Conundrum Looming

[commishbob]

This has been discussed here a few times and my feelings have always been the same. As a set collector I buy the cards in the set, no matter who they depict. I'm not a Pete Rose fan and I'd rather not own cards of OJ Simpson and a few others, but I have cards of both in multiple sets.

Does it bug me to lay out cash for a card of someone I dislike? Sure. Last week I spent $50 on a '67 Rose and it wasn't nearly as much fun as buying the Clemente for example, but the alternative is an empty slot in the binder and then why collect the set at all?

[Bigdaddy]

There are some really good reprint cards out there. Maybe just spend a little scratch on a reprint and put it in your set.

An alternative would be to buy a lousy/altered/worn/marked up/trimmed copy of the card, and put it in your set. Maybe you could even find a copy of one where some kid drew a moustache on the player, or glasses, or ripped it in half. That way you've got the card that completes the set, but you've not spent nearly as much of your resources on the player. And in comparison to all the other cards, it would be a misfit.

And why do you hate Brooks so bad? He's really a nice guy, and a pretty good ballplayer to boot.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

There are some really good reprint cards out there. Maybe just spend a little scratch on a reprint and put it in your set.

An alternative would be to buy a lousy/altered/worn/marked up/trimmed copy of the card, and put it in your set. Maybe you could even find a copy of one where some kid drew a moustache on the player, or glasses, or ripped it in half. That way you've got the card that completes the set, but you've not spent nearly as much of your resources on the player. And in comparison to all the other cards, it would be a misfit.

And why do you hate Brooks so bad? He's really a nice guy, and a pretty good ballplayer to boot.

I've always been a fan of the old "pencil jabbed through the eyes" especially if it's combined with other odd additions.

[Volod]

I dunno, if I were in your position, and really eager to complete a vintage set, I guess I might just hold my nose and buy the card(s), assuming it was within the budget. All of those players you hated are gone now, anyway - right? Luckily for me, I completed most of my sets back in the early '80's well before Mantle and other Yankees became way overpriced.

[uyu906]

LOL - about the Brooks comment.

I have thought about both of those ideas before.
Right now I have reprints or modern versions of the players cards in a few of my sets. I have thought about buying "Authentic" versions. Less expensive may be what makes it palatable to me.

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

There are some really good reprint cards out there. Maybe just spend a little scratch on a reprint and put it in your set.

An alternative would be to buy a lousy/altered/worn/marked up/trimmed copy of the card, and put it in your set. Maybe you could even find a copy of one where some kid drew a moustache on the player, or glasses, or ripped it in half. That way you've got the card that completes the set, but you've not spent nearly as much of your resources on the player. And in comparison to all the other cards, it would be a misfit.

And why do you hate Brooks so bad? He's really a nice guy, and a pretty good ballplayer to boot.

[uyu906]

Thanks to everyone who shared their opinion! I am glad to know that I am not alone with this problem. I am really starting to think about going the Authentic, or bad condition route. The reprints just seem out of place in my binders. Although, after I get a vintage version, I may then take out any frustrations left by drawing on the reprint!!!

[mrmopar]

As a Dodger collector, my only complaint is either when a huge star made a very brief appearance on the team or in the card of the Rose rookie, it also contains a Ken McMullen RC. it is not that i dislike Rose or any of the major stars, but it raises the price significantly for me. thankfully I got most of the key cards before prices steadily rose. I am missing a 50B Robinson and most of the 52 High numbers and will probably never own them due to the cost. I also do not have the Rose rookie, which is probably the most frustrating hole in my collection.

I can't image a hatred for a player so deep that I would not want to collect a card of them. I mean, I might stay away from the really pricy copies or I might not expand the collection to include certain cards for budgetary reasons, but never because i just didn't like the subject.

[Steve D]

I kind-of feel that way about the LA Dodgers and Oakland Raiders of the 1970s. I grew up in San Diego, and was an absolute die-hard Padres and Chargers fan, as well as a "card-carrying" Dodgers and Raiders Hater! I absolutely could not stand anyone connected with either of those two teams.

Later, in the 1990s-2000s, as I had grown older, I actually collected team sets of all the Dodgers from 1958-1990, and Raiders from 1960-1990, and have completed all of them.....I still have them, along with all my Padres and Chargers team sets. I find that it just reminds me of an earlier time when I cared so much about my favorite teams, that I completely despised their biggest rivals (who normally kicked our butts! ). Now, I miss those days.

Steve

[Case12]

Originally Posted by uyu906

Thanks to everyone who shared their opinion! I am glad to know that I am not alone with this problem. I am really starting to think about going the Authentic, or bad condition route. The reprints just seem out of place in my binders. Although, after I get a vintage version, I may then take out any frustrations left by drawing on the reprint!!!

Bad condition is my vote. Fill the slot. Pay little. Have a sucky card of the sucky player to finish set.

[bb66]

Growing up in the mid-1960's in East Tenn. this guy was the favorite. Even though his career was winding down due to injuries. Everybody on my street loved him.We all tried trading for his cards.Cincinnati was our closest team until the south finally got the Braves in 1966.I had amassed 15-20 1966 Topps #50's at some point and then lost them all to housecleaning later.Even if you liked another team this guy held a special place to most kids I knew.

