What to do??

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Ok, I know this is strictly opinion and there really is no answer, but I am grappling with the question that I consider about every 6 months: Should I pursue a low grade '52 Topps set? I have a complete set of '53 Topps, about 75% of '59 Topps, 25% of '57 Topps, and I am 11 cards short of a '41 Play Ball set. I love the look of the 52s, but if I pursue it, even in low grade, I will almost completely put all of my other projects on hold. Also, the other sets I really like such as '54, '55, '56, and '58 Topps and '53 Bowman Color will probably never happen. Typing this, I almost convince myself that I know what I need to do...leave '52 alone and enjoy all the others. But, those 52s are beautiful..even with those high numbers!

[Big Six]

Personally, I'd rather have the '54, '56, '57 and '59 sets...I find '52 to be overrated. Also suggest you look at earlier issues or a Bowman '53 set to change things up...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Vintagevault13]

Ok, I know this is strictly opinion and there really is no answer, but I am grappling with the question that I consider about every 6 months: Should I pursue a low grade '52 Topps set? I have a complete set of '53 Topps, about 75% of '59 Topps, 25% of '57 Topps, and I am 11 cards short of a '41 Play Ball set. I love the look of the 52s, but if I pursue it, even in low grade, I will almost completely put all of my other projects on hold. Also, the other sets I really like such as '54, '55, '56, and '58 Topps and '53 Bowman Color will probably never happen. Typing this, I almost convince myself that I know what I need to do...leave '52 alone and enjoy all the others. But, those 52s are beautiful..even with those high numbers!

Robert,

I struggled with the same nagging desire to tackle the 52's. I have somewhat compromised and decided to systematically begin building a VG-EX low # set (1-310). I have obtained the first five cards (including a low grade Pafko) in the past month and my 2014 goal is to complete the first series (1-80). I am not going to worry about variations at this point. Except for Pafko, Berra, Mays, and Billy Martin, most of the low # cards are pretty reasonable. I agree that the 1952 set is beautiful and the iconic nature of it makes it very attractive. Good luck.

[ALR-bishop]

I have a 52 set, but much prefer looking through my 57 or 59 sets. The 52 set is full of managers, coaches and guys who never or hardly ever really played at the ML level ( due primarily to Topps trying to come up with a big set during the contract wars with Bowman).

The 53 Bowman set is my only Bowman set but love it because of the great color photos and the Musial

[brob28]

I think Al has hit on one of the biggest reasons to work on the other sets first: so many subjects in the '52 set are essentially "cup of coffee" type players/coaches that the others sets would be much more enjoyable IMO.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Matt and Al, in thinking it over I tend to agree with you guys overall. I really want 54, 55, 56, and 58 Topps and the 53 Bowman Color (Al, that is one of my favorite non-Topps sets) in addition to what I have or am working on. I have considered building the first 80 of the 52 set, but I have thought about doing some player collecting, which would help me dabble in more sets without building the whole thing.

[Zach Wheat]

I appear to be in the minority, but I get a lot of enjoyment looking at my near set of '52 Topps. I am missing approx. 17 or so high numbered cards. I enjoy looking at this set probably more so than any other set. The only sets that come close are the '54 & '56 Topps sets.

The hi numbered series, although somewhat intimidating to try to collect the complete run in its entirety, contains a number of stars. I would find it difficult to pick up the accumulated knowledge of this set that guys like Al-R, SMPEP (Patrick), Ted Z and many others have without absorbing information and collecting it over time.

I would also be concerned with trying to pick up some of the variations at a later date. Many of the '52 Topps collectors realize that there are a handful of dealers that horde certain variations whenever they pop up. I am sure it happens with others sets described above - I am just not aware that it happens to the same extent.


Z Wheat

[darkhorse9]

Here's my challenge with the 1952 Topps set.

My goal has always been to have a complete set from every year. I'm inches away from having that goal back to 1954.

My question has always been, will a 1952 Topps set truly be "complete" with just 1-310 - or should I go with a 1952 Bowman set instead?

I'll admit to be a completist and there is NO WAY I could EVER justify buying even a low grade 52 Topps Mantle. So completely completing that set is not an option.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Here's my challenge with the 1952 Topps set.

My goal has always been to have a complete set from every year. I'm inches away from having that goal back to 1954.

