Second year cards that look more appealing then the Rookie

[jasonc]

I find the appearance of a multi-player rookie card vs their second year card would fit this category.

1969 Topps Nolan Ryan > 1968 Topps

One that people do not mention is the Steve Carlton. I like the pitching pose of the 1966 card vs the multi-player rookie card of him. Plus there are many others:

Like what was mentioned the Rose, Munson, Schmidt etc.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jasonc

I find the appearance of a multi-player rookie card vs their second year card would fit this category.

1969 Topps Nolan Ryan > 1968 Topps

One that people do not mention is the Steve Carlton. I like the pitching pose of the 1966 card vs the multi-player rookie card of him. Plus there are many others:

Like what was mentioned the Rose, Munson, Schmidt etc.

There is no 1966 Carlton.

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is no 1966 Carlton.

Wow, you're right it's the 1967 topps, I guess that doesn't count, but it is his 2nd topps card :/

[JollyElm]

It's usually overlooked or not known about, but Rose's 1964 card uses the very same (differently cropped) photo as his rookie card…

rose.jpg

[jb67]

Interesting bit of info. I never realized it. Thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's usually overlooked or not known about, but Rose's 1964 card uses the very same (differently cropped) photo as his rookie card…

Attachment 218002

[jb67]

No doubt that Bench came to mind right away for me along with Rose. Dan I agree with you regarding Yaz's second year card. I have always liked it better.

[tedzan]

Yaz's first two Topps cards were printed using a photo of him when he was at Notre Dame.


TED Z
.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's usually overlooked or not known about, but Rose's 1964 card uses the very same (differently cropped) photo as his rookie card…

Attachment 218002

Good subject. The first card that came to my mind is the one Darren chose. An exceptional argument winner to the concept of never letting a rookie card get in the way of a powerful, extremely well-designed and rendered second-year or later card. --Brian Powell

[ALR-bishop]

Through the 50s and 60s Topps often used the same photos over and over. There have been some good articles, including some by Olberman, about why that happened in some cases. Money in one way or another was the main reason. Later, Marvin Miller ( plus money again) another

[brian1961]

THE APPALLING REPETIOUSNESS OF TOPPS IS NOTHING SHORT OF BLATANT WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR HOCKEY ISSUES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE HOCKEY PRODUCTION WAS 18 TO 1, COMPARED WITH BASEBALL. I THINK THAT'S A STRETCH FOR THEIR EARLY YEARS; IT PROBABLY REFLECTS PRODUCTION FROM WHEN TOPPS HOCKEY BECAME MAINSTREAM--1968-69-ONWARDS.

MY FAVORITE PLAYER GROWING UP IN THE SUBURBS OF CHICAGO WAS BOBBY HULL, NATURALLY. I DIDN'T DISCOVER HOCKEY CARDS UNTIL ABOUT 1966, THROUGH THE MAIL ORDER FIRM OF THE TRADING CARD COMPANY (FARMINGTON HILLS, MICHIGAN). OUR AREA NEVER GOT ANY WAX PACKS UNTIL THE 1968-69 SERIES, AND I WAS IN A HOTBED OF DISTRIBUTION.

A CARD I ABSOLUTELY ADORE IS THE 1961-62 TOPPS BOBBY HULL. After 3 years of using the same photo, they chose a great shot to go with their dazzling design of that year. I never bothered going after Bobby's first three cards, preferring just to revere his fourth year gem. Though Topps repeated the photo for 63-64, their design was so dissimilar to 61-62 it made for a good card.

Just my nickel-pack's worth, as again I write more than 2 cents.

--Brian Powell

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Through the 50s and 60s Topps often used the same photos over and over. There have been some good articles, including some by Olberman, about why that happened in some cases. Money in one way or another was the main reason. Later, Marvin Miller ( plus money again) another

Poor Wes Westrum...Topps used the same photo of him on EVERY issue.