoy collecting rookie cards. You're better off sticking with the guy's first solitary card. For example, I'd take the Topps 1964 Pete Rose over his lower left corner rookie card any time, except if I was selling it. Same with the '69 Nolan Ryan.

---Brian Powell

This x100. I've never understood the appeal of wanting a card of a player with 2 other no name players on the same card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The 64 Topps Mays looking down is pretty bad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And then there is this

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

This x100. I've never understood the appeal of wanting a card of a player with 2 other no name players on the same card.

To me there's just something special about having a guy's first card. I love my 68 Ryan, but a big part of that is I always dreamed of having one as a kid. I think the 63 rose is a pretty ugly card, but I collect HOF rookies and will probably pick one up eventually.

[7nohitter]

Nobody has explained the 51 Bowman Richards card. What the hell is up with this card? it sticks out like a sore thumb

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

Nobody has explained the 51 Bowman Richards card. What the hell is up with this card? it sticks out like a sore thumb

So did his ears...

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I am not sure the set qualifies as great, but the 1964 Topps Don Hoak card has always amused me. (sorry for no scan)

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

Nobody has explained the 51 Bowman Richards card. What the hell is up with this card? it sticks out like a sore thumb

With the exception of the Richards card, all other cards in the set involve black and white photos that were colorized . The Richards is not a colorized photo but rather a charactature drawing. Not sure there is a definitive answer as to why unless maybe they did not have an available B&W photo that lent itself well to the colorization process.

[jason.1969]

With the exception of the Richards card, all other cards in the set involve black and white photos that were colorized . The Richards is not a colorized photo but rather a charactature drawing. Not sure there is a definitive answer as to why unless maybe they did not have an available B&W photo that lent itself well to the colorization process.

Per the PSAcard website, "Only one card in the entire set used original artwork, and that card (#195) depicts first-year White Sox skipper Paul Richards as a caricature, most likely because he got the job after set production started."

[7nohitter]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

With the exception of the Richards card, all other cards in the set involve black and white photos that were colorized . The Richards is not a colorized photo but rather a charactature drawing. Not sure there is a definitive answer as to why unless maybe they did not have an available B&W photo that lent itself well to the colorization process.

Thank you, Al. i appreciate the info! This card has always bothered me.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

To me there's just something special about having a guy's first card. I love my 68 Ryan, but a big part of that is I always dreamed of having one as a kid. I think the 63 rose is a pretty ugly card, but I collect HOF rookies and will probably pick one up eventually.

When I wrote what I wrote about the sub-par multi-player rookie cards, please don't take it personally. I fully recognize the draw of collecting rookie cards. When the hobby cranked into top gear in the early 80s, the pursuit of rookie cards of famous players really took off.

I just wish for you and the others that you could get a better looking card with just that player alone for his first card. But, you know, when that's what there is, and you accept the fact, you go for it and when you get one you love, it's a real joy. That's cool.

Regards, Brian Powell