PDA

View Full Version : The Last Great Post-War set


Archive
10-06-2007, 11:10 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>looking back,what was the last major set that you really think can still be called a classic issue.my vote 1975 topps.

Archive
10-07-2007, 10:59 AM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>Excluding the Heritage sets, which I think are incredible (with the exception of 2006/1957) the '84 Donruss set is the nicest of the era and will become a classic, iconic set. Prior to that, '67 Topps and possibly '65 Topps.<br /> '72 might be revered one day as well, due to it's design that is so indicative of the era- much like '34-36 Diamond Stars are indicative of the '30's art deco movement.

Archive
10-07-2007, 01:09 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Anthony,<br /><br />With the importance of the '84 Donruss, you are right on point.<br /><br />This set with the Don Mattingly card began the rookie craze.<br /><br />Also, this is the first time a card manufacturer's really became concerned with producing a high quality card.<br /><br />Also, it is simply a beautiful card design with a limited print run compared to Topps.<br /><br />Peter C.<br /><br />

Archive
10-07-2007, 01:15 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>"Also, this is the first time a card manufacturer's really became concerned with producing a high quality card." peter are you joking? also the rookie card fad had been going for quite awhile before the "84 donruss. but i will agree it is a nice design.

Archive
10-07-2007, 02:13 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Dennis,<br /><br />It's true that people were collecting rookies prior to the '84 Mattingly, but if you recall this was the first time people started speculating on a rookie. Remember, the Don Mattingly was hot from the very beginning. People thought he was joining the Yankee pantheon of stars and HOFamers from the onset of his career.<br /><br />'84 Donruss was also the first high tech baseball set, they preceded Upper Deck by 5 years. <br /><br />Also, '84 Donruss was the first set produced by either Fleer or Donruss that truly competed with Topps.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
10-07-2007, 03:09 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>peter you are wrong, the donruss set was not "high-tech". it was a regular old card set just like the '67 or '57 topps that utilized a simple un- cluttered look that collectors favor. there was no premium price. packs were priced comparable to the competion. the reason for the low production was because of the 3 years of over production by donruss and failure to sell off it's product that they (donruss) cut the production. it's popular design and the mattingly card made the set very popular w/collectors therefore driving up the price. in so far as mattingly starting the rookie fad that was already full blown by 1984. do you remember Joe Charboneau??

Archive
10-07-2007, 03:16 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Dennis,<br /><br />Okay I'll revise my statement, I'll say it was a high-tech design.<br /><br />Of couse Joe was popular when he got to the majors, but his cards never reached the heights of the '84 Donruss Mattingly. A combination of New York hype and a power stroke made the card take-off. Also, if you are a postwar collector you simply have to have a nice centered Don Mattingly in your collection.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
10-07-2007, 03:30 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>peter i'll agree with that. mattingly's stats were 1930ish. his early years he was very similiar to stan musial,imo.

Archive
10-07-2007, 04:01 PM
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>FWIW, I don't think anything made after Topps stopped offering cards in series is truly great. To me, the last great set is the 1972 set. 1973 was shall we say drab and in 1974 the single series issue started. <br /><br />1975 is a fun set, definitely condition challenged, but great, not really. No bizarre late series experimental cards, no ridiculously short printed last series. I pulled the whole thing together on a couple of boxes when I was a kid.

Archive
10-08-2007, 06:57 AM
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>We had a set a year in baseball that was the KEY set for the year (That was before the flood of product really hit big) -- <br /><br />1989 Upper Deck<br />1990 Leaf<br />1991 Stadium Club<br />1992 Bowman<br />1993 Finest<br /><br />Then the strike hit and the hobby never really got back to what it was for newer cards.<br /><br />However, another real classic set was 2001 Topps Heritage --- when that set hit; it really got many collectors back into gear.<br /><br />2006 Topps Allen and Ginter was huge last year as well.<br /><br />Regards<br />Rich

Archive
10-08-2007, 06:57 AM
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>Duplicate Post -- don't know why that happenned<br /><br />Rich

Archive
10-08-2007, 07:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>I vote for 1969 Topps as the last great set. I think the quality of card designs gradually went south after that.

Archive
10-08-2007, 07:48 PM
Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>1972 Topps.

