Sets you just can't get into?

I'm an admirer of nearly anything prewar baseball card related, but there are a few exceptions. Are there any prewar sets out there that you just don't understand the appeal of? Let's hear about it.

I can think of a few examples that people have mentioned before...e91 because of generic poses, t207 because of their overall gloominess. But for me, I don't understand the draw of the L1 leathers. Especially for what they typically sell for (well into the thousands in most cases). Old Cardboard's estimate for a common in VG is $2100! I don't get it. I think alot of it has to do with the size (10x12) and the fact that it's leather - very odd. How would one store/display one of those?

Can someone explain to me why they might drop a few grand on a L1 leather, especially when you can get the same pose on a colorful T3 for a quarter of the price?

The baseball ones suck. There is also a larger size premium that I think is about 3 feet high. I've seen pictures of some of these large ones featuring Indian Chiefs and they are stunning. I have pictures of the them but Doug asked that they not be posted publicly, so I'll leave that up to him if he wants to post some his leathers.

For me, sets I don't get are 1935 Goudey 4-in-1s. The pics of the players are too small and the puzzles on the back do nothing for me. One of Dan McKee's favorite sets, the R-337 set is one that only a mother could love. I'm not sure if that is Babe Ruth or a gorilla on the card with his name. But my favorite set to hate is the MP&Co sets. They make e91s look like artistic beauties. 'd also include some 19c sets like No7 Cigar and others featuring line drawings. They just don't do anything for me.

Jay

You know that's funny Ben because just the other day I was thinking about the Leather's and was wondering what the draw is? I mean I guess they can be cool display pieces but its a piece of leather! I guess to each there own.

Another set that I never understood why people collect is the art stamps. That is until we had our recent post and I was able to see those stamps up close and realize how cool they are! As usual, once I read a post and realize how cool something is I wanna start collecting them.

Other than that, I am not a big exhibit fan. Don't know why, they just don't appeal to me. The same goes for postcards. Just not my cup of tea.

Jeff

The L1's are much more attractive in person. They are wonderful display items when properly framed because of their size. I'm saying this even though I don't own one. As Jay mentioned the Indian chiefs are colored and are wonderful.

I don't like the Leathers either or the Silks.

Yeah, the silks are ugly

I am with you Jerry, the silks present way better than the leathers. Here are two to compare:





I would much rather frame the silk and put it on my wall than the leather.

Jeff

I love the silks, but not a priority to pick up. As for cards I can't get into, anything black & white doesn't have much appeal for me, except if it is a cool pose. I do have to agree with Jay on the 4 in ones, you don't seem to get enough of the player, maybe that's why the chips don't do much for me either.

Lee

for saying this but, i just can't get in to T206 cards. I know its the "Monster" but have only owned a few.

I like portrait cards...M116, T204.


just my opinion....

Mark

My view is really a lot like that of Mark. Cards which you see too much of, really become a bit much after a while. And although the t-206 set is not too gruesome, it is not that great either. (However, I do note that REA has the 7th highest t-206 up now, with bidding currently at $150K, with 17 days left). But for me it takes more than value to make cards appealing.
Leathers and silks, as noted, can make for a nice hang-it-on-the-wall object, while for most cards, a full sheet can compare as a display item.
The R337s are an acquired taste - certainly a unique artistry.
The Goudey puzzle backs can be put to good use (I think). I am currently assembling Foxx and Klein who in 1933 each won the triple crown for their respective Phila. teams. How unusual is that? I am doing '35 Goudey backs for each "card" which fit nicely in facing binder pages. How unusual is that?
Now-watch the prices on this crap soar!
I've thought that a high grade well registered MP&Co. set would be quite an undertaking and its completion resulting in a low population item. Maybe I am wrong, I haven't checked the registeries. Well I'm not sure that you can if you are not a member. Now-watch the prices on this crap soar!
I can understand card collectors not embracing postcards, exhibits and a host of other items which are arguably not really cards. I am not among that group for application to these two collectibles, but some others, such as stamps, are not cards to me. But they don't have to be cards. Heck, leathers and silks are not cards either.
Now watch the prices on this crap plummet.
Sure Rid - everyone cares what you think.

TheBig6 wrote:Yeah, the silks are ugly

eh... I'd much rather have the T3. But I never said those were ugly, S74's are ugly.

The t206 set bores me too. Having collected it once, I have no desire to do it again because I don't find the cards that appealing. My faves from the set are portraits of Eddie Collins and Walter Johnson. Beyond that, I could care less about most of the cards. I've done the t205 set before and doing it again a second time because I love the look of the cards.

Most sets without stats or bios on the back don't do much for me either unless they are stunning looking sets like n162, Mayos, etc

Jay