[jchcollins]

Dave, Bluejacket66 on YouTube and Stone Pony I believe here (Hi Dave, if you read...) is a Mantle collector and I know has said on YouTube there are certain cards he has not bought yet simply because he doesn't like the card and doesn't want to pay up for one ('55 Bowman, and '62 Topps, I believe).

The point being there is no right or wrong way to collect. You can consider your sets complete without him, or with a reprint, or with a beater version of the card.

Interesting discussion on collecting vs. being a fan. I'm a Cubs fan for 30+ years, so naturally I hate the St. Louis Cardinals. But I have found this is mostly only when I watch tv, not when I'm going over my collection. I started collecting cards as a kid before I became a Cubs fan, so in some strange way my hatred of the present day Cardinals does not affect how I feel about Stan Musial or Bob Gibson cards.

Is Mantle overrated / are his cards overpriced? Yes and no. People who don't understand the Mantle mystique by now likely never will. With the cards - in short, he was at the perfect apex of hobby and time. The baby boomers who took the card hobby from a geeky, hotel show underground thing in the 1970's to a mainstream, card shop-on-every-corner thing in the 1980's had one main baseball hero in common, and that was Mickey Mantle. So that is why him and his cards in comparison to others had a boom and a subsequent unique following ever since the early 1980's. Yes, there were better players, but Mantle had a mystique about him and New York and the 1950's that nobody else from that era really hit just right on the head like that.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by commishbob

This has been discussed here a few times ... ... ... why collect the set at all?

Sort of this (granted, taken a bit out of context). My advice is to forget about set collecting entirely: come to the other side and become a player collector.

(much more fun and mostly eliminates your problem, unless your guy is on a LL card with the other guy, but at least in that scenario you have a much stronger justification to tell yourself).

[steve B]

All this just makes me wonder who, and why he's hated enough that people don't want to buy his cards...

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by steve B

All this just makes me wonder who, and why he's hated enough that people don't want to buy his cards...

Well, Rich is obviously an AL (East) guy based on his avatar. Probably in his early/mid 50's based on the statement that he started collecting in 1976. And that this guy's 1950'-1960's cards cost hundreds to thousands of dollar each. He also stated that he hated the team that the player played for.

If I'm an Orioles fan, there's one team at the top of my dislike list. And one player on that team that has expensive cards in the 1950's - 1960's.

You've got three guesses and the first two don't count.

Did I say that I hate it when conundrums loom?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

My meaningless advice to the OP: It's your collection, if you don't like the card/player, don't buy it. Spend your money on cards you want.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

My meaningless advice to the OP: It's your collection, if you don't like the card/player, don't buy it. Spend your money on cards you want.

+1 Brian Powell

[JollyElm]

Although it doesn't fit the time frame or narrative, the OP's scenario makes me immediately think of O.J. Simpson. I (and I'm sure a crapload of other people) will never spend a dime on any of his cards.

[uyu906]

And here I thought I was being circumspect!

Rich

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Well, Rich is obviously an AL (East) guy based on his avatar. Probably in his early/mid 50's based on the statement that he started collecting in 1976. And that this guy's 1950'-1960's cards cost hundreds to thousands of dollar each. He also stated that he hated the team that the player played for.

If I'm an Orioles fan, there's one team at the top of my dislike list. And one player on that team that has expensive cards in the 1950's - 1960's.

You've got three guesses and the first two don't count.

Did I say that I hate it when conundrums loom?

[steve B]

Ok, that makes some sense.

Being a Red sox fan*, I'm not big on some other teams...
And to me some players are perhaps slightly overrated...

But it's hard to actually hate a great player though, even if he did play for the "wrong" team.

Oj is an odd one for me. I totally get why people don't want his card. I already had most of them, having started collecting in late 73. (Mostly)
I try to separate what someone does on-field and off. I do like a player better if they seem to be good off the field too.



* My wife is from just north of DC, and is an Orioles fan Our deal is that I have to be too, unless they're playing the Red Sox. The reverse also applies.
So I actually get to be a fan of two teams (same for football. But not Hockey or Basketball)

[Volod]

This thread seems to have evolved into an open-ended discussion, so my two cents shouldn't offend anyone. The identity of the "mystery" team in question seems apparent. As a Cleveland sports guy, I can easily empathize with any fans of other American League teams that have suffered at the hands (bats, gloves, sign-stealing techniques, etc.) of the most successful team in the league over the past century. My team has appeared in a total of five World Series in that time and lost three of them. Not counting the St. Louis Browns history, the OP's favorite franchise has appeared in six WS and won half of them. The Orioles have lost just twice ('96 and '12) in postseason play to the Pinstripes. We don't need to go into the history of that dasdardly topdog organization, but two of its other long-time punching bags...er, opponents, seem to have a stronger claim to Gotham envy than O's rooters: The White Sox have triumphed in just one of the last 100 WS played. Likewise, the Washington Senators - no relation to the current champ Nats - while winning just one and losing two WS in the first forty years of the last century, managed to win two out of three WS appearances in their reincarnation as the Twins. Minnie supporters have, however, suffered more greatly under the NY yoke than other AL teams in recent competition - losing six times in post-season play since 2003. So, maybe the upshot of all this BB angst is - why do Twinkie fans suffer in silence here?