Archive
10-08-2007, 07:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Williams</b><p>1971 Topps was a great set. Black borders, high numbers.<br /><br />It was also the first set I collected, being given a pack of cards by my mom.<br /><br />I kept a Steve Carlton card in my wallet in the pictures part, trimmed of course to fit in it.<br /><br />But the greatest set of my collecting lifetime was 1972 Topps.<br /><br />In action cards.<br /><br />Cards that made a puzzle.<br /><br />Kid pictures of the stars.<br /><br />Only many years later did I ever find out about that final series and the traded cards.<br /><br />

Archive
10-08-2007, 08:46 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"'72 might be revered one day as well, due to it's design that is so indicative of the era- much like '34-36 Diamond Stars are indicative of the '30's art deco movement."<br /><br />I agree. Far in the future, 1975 Topps may also be viewed as something very idicative of the "Wild" 70's. That is already a very popular set, the future view could even help more. <br /><br />Otherwise, some other choices that have not been mentioned:<br /><br />1984 Fleer Update (The 80's were my decade. The (2) must have sets were 84 Donruss and 84 Fleer Update) <br />1993 Finest<br />1993/1994 SP<br /><br />I collected new product from 1980-1992. It became too much after 1992. However, Topps Heritage and Allen & Ginter have taken a lot of my money. For anyone that has not purchased new product in years, I highly recommend these. I have immensly enjoyed purchasing these, after a long drought, and I do not think I am alone. Hopefully the glut of "Throwback" products does not kill the attractiveness of these sets and their popularity grows and continues for many years.<br /><br />One set that I think is very underated and is one of the most beautifull sets every made: 1991 Stadium Club. <br />

Archive
10-08-2007, 09:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>wow, Mike and I actually found common ground!<br />The Heritage sets (as well as '04 Cracker Jacks and A & G and this years Goudey's) have really brought back a lot of the fun of opening packs. No point in getting them graded, no worries about doctoring, and the gum isn't bad. These may be the first sets in a generation that actually hold value, and as such may be the modern classics.

Archive
10-09-2007, 09:59 AM
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Heritage this year had good gum but it's packed all wrong. If it isn't up against the cards directly ruining at least one or two of them it just isn't right. Where is the fun in pulling a key star who isn't stuck to the gum? Or wax stained? I got one of those in every pack when I was a kid. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
10-09-2007, 11:35 AM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>no one has really outlined what it takes to BE a classic set!<br /><br />I just found this thread, for some reason I skipped it, but I do love this kind of topic.<br /><br />From what I gather from the posts above (and my own preferences, because let's not forget those!), a classic set would require some of the follwing attributes:<br /><br />-A great, attractive graphic design<br />-issued in series<br />-should contain a few key cards, either rookies or very desirable hard-to-gets<br />-should be connected to your childhood collecting <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />what else?<br /><br />I would add:<br />1) 1978 Topps (simple borders, game on back, Murray, Trammell, Molitor, Murphy rookies, Dawson's second year)<br /><br />2) I would add to the 1984 Donruss, the 1985 Donruss. The factory fresh set is absolutely gorgeous, and has Puckett and Clemens rookies<br /><br /><br />I would agree, that if you were to label sets liek we do with the name "key card" I would call the 1984 and 1985 Donruss, along with the 1984 Fleer-Update as the key sets of the 1980s<br /><br />In fact, that might be an interesting debate to take it one level up: What are the "Key Sets" from each decade?<br /><br />1950s: 1952 Topps, 1953 Topps, 1953 Bowman Color, 1957 Topps<br />1960s: 1961 Topps, 1968 Topps<br />1970s: 1975 Topps, 1978 Topps<br />1980s: 1984&85 Donruss, 1984 Fleer Update<br />1990s: who cares?<br />2000s: Heritage, Allen & Ginter<br /><br />thoughts?<br /><br /><br />

Archive
10-09-2007, 11:44 AM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>I think iconic design is the key to a set being considered classic.<br />I'd agree with Jason's list on the '50's, but on the '60's think it would be '65 and '67. On the '70's you'd have to include '72, and on the '80's you'd have to include '89 Upper Deck, due to the higher production quality.<br />And of the sets issued in the '40's (since part of the decade was post war, even though my pick isn't) '41 Playball would be head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. Although I'm sure Al C. will argue for MP & P's.

Archive
10-10-2007, 12:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>1989 upper deck.

