I hate mulitplayer cards!

Blackborder

There I said it, I feel better. I don't want to see a Babe Ruth/Reggie Jackson bat card, or a Whoever rookie, that has one or two other players on it with them. I think the Pete Rose rookie has 3 others. I wouldn't want to build a player set and have stray players scattered in the collection. Just my opinion, I know the market feels otherwise or these cards wouldn't be selling for so much.

storm888

Many folks agree.

Multi-Palyer (star/hof) cards are my favorites;
next to team cards.

NathanSr

I like sending in Seau's for grading that have other players on them as well. So I can add to those other collectors total # of required cards to complete their sets, WAH HA HA HA HA,

For example:




NathanSr

stown

I actually enjoy the multi-player cards from the late 50s and early 60s. You can get 2 or more HOFers on the same card for a fraction of the price.

For example:



There even some moderns that I wouldn't mind having...

cravetopps

I'll take all your Hassan Triple Folders or Mecca Doubles.

Blackborder

That Smith/Warren/Seau card is a good example. The person here who is doing an Emmit set, I'd be interested to know if he considers this an "Emmit" card.

Stone193

I hear ya.

But, mine is close.

I hate Multilayer cards!

They're too thick - hard to put in a toploader and if dinged, look like crap!

mike

GDM67

I don't like multi-player cards that are supposed to be actual regular issue player cards (that wretched '80-81 Topps Basketball set comes to mind, but there are others) and I don't really like multi-player rookies, either.

But cards like the Mantle-Mays one above (the Aaron-Mays from '64 and the Aaron-Banks from '63 are big personal faves) are really cool, and (for some weird reason), I really like league leader and team leader cards. The '74-5 Bucks cards with Kareem and The Big O all over them are about 300 kinds of awesome.

Glad you don't get penalized for a lack of logic in this hobby...

lawnmowerman

<< <i>That Smith/Warren/Seau card is a good example. The person here who is doing an Emmit set, I'd be interested to know if he considers this an "Emmit" card. >>

You spelled Emmitt, Emmit. Consider this your first warning!



Imo, I would consider it an Emmitt card. If his pic is on it I like it.

I have a few weird ones like Emmitt Smith and ARod. Strange combos but still an Emmitt card.

Blackborder

<< <i>

<< <i>That Smith/Warren/Seau card is a good example. The person here who is doing an Emmit set, I'd be interested to know if he considers this an "Emmit" card. >>

You spelled Emmitt, Emmit. Consider this your first warning!



Imo, I would consider it an Emmitt card. If his pic is on it I like it.

I have a few weird ones like Emmitt Smith and ARod. Strange combos but still an Emmitt card. >>



Thanks for the reply on the Emmitt Smitth card.

Personally it would just bug me for some reason to have a player set, and ARod shows up out of nowhere. How'd he get on a card with Emmitt anyway?

lawnmowerman

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>That Smith/Warren/Seau card is a good example. The person here who is doing an Emmit set, I'd be interested to know if he considers this an "Emmit" card. >>

You spelled Emmitt, Emmit. Consider this your first warning!



Imo, I would consider it an Emmitt card. If his pic is on it I like it.

I have a few weird ones like Emmitt Smith and ARod. Strange combos but still an Emmitt card. >>



Thanks for the reply on the Emmitt Smitth card. >>



You very fast learner Blackborderson!



<< <i>Personally it would just bug me for some reason to have a player set, and ARod shows up out of nowhere. How'd he get on a card with Emmitt anyway? >>

Here it is. It is quite an odd combo

Blackborder

Just for the record, it would bug me to have a card with him in a Cardinals uniform also.