Underappreciated sets

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

1911 T205's are said to be some of the best looking tobacco era cards yet they get kicked to the curb like a leprous beggar. Damn white trash T206's

Kind of a love/hate set methinks.

[Casey2296]

I'm going with the 1909-11 Obaks.
_

[judsonhamlin]

I’ll vote for Batter Up. Has all the HOF’ers except Gehrig and Ruth, multi-player cards, horizontal cards, a tougher high # series with some probable single prints and multiple color variations for master set wonks. Yet, zero love for the most part.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I’ll vote for Batter Up. Has all the HOF’ers except Gehrig and Ruth, multi-player cards, horizontal cards, a tougher high # series with some probable single prints and multiple color variations for master set wonks. Yet, zero love for the most part.

Many of these sets mentioned have a certain level of appreciation by collectors.
Batter Ups in comparison are definitely a set that is barely recognized at all. They are just plain cool for the reasons Judson mentions, as well as for its set size and scope of players it includes, but no one seems too interested...

Brian

[Al C.risafulli]

Definitely in agreement on 1934 Delong and T205.

Some others I really like:

-T207: just a fascinating set, really hard to find in nice condition, with varying levels of scarcity throughout the set. A little dull-looking and missing some key players, but if we're (rightly) going to count Obaks for their beauty and scarcity, we could count T207s for their scarcity and condition issues.

-T202: These are beautiful, and have a wide range of stars. I honestly think that the reason they're so overlooked is because there's not a sensible way to put them in order. We're collectors. Does this card go under "C" for "Cobb," or "J" for "Jennings," or should I file it by the picture in the middle? How do I list it on eBay? I've owned an auction house for ten years and I STILL don't really know the best way to title these.

-1938 Goudey: this set has a million questions, starting with "Why did you make the same set twice?" and then continuing on through the premiums, the lack of obvious players that should've been in the set, the fact that it's numbered as a continuation of the 1933 Goudey set, and a host of other questions that may never be answered.

-Anything too big to be graded. Supplements, premiums, oversized cards - they're all overlooked because they can't go on a registry, and there are some beautiful pieces there, and some really scarce ones as well.

-Al

[BobC]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Many of these sets mentioned have a certain level of appreciation by collectors.
Batter Ups in comparison are definitely a set that is barely recognized at all. They are just plain cool for the reasons Judson mentions, as well as for its set size and scope of players it includes, but no one seems too interested...

Brian

Great set, and so under-appreciated and unrecognized that in my opinion it has never properly been listed as the two separate sets it really is. The low number series (cards 1-80) were originally issue in 1934. There are multiple ink colors used for all the cards/players issued. My understanding is the high number series (cards 81-192) possibly didn't come out till 1936. Also, though the layout, format, and picture quality/style of the high and low number card series are the same, all the high number cards are a smaller, uniform size than those in the low number series, and the high number cards only come in black and white and do not have any other colored cards, like the greens, blues, reds, and so on, that only appear in the low number series. These should be two separate sets IMHO.

[Al C.risafulli]

Agree on Gypsy Queens.

-Al

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I think I'm the only person in the hobby that likes 1939 Play Ball...

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great set, and so under-appreciated and unrecognized that in my opinion it has never properly been listed as the two separate sets it really is. The low number series (cards 1-80) were originally issue in 1934. There are multiple ink colors used for all the cards/players issued. My understanding is the high number series (cards 81-192) possibly didn't come out till 1936. Also, though the layout, format, and picture quality/style of the high and low number card series are the same, all the high number cards are a smaller, uniform size than those in the low number series, and the high number cards only come in black and white and do not have any other colored cards, like the greens, blues, reds, and so on, that only appear in the low number series. These should be two separate sets IMHO.

That is a good point Bob, I can't come up with another set that has different sized cards lumped together. I have always preferred the look of the 1-80 cards versus the 81-192 cards...that extra 1/4" makes a difference, and in general the photos seen in the higher numbers seem to be grainier.

