Player Collection Debate

[Cobretti]

Well this thread idea come from the recent PC player v player competition held on OZCT.

A few of us were a little disappointed by the final mainly because both cards had two players on the card which took away some of the magic when it was a Jordan v Howard battle. The cards themselves were fantastic in their own right but it lead to an interesting question that I am hoping we can discuss in a civil manner.

Do you consider a card part of a player collection if there are other players taking up real estate?


My personal opinion is no as the the player your collecting is the main focus. you would want him to be the center of attention. Other players on the card (which have their name on itand not action shots against other players) take away space which make the card less appealing and special due to the fact your favourite player is most likely a very small head only.

An example would be a nice triple patch auto of Jordan, Kobe, James.

To me this card would be filed under SWEET cards I own then in my MJ collection for the reason I have state above.


What does everyone else think?

 

[A_Iverson_I]

As long as my PC player is on it, then it's PC all the way baby!

 

[ozballer23]

I don't mind other players on it as long as its a sweet card or its low numbered!

 

[Shaun]

i call it pc, just for the sake of it, but i dont really like them, mainly because its usually just such a weird mix, for example i really do no like 09-10 SPGU because some cards have up to 8 players on it and often theres no real connection between the players, its like upper deck had a lucky dip on who ended up on the card.

i think the any time more then one player is on the card, it should be for a reason, and should fit the theme, such as- teammates, known rivals, family members or something along those lines.

and another thing, depending on your PC player, the other player could either drive up the price if his a better player making it out of your price range, or hurt the cards worth if his a lesser player.

 

[starbury33]

I have plenty of dual GU and some dual autographs that have my PC players on them and I consider them their cards. But I am not a big fan of dual player cards much at all. If I was to ever own a Jordan auto I would rather have a solo Jordan than a dual with James or maybe even Kobe (and I love Kobe). I just don't really like multi player cards..... But if they have Marbury or anyone else I collect I eventually try and get them.

 

[jared_davey]

yep, if its got your PC player on it, its a PC card..

 

[GarnettFan4Life]

I had some cards with other players on it but didn't actively chase them as it annoyed me. Preferred only with KG on it for sure

 

[Matty4292]

I'm with Jared and Brett in this one.

If it has Demarcus Cousins on it, it's PC.

 

[gaz876]

yes, PC for me also

 

[lilreddevil]

If the player's on it, it's in. Usually they have some sort of connection as well with my PC player so I don't mind it at all

 

[lukesicari]

I think if the PC player is on the card it counts as a PC card. But I always enjoy getting the card with only the PC player on it.....it looks better

 

[theflyinggerco]

I consider any cards with Mikan on them as part of my PC. That said, I hate printing plates and therefore ignore them and occasionally add in cards that aren't on Beckett list, so what do I know.

The Mikan cards with other players on them usually has a good connection with him, such as fellow Lakers like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jerry West and Magic Johnson or fellow big men like Hakeem Olajuwon, Moses Malone, Bob Lanier and Patrick Ewing.

However, the 2011 Upper Deck All Time Greats Legacy Dual Autograph Book Cards 1/1's have some weird combos, such as Mikan-LeBron, Mikan-Larry Bird, Mikan-Jordan and even Mikan-Mourning.

 

[hairyangryfella]

I'm not a player collector, and while I too was disappointed that the final cards were both duals, I would consider any card with my player on it something I'd need/want to collect.

I have a mini Wilt PC. I have a dual jersey with Kobe and a quad patch with Rodman, Malone and Grant. These are definitely part of my player PC.

 

[hairyangryfella]

If the player's on it, it's in. Usually they have some sort of connection as well with my PC player so I don't mind it at all

Equally rubbish..?

 

[Ersk]

I also consider cards of a Player PC, if they are other player's card but have a very nice pic of my PC player. There is a really nice Grant Hill CC card that has a great pic of MJ on it, and I keep it in my MJ PC.

 

[drob50]

Yeah, definately PC! But I hate when I have to get a Blair that has Griffin on it or someone expensive
Would be cheaper to take your thought train!

 

[Matty4292]

Yeah, definately PC! But I hate when I have to get a Blair that has Griffin on it or someone expensive
Would be cheaper to take your thought train!

Same with Cousins and Wall... Just coz they went to Kentucky together!

 

[bas]

Yep 4 me as long as no more then 5 plyrs in pic so no full team cards whether b jazz or usa 4 mymalone pc

 

[lilreddevil]

Generally if Beckett says it's part of my player collection I will include it. That therefore rules out any team cards like Donruss has with its checklists.

 

[Cobretti]

hmm interesting points made.

The SPGU one is an interesting on indeed. For me the ones I have with MJ kind of sit in a subset on its own away from my MJ collection, even the one that has 4 Bulls players on it.

A nice point was raised about your PC player having someone big on it which makes the card value go up.

I guess I am being a bit picky on what I consider to me anyway to be the ultimate PC card. I guess the price of high end MJs these days kind of makes you want the card only for him, otherwise I feel robbed of $$$.