Archive
10-10-2007, 01:47 PM
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>I don't think it's been mentioned thus far. The first post-Bowman set, the last large-format set, and it had practically everyone in it (except Musial).

Archive
10-10-2007, 02:49 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Adam, <br /><br />For sure 1956 Topps is a beautiful set, it also has Jackie Robinson's last card. I gotta admit the Mantle is gorgeous, it was also his triple crown year.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
10-10-2007, 04:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Without knocking the Topps 56 set -- because there's a lot to like -- I'd have to say I always found the design a little bit cluttered. In a horizontal format I prefer the Topps 55, (although it lacks the players) which is kind of like their 54 in a horizontal format. Of course neither is on my list for this topic.

Archive
10-10-2007, 07:46 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"wow, Mike and I actually found common ground!"<br /><br />I would wager we likely have much more common ground than uncommon ground. <br />

Archive
10-10-2007, 07:48 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"1950s: 1952 Topps, 1953 Topps, 1953 Bowman Color, 1957 Topps<br />1960s: 1961 Topps, 1968 Topps<br />1970s: 1975 Topps, 1978 Topps<br />1980s: 1984&85 Donruss, 1984 Fleer Update<br />1990s: who cares?<br />2000s: Heritage, Allen & Ginter"<br /><br />All good choices in my opinion except for 1968 Topps. I think that one falls in the "Which one of these doesn't belong" category. <br />

Archive
10-10-2007, 09:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>I agree with you from the standpoint of design and aesthetics regarding the 1968 Topps...but I felt obligated to include it because it felt more important because of its big rookies: Bench, Ryan, and 2nd cards of folks like Seaver and Carew...<br />The question is whether that is enough of a reason to include a set in such a list?...

Archive
10-11-2007, 07:06 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jason,<br /><br />'68 Topps are hard to find in high grade, so I can see a high grade '68 set on your list. However, I'm not sure why '78 Topps is on your list? I'm more puzzled by that.<br /><br />Peter C.<br /><br />

Archive
10-11-2007, 08:41 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>Have you checked the pop reports for '68 Topps? This is by far the easiest set of the '60's to find in high grade, due to a ton of vending.

Archive
10-11-2007, 10:19 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"'68 Topps are hard to find in high grade, so I can see a high grade '68 set on your list."<br /><br />That could not be further from the truth. What gave you this understanding?

Archive
10-12-2007, 08:35 AM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>as I had mentioned, I put it in my list of classic 1960s set because of the importance of some of the rookie and second year cards, and it still contains a Mantle, even though it is not my favorite design to look at and I am not a Mantle collector...<br /><br />But Peter,<br />I never considered scarcity at high grades among my criteria for what defines a classic set. Do you consider scarcity in this exercise?<br /><br />Anothony, MikeU, would you guys say scarcity factors into what makes a classic set?<br /><br />just curious.<br />

Archive
10-12-2007, 09:42 AM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>I wouldn't consider scarcity a factor in making something a classic. Design is the key factor.<br /> '15 Cracker Jack would not be considered scarce, but it's certainly a classic. A '65 Mustang is a classic, but it's certainly not tough to find. Tons of other examples, none of which owe their status to primarily being scarce or rare.

Archive
10-12-2007, 09:55 AM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>should the 64 Topps be included among the 60s classics?<br />I might vote for that - I love that simple, clean design!<br />And it's got some great combo cards in it - another love of mine...<br />Mays/Aaron<br />Mays/Cepeda<br />Yax/Schilling<br /><br />thoughts?<br />

Archive
10-12-2007, 12:40 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jason,<br /><br />Definitely there are nice combo cards in '64, but in comparision to the '67 Topps set it suffers because of the lack of key rookies.<br /><br />Guys, with regard to '68 Topps, I'm going simply by what I see in card stores and card shows. Thank you for bringing the PSA pop reports to my attention.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
10-12-2007, 03:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Jason, I agree with you on the the reasons you like the '64 set design.<br />BTW, has anybody beside me had a problem with the white part of the backs rub-off section fading over time? A lot of mine have a bit of the printing underneath show through somewhat, even though I they werent' rubbed off.<br /><br />63 Topps -- I always thought they were nice, sharp, colorful, and held their gloss well over time, although sometimes I wonder about the circle inset among the otherwise square design. Thoughts?