Brian

[BobC]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

That is a good point Bob, I can't come up with another set that has different sized cards lumped together. I have always preferred the look of the 1-80 cards versus the 81-192 cards...that extra 1/4" makes a difference, and in general the photos seen in the higher numbers seem to be grainier.

Brian

Brian,

Was surprised that Bob Lemke and the SCD catalog never mentioned that in their descriptions. They treated it always as just one set. But besides the obvious size difference and the different colors between the low and high number series, what other set have you ever heard of that supposedly had a short printed high number series where the set itself was issued over a multi-year period? That doesn't make sense to me.

One other big thing that would tend to support all 192 cards being in one set is that there are no players in the low number series that are duplicated in the high number series. Plus, they sequentially numbered the cards from 1 to 192 as if it were all one set. But sequential numbering itself doesn't necessarily guarantee cards are all supposed to be in one single set. For example, the 1938 Goudey "Big Head" cards are numbered 241 to 288. It seems, for whatever reason, that they were possibly intended to be an extension of the 1933 Goudey set then, that included cards 1 to 240? But if that was the intention, why did they jump from a 1933 issue to a 1938 issue to do so, skipping over all the other Goudey issues for the years in between? That is a question that has aways stumped me as to the true reason why Goudey numbered their 1938 cards as they did.

[botport]

+1 on Obaks

Also like the D304 Butter Krust Issue

[BobC]

I agree with all the sets mentioned so far; Delong, Oxford Confectionery, Diamond Stars, and the T205's (though the T205's aren't really unloved as much as they're more like the kid brother to the T206 set and just don't get as much attention as their big brother).

I'm going to nominate a few more sets as well, mostly for their uniqueness and in some cases first ever attempts at a somewhat new type of collectible.

1909-13 M101-2 Sporting News Supplements

1916 BF2 Ferguson Bakery Felt Pennants

1937 O-Pee-Chee Stand-Ups

1910-11 S74-1 White Silks

1911 S74-2 Colored Silks

And for a post-war nominee:

1948 Swell Sports Thrills

And postcards are great collectibles also, but aren't a set, they are more of an entire type or genre of a collectible, and the OP specifically asked about sets. They are getting more and more attention and love though as many card prices have risen so much over the past couple of years, lots of collectors may be turning to PCs as a more affordable alternative.

[brianp-beme]

Underappreciated, and rightfully so...the W9316 set.

Brian

[rdwyer]

T201's.

[joshleon]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

T201's.

I keep saying how much I don't like T201s but...I still have them...and I keep buying them. I can't quit them. (and they're still reasonable).

My one complaint is that I can never judge a raw one's grade very well. A t206 I can grade in my sleep and usually get within .5.

+1 for delong as well

[rdwyer]

Originally Posted by joshleon

I keep saying how much I don't like T201s but...I still have them...and I keep buying them. I can't quit them. (and they're still reasonable).

My one complaint is that I can never judge a raw one's grade very well. A t206 I can grade in my sleep and usually get within .5.

+1 for delong as well

I finished my set about 2 years ago. All PSA graded. #24 Current Finest.

[edhans]

Many excellent suggestions here. I'll add E122. Certainly not the most attractive set, but vastly scarcer than most realize.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Underappreciated, and rightfully so...the W9316 set.

Brian

I love this set. They remind me of Picasso

[GasHouseGang]

Two sets that are right on the cusp of really popular sets, would be T205 and 1934 Goudey. Neither is quite as popular as their all-time favorite cousins. And because every thread needs a picture of a card here are some examples.

[riggs336]

They're not flashy, but I really like the close-up portraits in Maple Crispettes.

[oldjudge]

To me, hands down, it is the 1887 small Gypsy Queen set. There are probably 150 Old Judges for every Gypsy Queen, yet they don’t receive anywhere near the love they deserve.