My question has always been, will a 1952 Topps set truly be "complete" with just 1-310 - or should I go with a 1952 Bowman set instead?

I'll admit to be a completist and there is NO WAY I could EVER justify buying even a low grade 52 Topps Mantle. So completely completing that set is not an option.

Yep, I can relate. Plus there are so many other sets and cards I want...

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

All in all, you guys have helped me determine my course. Hats off to those of you who have the 52 Topps set or are close to having it. After I finish some of the sets I am working on, there are a few cards from the set that have that "wow factor" that I will pick up...like the Zernial and the Jackie Robinson. Thanks and happy collecting in 2014 and beyond!

[Zach Wheat]

Here's my challenge with the 1952 Topps set.

My goal has always been to have a complete set from every year. I'm inches away from having that goal back to 1954.

My question has always been, will a 1952 Topps set truly be "complete" with just 1-310 - or should I go with a 1952 Bowman set instead?

I'll admit to be a completist and there is NO WAY I could EVER justify buying even a low grade 52 Topps Mantle. So completely completing that set is not an option.

Darkhorse,

That is a very good question and one that I have been struggling with for a while. Normally, I consider a set complete with all 407 cards as long as 1 have at least one variation of each. However, the variation guys (thanks Al-R) got me thinking long & hard about this issue.

The '52 set is very unique and some of the variations are critical to the set such as the Page/Sain & Campos variations - and a litany of others that have been discussed.

I've decided to my set will be complete at 407 and will try to pick up most of the variations for a complete Super set. However, I do not think I will try to complete a Master set anyway which would be impossible - given all the variations in the 3rd mid-series cards (plain back, gray back; and then both of the gray backs with either "normal" or "glossy" fronts). Even the Master set in the Mile High auction isn't a true Master set because it doesn't recognize the gray back glossy fronts.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone ever completing a set of '52 Topps with the mid-series gray back, glossy fronts, when only 24 or so have been identified before. These have to be the rarest of all the '52 Topps cards - significantly more rare than the high numbers or even 3rd series gray backs.


Z Wheat

[ALR-bishop]

No, no Zach. You need to get every last possible variant, including the two Mantles, Robinsons and Thompsons, and the 3 Campos , and the two Campanelas, ect., ect. No shortcuts for you :)

[brian1961]

I have rarely pursued a complete set as an adult. Too expensive. Also, there's so many of the gum sets that I like. Granted, some collectors, and perhaps you're one of them, feel compelled to complete a set. The proverbial "set guy", and naturally, there is nothing at all wrong with doing so. Whatever gives you the most satisfaction, that's the way for you. However, you must learn what provides you with the best satisfaction, contentment, fulfillment, reasonable challenge, and whatever else you wish to add.

Try not to factor in what your fellow hobbyists will think, per se, because chances are they will never see your collection.

For a number of reasons, I chose to only collect the players I wanted. An early superstar and star collector, twas I. In so doing I got a taste of each year. You do not have to listen to those who say that this kind of collecting is just a bunch of clutter. Some of them saying this are dealers, who only wish to buy sets because they are easily sold. Unless, of course, you have some high grade superstars that have always had "the ability" to stand alone.

Get a big book of Topps (and a magnifying glass), which has images of all their cards, or at least through 1973, when they ceased to market them by series. As you study the card photos, you might consider choosing those that move you the most, as an art collector would. It IS one and the same motivation, isn't it?

Critics would cry that a potpourri is just clutter and will not attain great value. Look, what happens when you complete a set and wish to sell it? Most buyers will ridicule what's not so hot and try to get you to come down anyway. Why not enjoy a hearty sampling from each set, FOR YOUR SAKE, AND ITS OWN MERIT? You set the number. You decide whether to procure raw or graded.

What you love is what you love. Baseball cards are very, very emotional to us. They carry all sorts of attachments and associated memories. Life is short, and the selecting of 25 (or whatever) from any given year of those that move you the most would keep you busy for quite some time. If you are very concerned about resale, definitely buy graded.

Lionel Carter believed if you couldn't get them all, why collect any at all? Dear Lionel got in on the ground floor, and was a prime mover to boot. His connections were well-established, etc. By 13 I was a widow's son, so my aspirations collecting-wise had to be adjusted considerably. But by the grace of God, I made out OK.

If you still say you must collect a set, or nothing, fine. Again, just make certain you know yourself as a collector-warrior before you make any major decisions, not just factoring in the money, but time.