Archive
10-12-2007, 03:44 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Paul S.<br /><br />'63 Topps is a beautiful set and a classic. I've always wondered why Pete's Rookie has gone up recently. Considering all the damage that has been done to his reputation over the years, the card has never gone down much. Also, it doesn't appear that he will ever get reinstated.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
10-12-2007, 04:03 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Peter, I think his card remains strong because he's the all-time hit leader. Also, Joe Jackson's Black Sox stuff certainly haven't been bad for his card prices.

Archive
10-12-2007, 05:11 PM
Posted By: <b>nbrazil</b><p>"BTW, has anybody beside me had a problem with the white part of the backs rub-off section fading over time?"<br /><br />I've seen that before. Had several high grade PSA encapsulated cards with that problem...although, i dont think it takes away from the overall look of the card. Some dealer at a card show a few years ago tried to knock off 50% of the SMR price because of that problem. I punched him in the face several times and ran away with his EX, but personally graded NM+, cards from the 70's.<br /><br />I was just kidding about the last part.

Archive
10-12-2007, 05:57 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"Anothony, MikeU, would you guys say scarcity factors into what makes a classic set?"<br /><br />Personally, the design is my #1 priority for a classic set. Card selection, rookies in particular, along with scarcity can greatly enhance a classic set, but it should be beautifull first and foremost.

Archive
10-12-2007, 06:53 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Paul S.,<br /><br />Pete is more than the all-time hits leader, he is the legendary "Charlie Hustle." Look at Barry, he's the all-time home run leader but his cards didn't go up much, but wait till he becomes a legend like Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe. You will see his cards go up.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
10-12-2007, 06:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>When I think classic set, I think "iconic." The only two that fit the bill IMHO are 52 and 72 Topps. There is not much more you can say about 52 and the 72 design, while not my favorite 70's set, pops up in a lot of paintings, drawings and other artistic endeavors in the real world. I forget his name but there is an artist who paints portraits of people that look very much like 72 Topps.

Archive
10-12-2007, 07:07 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>"Beautiful" and "iconic" are great words but in order to be a classic set the set also needs to be historically significant to the hobby.<br /><br />'52 Topps fits but '72 Topps and '78 Topps doesn't. I prefer '57 Topps because it established the standard size for baseball cards.<br /><br />Peter C.

Archive
10-12-2007, 07:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>72's are the last Topps set issued in series (73's could be had all at once in some packs); that seems historical to me. I don't see it with 78's, which I consider part of a drab 76-80 run by Topps.

Archive
10-12-2007, 08:03 PM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><i>Look at Barry, he's the all-time home run leader but his cards didn't go up much, but wait till he becomes a legend like Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe. You will see his cards go up.</i><br /><br />Peter, I don't know, I guess only time will tell. But I have to admit he now has that dark side as much as Pete and Jax. However, I don't think that many of the series that Bonds appears in, and his cards in them, will be considered any kind of "vintage" and go up in value across the board like the other players -- too many of them made and kept in too good a condition. Then, once A-Rod passes him, well...<br /><br />

Archive
10-12-2007, 09:43 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Paul S.,<br /><br />I partially agree with you, there's a lot of Barry's cards out there, but I think he will become a legend when ARod passes his HR record. That's when baseball fans will forgive him for taking steroids.<br /><br />Peter C.<br />

Archive
10-13-2007, 03:30 PM
Posted By: <b>mark k. bowers</b><p>Whoa...what about post-war regionals which are typically more scarce and harder to find than any gum card. I will take my Homestead, 1948 Signal Oil, 1949 Pureta/Sunbeam, Centennial Flour, Bill and Bob's, Dormands, NY Journal American, SF Call Bulletin, Ford Tigers, Kahns, Expos pinbacks, Packard Bell, Bell Brand, Morrell Meats etc etc over any post-war gum card all day long.<br /><br />In fact, let me know what regionals you have that are muddying up your collection and I will trade you gum cards from 1952 to 1970 until the cows come home or go whereever they go.<br /><br />Thanks for reading.<br /><br />Mark

Archive
10-13-2007, 06:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Mark, on beauty alone I agree that you are right in that I would also prefer several regional sets -- Hires and Bell Brand to name only two -- over quite a few of the Topps. And often regionals have a higher concentration of stars, percentage-wise. However, I can't quite find enough reasons to bestow landmark quality, if we are applying most of the above criteria.<br /><br />*edited to add: these days I am much more into pursuing regionals than I am star cards of major sets.