Beckett Baseball Card Hall of Fame

frankhardy

Even though I don't much care for Beckett, this is a really nice idea. I guess this will be an annual thing. I can't say that I agree much on the 89 UD Griffey on the first ballot, though. Sure it's an important card, but not THAT important.

Beckett Baseball Card Hall of Fame

How about these to replace Griffey:

1941 Play Ball Dimaggio
1948 Leaf Paige
1948 Leaf Musial
1948 Bowman Musial
1949 Bowman Robinson
1951 Bowman Mantle
1951 Bowman Mays
1953 Topps Mays
1954 Topps Aaron

Just a few off the top of my head.

I guess they wanted to include a modern card. When you think of modern cards, I would say that the UD Griffey is the most important.

Stingray

I guess they did want to include one modern, but boy back then Upper Deck had everyone at attention. New company, best photographs, a new standard in cards. The hype was big back then when UD first came out.

Stingray

Downtown1974

How about instead of the Griffey, the 75' Brett? Best RC of the 70s IMO.

frankhardy

I actually thought about that one too. No 70's cards?

How about the 73 Topps Schmidt? That would give the Brett a run for top spot in the 70's.

smallstocks

My vote would be for the '55 Clemente.

Downtown1974

<< <i>I actually thought about that one too. No 70's cards?

How about the 73 Topps Schmidt? That would give the Brett a run for top spot in the 70's. >>

Yes, the Schmidt is also a nice RC for that decade. I just dont care for the card design of that year.

ctsoxfan

That is not a bad list, actually - any list like that is going to be very subjective anyway. I never champion anything with the B****** name on it, but this was a decent job. The 89 Griffey really does belong on there, it has a certain hobby significance because of the way it ushered in a new generation of premium cards, which is still the nature of the game today. The remaining choices are actually not bad. My personal 10 would be different, but so would anyone's.

stevek

Beckett's Baseball Card Hall of Fame

"historical significance and their standing in the hobby."

Based on the above stipulation, it's a very good list.

joestalin

How freaking laim is that Grif card..I guess UD told them they had to include one of their products in the hall of fame so it wouldn't
look like they were playing favorites. I wish beckett was about being non-bias, but they obviously just cater to topps and UD now

puke

JS

gosteelers

<< <i>How freaking laim is that Grif card..I guess UD told them they had to include one of their products in the hall of fame so it wouldn't
look like they were playing favorites. I wish beckett was about being non-bias, but they obviously just cater to topps and UD now

puke

JS >>



Come on now, you have to admit, even though vastly overproduced, this was one of the most important cards from a hobby standpoint. As somebody said, it ushered in a new generation of cards, good or bad...

Mark

kingraider75

The Griffey beyonds on there for now. Maybe if he stays healthy, that card will go up some and people will like him more. It was the first mainstream product of non cardboard or paper or whatever right??

ctsoxfan

JS, I am surprised you would take issue with the Griffey card being on there. It may have been overproduced - he himself may have disappointed a bit as of late due to injury - but that card ushered in the set that really changed this hobby back in 1989. It needs to be there.

yawie99

I totally agree with you, ctsoxfan. The UD Griffey rookie may not seem all that important now due to Junior's penchant for finding himself on the DL, but it really was the card in a groundbreaking set. We might not necessarily like the changes, but that card really did help alter the course of the hobby.

schr1st

How is this any different than PSA's Top 200? Joe, if you happen to read this, perhaps there should be a follow-up Top 300 released next year.

jrdolan

I'm just impressed that Beckett included ANY cards before 1980. Considering their base of readers and advertisers, I would have thought the list would be stacked with 2001 Bowman Chrome Pujols, 1994 SP A-Rod, and other modern selections designed to send their readers running to Beckett Marketplace.

Next year the readers get to choose the entries, so we'll see the chrome and refractor cards then.

This is actually a neat idea. I wish SMR had thought of it first. Well, I suppose it did in a way ... Joe Orlando's book on the Top 200 Cards.

Knuckles

They should do a hockey card hof. I'm afriad if they do #10 will be a 1990 Eric Lindros Score RC.

yawie99

Don't forget Manon Rheaume!

jmbkb4

I agree with several of these cards, but Pete Rose RC? Are you kidding me? Believe me, your kids will be collecting Griffey, McGwire, and Pujols and not T206 cards.

The vintage collectors on here are kind of like "Red State" versions of quazi-sophisticated individuals that would bash people for buying Marquis over the "W" Collection, Nao over Lladro, or a new Lexus over a classic Ford.

