Most Important Card?

gosteelers · May 31, 2005 9:45PM

I think I'm correct in my assessment of the following 'most important' cards, except for football:

Baseball-'52 Topps Mantle
Hockey-'79-'80 OPC Gretzky
Basketball-'86-'87 Fleer Jordan
Football-??????

Can anyone think of the 'all-time' football card?

Mark

baseballfanatic · May 31, 2005 9:47PM

National Chicle Bronko Nagurski

gosteelers · May 31, 2005 9:51PM

Now that I'm thinking about it more, would you put the T206 Wagner or '52 Mantle on top?

Mark

baseballfanatic · May 31, 2005 10:05PM

Its all a matter of opinion. I'd pick the 48 Bowman Mikan over the Fleer Jordan and maybe the 51 Parkhurst Howe over the Gretzky

Knuckles · May 31, 2005 10:25PM

I would put the 1911-12 C55 Georges Vezina RC on the top for hockey.. the 1966-67 Bobby Orr RC and 1951-52 Gordie Howe RC come before Gretzky as well in my opinion..

Stingray · May 31, 2005 10:48PM

How about the 1965 Namath?

Stingray

RipublicaninMass · May 31, 2005 10:56PM

Maybe you should do it is catagories. Wagner yes important, ever affordable no.
Pre-war wagner
50's 52 MAntle
60's Ryan rc (ok I am a little bias)
70's Brett RC, or maybe murray???
80's Henderson RC? or fleer update clemens?
90's Arod rc hahahhaha
2000 hahahahahaha
same for basektball or football.

gosteelers · May 31, 2005 11:23PM

I have a question about '75 Topps. How come Robin Yount seems to get less respect than George Brett, even if it's only a little bit? When I was growing up as a Yankees fan I remember Yount hurting the Yankees just as much as Brett, but it seems like Brett's cards are always held in higher regard. They both had stellar careers on small market teams, so I'm not sure why Brett gets more respect?

Mark

Brian48 · May 31, 2005 11:29PM

Brett flirted with a 400 batting average the year he won his MVP. That brought a lot of media and collectors on-board, and made his 75 rookie a key card of that ERA (I'm refering to post 1973). Being the oldest player to every win a batting title also helped to remind collectors of who he was towards the end. Yount sort of slowly crept in over the course and was no where near the media darling.

AkbarClone · May 31, 2005 11:37PM

Most important football card:

1952 Bowman Large #18-Charlie Justice SP!

Oh wait, that's just the most important card on my personal want list--not of all time.

baseballfanatic · May 31, 2005 11:37PM

<< I have a question about '75 Topps. How come Robin Yount seems to get less respect than George Brett, even if it's only a little bit? When I was growing up as a Yankees fan I remember Yount hurting the Yankees just as much as Brett, but it seems like Brett's cards are always held in higher regard. They both had stellar careers on small market teams, so I'm not sure why Brett gets more respect?

Mark >>

His hemorrhoids were larger

dallasactuary · May 31, 2005 11:48PM

<< Brett flirted with a 400 batting average the year he won his MVP. That brought a lot of media and collectors on-board, and made his 75 rookie a key card of that ERA (I'm refering to post 1973). Being the oldest player to every win a batting title also helped to remind collectors of who he was towards the end. Yount sort of slowly crept in over the course and was no where near the media darling. >>

All true, but let's not overlook the simple fact that Brett was a better player than Yount.

phreakydancin · May 31, 2005 11:48PM

<< I would put the 1911-12 C55 Georges Vezina RC on the top for hockey.. the 1966-67 Bobby Orr RC and 1951-52 Gordie Howe RC come before Gretzky as well in my opinion.[/IMG] >>

You're not alone. The Gretzky may be the most significant card of the modern era, but I don't think it rates compared to the above examples. You could probably throw in the Sawchuck and Richard RC's from the '51 Parkie set, as well as any of Howie Morenz' three (!) RC's.

phreakydancin · May 31, 2005 11:51PM

Could someone please explain everyone's fascination with the '52 Topps Mantle? Why is it considered more important/valuable than his '51 Bowman RC?

Stone193 · June 1, 2005 12:28AM

<< Could someone please explain everyone's fascination with the '52 Topps Mantle? Why is it considered more important/valuable than his '51 Bowman RC? >>

PD
I don't have the definitive answer but the 52T set is considered by many to be the "Holy Grail" of the modern card market and the centerpiece of the set is the Mantle. For that reason, even tho the 51B is his true RC, it doesn't get the attention.
Plus, the 52T is a far superior card in esthetics and quality IMO.

mike

Knuckles · June 1, 2005 12:39AM

Off topic..

Baseball cards were done so much better than a lot of the hockey..

1951

1952

I could go on but I won't..

RipublicaninMass · June 1, 2005 12:40AM

<< 

<< I would put the 1911-12 C55 Georges Vezina RC on the top for hockey.. the 1966-67 Bobby Orr RC and 1951-52 Gordie Howe RC come before Gretzky as well in my opinion.[/IMG] >>

You're not alone. The Gretzky may be the most significant card of the modern era, but I don't think it rates compared to the above examples. You could probably throw in the Sawchuck and Richard RC's from the '51 Parkie set, as well as any of Howie Morenz' three (!) RC's. >>

Why not just say the "venezia"(not sure, but I remember something about this card) Is it the most expensive hockey card?^
Also, i think Brett had much more attitude than Yount. The "Pine tar" incident comes vaguely to mind!!!!!!
As far as the 52 topps Mantle, it is more contefieted than the bowman, so therefore better!!! j/k
C'mon guys we must do this by decade!
What would be the keys of the 60's and 70's???

Stingray · June 1, 2005 12:40AM

Don't forget 52 Topps Mantle is #311, first one in the high series, which was supposedly had cases of high #'s dumped in the ocean.

Stingray

gosteelers · June 1, 2005 12:48AM

My second baseball game as a kid was the 'Pine Tar' game! 7-24-83. I will always remember that date...

Mark

RipublicaninMass · June 1, 2005 12:49AM

<< Don't forget 52 Topps Mantle is #311, first one in the high series, which was supposedly had cases of high #'s dumped in the ocean.

Stingray >>

Alas the Mantle was double printed though. The black box around yankees and the missing pixel, and the no black box around yankees with opposite seams on the baseball, something like that. If Topps was Upper deck, dump all the cards in the ocean but the Mantles!

Stingray · June 1, 2005 1:46AM

Hmm, important cards of the 60's and 70's, how about 68 Ryan, 63 Rose and 69 mantle (white letter variation).

70s: 73 schmidt, 75 Brett and Yount, 78 trammell/molitor.

Stingray

Lothar52 · June 1, 2005 2:26AM

<< Don't forget 52 Topps Mantle is #311, first one in the high series, which was supposedly had cases of high #'s dumped in the ocean.

Stingray >>

Where is my diving gear when I need it!!!!!!!!! I wonder if there is a swordfish swimmnig around with a box of 52 topps high numbers stuck on its nose!!!!

loth

yawie99 · June 1, 2005 2:33AM

I guess it depends on how one defines "important," but I'd say that a Gretzky rookie is much more important than any of the hockey cards mentioned in terms of its hobby impact. As much as I'd love to have a C55 Vezina, I don't think it has the broad appeal of a Gretzky rookie or has been as instrumental in raising the profile of hockey cards in general. For better or worse, the '52 Topps Mantle has done that for vintage baseball cards. I don't know that there's a similarly definitive vintage hockey card.

Most Important Card?

Comments