Underappreciated sets

[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...

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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

1939 Play Ball has some great portrait images.

[Rhotchkiss]

I think D304s are underrated - a very cool set with back variations and many HOFers, but hands down some of the very worst artwork around

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

1939 Play Ball has some great portrait images.

Absolutely, and, in essence, it's the first Bowman set. People don't seem to acknowledge that those and the Swells are the same company.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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

Although not a favorite set, I like it, and I prefer the clean black and white photos and simple design of the 1939 cards over its ornate bordered, sepia tinted 1940 Play Ball brother. However I always thought that it was missing player identification on the front. In my opinion a little box with the player's name, similar to what is seen in the 1951 Bowman, would have been a great addition.

Brian

[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.

[Al C.risafulli]

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.

Bob, this is one of the things that fascinates me about the set.

What's more, if you look at the BACKS of the cards, the low number series declare the cards as being one of a series of 288 cards. And the high number series declare each card being one of a series of 312!

This means that at first, Goudey planned a 48-card set, and then at some point decided to do 72 cards. Yet they only did 24, really, unless you subscribe to the belief that repeating the same 24 cards a second time (with cartoons added) was their plan all along, which I don't. There are WAY too many important players excluded from the set. For instance - why would they have not produced a card of Lou Gehrig or Chuck Klein, both of whom endorsed Goudey gum in 1934? There are lots of examples like that.

I could go on about this set and all its unanswered questions all day.

-Al

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

Bob, this is one of the things that fascinates me about the set.

What's more, if you look at the BACKS of the cards, the low number series declare the cards as being one of a series of 288 cards. And the high number series declare each card being one of a series of 312!

This means that at first, Goudey planned a 48-card set, and then at some point decided to do 72 cards. Yet they only did 24, really, unless you subscribe to the belief that repeating the same 24 cards a second time (with cartoons added) was their plan all along, which I don't. There are WAY too many important players excluded from the set. For instance - why would they have not produced a card of Lou Gehrig or Chuck Klein, both of whom endorsed Goudey gum in 1934? There are lots of examples like that.

I could go on about this set and all its unanswered questions all day.

-Al

Al,

And the fact that only the '33 Goudey set fits that 288 card set description is a real head scratcher. LOL

That is one of the great things about collecting such old sets. Trying to figure out what was going on behind the scenes. Great sets though.