What popular cards have you never wanted to add to your collection?

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Seven

While it's grown on me somewhat, and I eventually will to complete his "card from every year he played" set, I really don't like the 55 Bowman Mantle.

33 Goudey Gehrig does nothing for me either. I much rather either of his cards from the 34 set.

Completely agree with you... the 33’s are so bland and the 34’s are beautiful, particular the yellow portrait one. I also dislike the Ruth dugout pose in the 33 set, indifferent to the red and yellow background cards, but do love the look of the double printed issue. Oddly enough I think the most aesthetically pleasing cards of the 33 set are common players (e.g. Demaree and Cuccinello) although I think the same somewhat for T206’s (My favorite cards are the Cambitz arm crossed, Jap Barbeau, and by far the Solly Hofman)... I supposed it comes down to personal preference though.

[gonzo]

1938 Goudey Heads Up DiMaggio and 1933 DeLong Gehrig.
I just never liked the designs of those sets.

[robw1959]

I've never cared for any black & white cards. And believe it or not, I've never cared for the 1915 Cracker Jack issue. I like the 1914 issue, just not the 1915 issue because the "cards" are way too thin - more like magazine cutouts than cards, if you ask me.

[clydepepper]

'52 Mantle because I missed it before it shot up...

...and any Joe DiMaggio - not a fan

...and the Joe Jackson cards previously mentioned.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by robw1959

I've never cared for any black & white cards. And believe it or not, I've never cared for the 1915 Cracker Jack issue. I like the 1914 issue, just not the 1915 issue because the "cards" are way too thin - more like magazine cutouts than cards, if you ask me.

i always thought the 14's were thinner?

[robw1959]

I'll take your word for it; I've only owned two in my whole life.

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i always thought the 14's were thinner?

[pokerplyr80]

38 DiMaggio and 63 Rose are two examples of popular cards that would fit my collection, but I have never been able to pull the trigger on either.

To anyone who mentioned the 52 Mantle I would just say you won't be disappointed if you decide to pick one up. Of any card I've purchased I was most excited for my first 52 Mantle. I don't know how else to describe it, but there is just something special about that card.

[PowderedH2O]

I don't care about rookie cards. At all. When I look at my collection and I see Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Collins, Young, Johnson, Mathewson, etc. I don't care that they aren't rookie cards. I think "Man, I have a card of this amazing player from his playing days!" I have no desire to pay amazing prices for a rookie card, when I can get a card from the following year or soon thereafter for a fraction of the cost.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

38 DiMaggio and 63 Rose are two examples of popular cards that would fit my collection, but I have never been able to pull the trigger on either.

To anyone who mentioned the 52 Mantle I would just say you won't be disappointed if you decide to pick one up. Of any card I've purchased I was most excited for my first 52 Mantle. I don't know how else to describe it, but there is just something special about that card.

I love the 1938 DiMaggio, but the 1952 Topps Mantle became my least favorite card in my collection when I bought it. I have never understood the fascination with it. It is his 2nd year card, it is a double print and it is ugly. I much prefer his rookie card, it is just as scarce and is a much better looking card. That is what makes the hobby interesting. We all have different tastes. Some of my favorite cards are on others lists of cards they don’t want.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

38 DiMaggio and 63 Rose are two examples of popular cards that would fit my collection, but I have never been able to pull the trigger on either.

To anyone who mentioned the 52 Mantle I would just say you won't be disappointed if you decide to pick one up. Of any card I've purchased I was most excited for my first 52 Mantle. I don't know how else to describe it, but there is just something special about that card.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Mantle having a certain mystique that other cards - especially modern - completely lack (1950s and up).

It's surprising many on here are stating it's a card they don't care to own when it's value dictates that it's the hands-down most desirable of all post war cards, and arguably one of if not THE most venerated card in existence (Wagner aside). It's the type of item that transcends baseball card collecting and registers as a cultural icon befitting the greatest specimens of Americana.

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

38 DiMaggio and 63 Rose are two examples of popular cards that would fit my collection, but I have never been able to pull the trigger on either.

To anyone who mentioned the 52 Mantle I would just say you won't be disappointed if you decide to pick one up. Of any card I've purchased I was most excited for my first 52 Mantle. I don't know how else to describe it, but there is just something special about that card.

Felt the same way about my 52T mantle, however Id also add that if you can find one centered which is next to impossible, that makes the card that much more special. To hold that card in your hand and look at it, especially a centered copy is truly an incredible feeling. Also, I think the TYPE 1 52T Mantle looks better than the TYPE 2. Type one has more defined color and registration and I prefer the full surround of the yankees logo.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i always thought the 14's were thinner?

'14's are thinner, 15's are on thicker stock, usually less stained as you could order a complete set that didn't come in box, the bio is flipped and in the sub text there are 176 subjects instead of 144.

Cracker Jack Collecting Cliff Notes.

[yanks87]

Mariano Rivera rookie card. I am a life long yankee fan, can't stand the card. I'm good with everything else.

to all the leaf haters, I hold those in high regard, flaws and all. Though the Jackie shot is not a great one, (though splitting hairs with the '49 Bowman), when you really dig into the set, as the first full color post war set, the prints and images are pretty great. Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio are ICONIC cards, and the technique and color blocking I would (falsely) claim paved the way for the works of Andy Warhol a decade later. So much more aesthetically pleasing than just a photo, 1953 Bowman I'm looking at you. My two cents, not worth a penny.