Wishing you the very, very best.

Your collecting bro, Brian Powell

[Bestdj777]

All of what Brian said is very true, but, if you go for the 52 Topps set, you need both Mantles :)

I've given thought to the 52 set myself. I have both the Mantles out of the way. I really like the Pafko and want one anyway. I just cannot justify spending all of that money on high series cards of players I don't know. If I blow $100 on a card, it might as well be a Mantle.

[brian1961]

I concur, the 1952 Topps set is dazzling---beginning to end. There's so many great images. Besides Mantle and Jackie Robinson, I love the Johnny Mize. I could look at that one most any day, and it puts a smile on my face. The Allie Reyolds portrait is perfect. I like horizontals, so the Gil Hodges is a honey to me, with that great expression on his face.

People comment about the odd Gus Zernial. I think it had to do with him breaking a record for the most home runs in one week, though I might be wrong. Wasn't there a similar card of ace Giants' hurler, Larry Jansen? Larry is holding out a bunch of fingers. Perhaps he may have won 6-7 games in one month.

The Monte Irvin is sweet. The Minnie Minoso is very disappointing. I would have had him sliding into home with the catcher obviously "disengaged" and his face close enough to see--- a crazed and contorted expression connoting "AHHHHHHHHHH!!!" In the background, the on-deck batter's face has to be visible too--with a look of "get 'em, Minnie!"

I guess you could say us baseball card collectors have a wild colorful imagination, at times.

I bought the 1952 Topps reprint set in 1983 when it was released. I own some originals, and they are indeed far superior to the reprints, but the latter are nice, too. Topps did a fine job on them, providing the opportunity for those less fortunate to experience their landmark set.

Salute. ----Brian Powell

[ALR-bishop]

Good post Brian. There are Topps table books that picture all their cards through at least 1990 , though they exclude some of the 1951 sets. You can find them on Amazon and likely ebay ---Topps 1951 1990 search...books on Amazon

[mintacular]

While the '52 is a classic, I think too many of the cards are headshots/portraits and not worth the investment for the whole set, better to buy a card or two as symbolic

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Like Brian and Patrick suggested, I think I will eventually buy selected cards from the set. Dealing with the entire 52 set is more than I want to deal with. Brian, after finishing the few sets I am working on...41, 57, and 59, I am going to shift to collecting players and cards I like. I may even shift back to player collecting before I am all the way done with the sets. I have only been a "set guy" for about 3 or 4 years. Prior to that I was a 50s and 60s star card collector. Honestly, I seriously love collecting sets and singles...I am addicted anyway you slice it. I am a history buff and a huge baseball fan. Put the two together and you have baseball history, which I love. Take any period of American history from the 1840s on and you can find baseball as an integral part of it. The cards from the 40s and 50s are beautiful works of art that bring history and baseball alive. I absolutely cannot get enough. People who don't collect just don't understand.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I have rarely pursued a complete set as an adult. Too expensive. Also, there's so many of the gum sets that I like. Granted, some collectors, and perhaps you're one of them, feel compelled to complete a set. The proverbial "set guy", and naturally, there is nothing at all wrong with doing so. Whatever gives you the most satisfaction, that's the way for you. However, you must learn what provides you with the best satisfaction, contentment, fulfillment, reasonable challenge, and whatever else you wish to add.

Try not to factor in what your fellow hobbyists will think, per se, because chances are they will never see your collection.

For a number of reasons, I chose to only collect the players I wanted. An early superstar and star collector, twas I. In so doing I got a taste of each year. You do not have to listen to those who say that this kind of collecting is just a bunch of clutter. Some of them saying this are dealers, who only wish to buy sets because they are easily sold. Unless, of course, you have some high grade superstars that have always had "the ability" to stand alone.

Get a big book of Topps (and a magnifying glass), which has images of all their cards, or at least through 1973, when they ceased to market them by series. As you study the card photos, you might consider choosing those that move you the most, as an art collector would. It IS one and the same motivation, isn't it?

Critics would cry that a potpourri is just clutter and will not attain great value. Look, what happens when you complete a set and wish to sell it? Most buyers will ridicule what's not so hot and try to get you to come down anyway. Why not enjoy a hearty sampling from each set, FOR YOUR SAKE, AND ITS OWN MERIT? You set the number. You decide whether to procure raw or graded.

