Top 20 Sportscards In The Hobby Official Thread

DM23HOF

Anybody else attempting to tackle these twenty big boys? What I like so much about this set is that many of the cards are so valuable in low grade, which means the cards are important in and of themselves-- as opposed to a card that is cheap or even worthless in low grade, and expensive only when a few top Registry participants want it.

cards651

I would hate to see an 'Official' Thread end after one post. Here's the link:

PSA - Top 20 Sportscards in the Hobby

1952 Mantle and T206 Honus Wagner were the only cards that I could guess correctly. I'm sure there's a reason behind the selected cards but I don't understand how a food-based card could make it. SMR Column - Wilson Franks A 20 card set given away in hot dog packages? I don't get it.

DM23HOF

Hi,

Yeah, I was assuming it's just a brutal set to accomplish, hence lack of participants! Some of the collections there are just world-class.

The 1954 Wilson Franks Ted Williams is one of the most storied cards in the hobby. Very rare, great image, and few of the extant examples are in a good state, due to distribution method. It's the jewel of the regional issues, that are such a part of baseball card history of that era. It's not a card the casual collector knows about, for sure.

The list is surely subjective, being based upon Joe Orlando's suggestions/picks in his book of the Top 250. I would definitely swap out a few, but with any Top X list, it's a lot of opinion.

cards651

Thanks for the background. Yes, trying to choose 20 is going to create some disagreements. Well, best of luck if you attempt this set.

Publius

Not a very good sampling of the hobby when its one football card, two basketball and 17 baseball.

As a pure ratio of the current sets on the registry it should be ten baseball, five football, two basketball and two hockey with one "other" or maybe an additional baseball. Why bother calling it the "top 20 hobby " when it doesn't sample the hobby? Just call it what it is, top 17 baseball....

jay0791

I would say the top 20 list is based on dollar value. Yes all are great iconic players.
However, player vs card? Got to get Jordan off this list. His card is common and many can afford high grades.
1961 Chamberlain or 1957 Bill Russell are much better choices.

There are scarce high demand cards not on this list...but not of players some recognize or even want.

Yes baseball is by far the most collected...but I agree 17/20 is a tad much.

No representative in hockey? How about 51 parkhurst Howe or Richard?
1966 Topps Orr? or turn of the century icons?

Curious as I love football cards....since mr publius is the preeminent collector of prewar football...
what 5 cards are on his list?

1965 Namath
1977 Largent

I also swop the 51 mantle with the 1952 topps

cards651

Agree with the comments. I'm Boston-biased so the '57 Russell and '66 Orr that you mention resonate with me. These had to have more impact over the years than a '54 Wilson Franks Ted Williams (also Boston). The '86 Fleer Jordan runs smack into the modern/vintage argument. Always tough.

DM23HOF

It's always a hot debate with these lists. I personally wish it were just Top 20 Baseball, to keep it homogenous and simple. That said, there's no denying these are among the very most desired subjects for so many collections.

I think they should really find a way to drastically weight monstrously expensive cards like the Wagner and Ruth RC and Plank. Even the Nap Lajoie Goudey. I know the weightings try to accomplish this, but it seems these rarefied cards should somehow be even heavier than they currently are.

I'm at about 50% now, and will be sticking to only the baseball issues. Maybe the MJ as well.

cards651

FWIW - If you reduce this 'collection' to the 1933 to 1955 period, it becomes somewhat interesting. An '86 Jordan and '54 hot dog insert simply have nothing in common. The earlier cards are from another era altogether. Also, the '33 Lajoie is some sort of rarity. I'm not a fan of including a card as significant simply due to rarity. I'm guessing PSA doesn't want to drastically weight cards as you note because it then highlights some of these issues. If cards are so different from each other, how are they a 'collection'. Always open to interpretation of course...

DM23HOF

Some background on that card; I have been seeking a low grade copy for some time now... The 33 Lajoie is actually one of the most storied cards in baseball card history. If you are a fan of the hobby's history, it is impossible to tell the full story of baseball cards and not mention the 33 Lajoie. Nap Lajoie was also an AMAZING player in his own right. He was also voted into the HOF. Add up the special history of the card, as part of one of the most celebrated sets in the hobby's history, with it also being of a major star and HOFer, and I think this card is very much warranted in the set. I actually agree with Joe Orlando ranking it in the Top 20.

cards651

I know a little about the card. My understanding is that there is a lot of debate as to whether it was actually issued, whether it was a mail-in of some sort or whether it was issued the next year. Something along those lines. Basically, it simply was not available in the same quantity or in the same manner as other cards in the set. A manufactured scarcity. My bias is always towards cards that were actively collected when they were issued and that were available in reasonable quantities ('55 Clemente, '54 Aaron, '48 Mikan, '51 Mays, '52 Mantle all fit the bill). The Lajoie card strikes me as some sort of chase card. I know it's impossible to pick 20 cards but given the situation, I prefer something like the '66 Orr. The '66 Orr puts the '86 Jordan to shame. And hockey cards have a far more storied history than basketball cards as well.

macboube

One of the above posts states Jordan is far and away "common" and undeserved of the top 20......................yet he suggests a '77 Largent be inclusive?

I have a three initial comeback for this take OMG