Come on. Quit being so pathetically closed-minded.

yawie99

I'm not sure what you're talking about, jmbkb. I really don't see much vintage elitism on this thread. Heck, I'm a vintage collector, but I think Beckett's list focuses too much on "standing in the hobby" and not enough on "sheer historical significance." For example, an '84 Donruss Don Mattingly doesn't hold a candle to a Sporting News Ruth RC, but I would argue that the Mattingly had a significantly more profound impact on the hobby than does the Ruth.

ctsoxfan

<< <i>I'm not sure what you're talking about, jmbkb. >>



Neither am I. There are much worse examples of bias against modern cards than in this thread. Much worse, in fact. As tough as it is to pick only 10 cards for the list, I think the 10 Beckett lists are probably as good as you are going to get - Griffey included. And, who's to say my kids won't collect, or at least appreciate and want to collect, vintage cards? We do today - the people collecting T206's and the like certainly weren't around to see Ruth, Gehrig etc. play...but still want a piece of the game's (and hobby's) history.

jrdolan

I'm sure it's just the opposite on the Beckett boards... "Babe Ruth? Mickey Mantle? Gimme a break! Where's Derek Lee and Felix Hernandez and (insert "hot" RC here)?"

Whatever floats yer boat. But I'm outraged that Berk Ross isn't in the first 10.

Axtell

<< <i>

I agree with several of these cards, but Pete Rose RC? Are you kidding me? Believe me, your kids will be collecting Griffey, McGwire, and Pujols and not T206 cards.

The vintage collectors on here are kind of like "Red State" versions of quazi-sophisticated individuals that would bash people for buying Marquis over the "W" Collection, Nao over Lladro, or a new Lexus over a classic Ford.

Come on. Quit being so pathetically closed-minded. >>



Nice hostile post. Way to get people to listen to your post when you call them 'pathetic'. The list isn't about what kids will be collecting, but impact on the hobby. I think YOU are the who's being closed-minded. Sounds like you would fit right in with the mindless masses on the beckett boards.

It's a very good list, and anyone who doesn't think the Griffey UD belongs on that list, it's easily the most important baseball card of the modern era (notice I didn't say valuable). UD ushered in a new era of baseball cards...high quality card stock, exceptional photo quality, holograms(!), they took every aspect of the card hobby a step higher than any other company had done previously. Add in the most dangerous hitter of the 90s, on card number 1 no less, and you have a card that shook the card hobby to it's score and made every manufacturer change their ways.

The people here are wide open in accepting anyone, no matter if they choose vintage or modern. Just because you cast your lot with modern doesn't mean the vintage guys are bad guys, it just means they like something different. It's funny...from the tone in your post, you make it sound like you bash the vintage guys for appreciating the finer things in life, but it sounds like you are pining for the days when you can afford them.

ctsoxfan

<< <i>But I'm outraged that Berk Ross isn't in the first 10. >>



I want Yogi Berra - not Berk Ross!

Thank you.

DaddyRich

That Berk-Ross Yogi Berra post still makes me smile whenever I think about it, didn't it turn out to be a 12 year-old kid or something like that? My wife was sitting in my office here with me at about 2 in the a.m. when I was reading it and I was laughing so much that she asked me why and I just couldn't explain it well enough for her to laugh. Women.
Rich

ctsoxfan

It was a kid over on the B****** boards who claimed himself "#1 Yogi Berra Collector", or something like that. He was looking for all Yogi Berra cards, and someone chimed in that they had a Berk Ross Yogi card for him. He replied with the now infamous line. Good stuff!

jrdolan

I think he's still looking for the refractor version of Yogi's rookie card.

Poor kid. Tried to get involved in vintage and look what happened. He did kinda ask for it with the 'tude.

You know, I wonder if kids who collected those new-fangled Topps cards with the funny marquees around the names in 1952 were laughed at by older and wiser collectors who assured them that '52 Mantle and Eddie Mathews were a waste of time. "Gotta stick with the old reliable tobacco and caramel cards, kee-yid!"

Not really a great parallel, because people didn't think of cards being worth much money back then (or for the next 25 years), and because 99% of the cards pulled from packs today will still be in mint condition a century from now. But the generation gap thing still applies. Collect what you like! (But if it's modern don't plan your retirement fund around it.)

ctsoxfan

<< <i>because 99% of the cards pulled from packs today will still be in mint condition a century from now. >>



That's the key difference, but I like the analogy nonetheless. I would love to know what kids back in, say - 1952, thought of the cards they were pulling from packs. Obviously, there was no way to forsee they would ever be worth anything...and they were hardly kept by most people with the thought of having them in like new condition 50 years later. But, to be a fly on the wall as a kid ripped open a 1952 Topps pack, and to know what we know today - "Hey kid, that's a Mickey Mantle card! Take care of that one, eh?"

jrdolan

Well, we know '52 Topps wasn't very popular, because Topps dumped unsold cases of it in the ocean.

Oh to be the son of a 5 & 10 owner who bought too many boxes of '52 and '53 Topps and couldn't sell them. "Nah, Pop, don't send those back to Topps! Sure they're too big, and funny-looking, and will never compete with Bowman, but I like 'em. Puh-leaze, Pop?"

frankhardy

I think it is funny when talking about going back in time. People would do MANY different things. I think EVERYBODY on these boards would just want to go back JUST to open packs!

I can only imagine!!!

If I did go back in time, I would take some Cardsavers and toploaders with me!