What you love is what you love. Baseball cards are very, very emotional to us. They carry all sorts of attachments and associated memories. Life is short, and the selecting of 25 (or whatever) from any given year of those that move you the most would keep you busy for quite some time. If you are very concerned about resale, definitely buy graded.

Lionel Carter believed if you couldn't get them all, why collect any at all? Dear Lionel got in on the ground floor, and was a prime mover to boot. His connections were well-established, etc. By 13 I was a widow's son, so my aspirations collecting-wise had to be adjusted considerably. But by the grace of God, I made out OK.

If you still say you must collect a set, or nothing, fine. Again, just make certain you know yourself as a collector-warrior before you make any major decisions, not just factoring in the money, but time.

Wishing you the very, very best.

Your collecting bro, Brian Powell

Brian, I hear you loud and clear. I am a collector 100%. I prefer ungraded cards, but I am not opposed to graded cards if they aren't overpriced due to the slab they are in.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Ok, I hit submit too early. I can relate to what Brian said about the "clutter" argument. Before sets, I bought the cards of players that really stood out to me. I plan on returning to this way of buying. There are some real significant works of art to be had. I would like to focus on a single player and then move to the next. Ted Williams might be the guy I start with...I am an Ernie Banks junkie, too. 53 Bowman (Musial, Hodges, Reese, etc) and 52 Topps (Zernial, Jackie Robinson, etc) have cards I really, really want. There are also lots of HOF rookies, like Hank Aaron's, that I plan on acquiring. At the end of the day, we all collect what we like. My collection may end up becoming a hodge-podge to someone else, but that doesn't matter. I am not going to lose any sleep over what some dealer thinks of my collection. I am not looking to make a profit. Time and again, I have been able to sell off or trade a piece if I needed money or a different card. I truly appreciate all of the different approaches and perspectives regarding our hobby reflected by the members of this board.

[brian1961]

Patrick made a brutal but right on remark of the '52 Topps. There ARE too many head shots. If it weren't for the great expressions and the master craftsmanship in the colorization ..... The variety of the colors helps, too. Obviously, there's enough great cards to keep one interested. But Patrick is right---Topps made too many head shots! It got worse in '53, but again, there's so many good ones and the artwork is awesome.

Someone mentioned '53 Bowman and there's a set with lots of variety in the poses. I well remember when I first saw, and bought the same day, Gil Hodges. It is such a stunning card.

[tonyo]

Nice thread and great input by everyone.

I think you have practically made your decision, but my vote would be to collect from a variety of sets over focusing over the 52's. There are just too many great cards out there to limit yourself.

I've long considered myself a set collector, and in the last few years since getting back into the hobby, have put together t206 (520), 33 goudey (minus Lajoie and 1 Gehrig), 52 bowman, and 73 topps - all low grade and mostly natural state. But all the while I couldn't focus on just one set. So, I started "tricking" my ocd tendency to complete sets by defining subsets. t205 hofers; t207 bat, belt, glove ; e card clouds and sunsets ; pre-war 100 different types.

I considered the 52t complete set since it is one of the iconic sets but the high numbers $$ and the large % of cards that honestly don't appeal to me visually wouldn't let me get close to actually going for it. I did in fact start a subset with 52t (cards with stadium backgrounds) and got about 30 of those, but ended up selling them as I had too many pre-war projects going on at that time.

The topps completionist thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=174273 inspired me to expand my 50's and 60's type set and attempt to collect every hall of famer (active playing years, regular issue) in the main topps and bowman sets 1948-1979. That's going to be a huge task (for me) in itself and I can't even fathom being able to pull off the set run that is described in the completionist thread.

Regardless, for the purposes of this thread, I think you'll like the idea of collecting a small representative sample of multiple sets. I know I really enjoy picking up a stack of 15 to 25 cards from any of the topps/bowman sets in the 50's & 60's and flipping thru them as if I'm a 10 year old standing next to my bike in the gravel parking lot of the country store back in the day.

Have fun and thanks for the thread!

Tony

[Vintageloz]

Here is my 2 cents

I struggled with the same question over the last couple of years and decided to do a low grade 52 topps graded set, all Psa graded (in case I ever decide to part with it). I've been looking for Psa3 to 4 and am closing in on the low series - need about 60 more. Have also picked up a few hi series along the way and figure I can pick those off little by little. I do have a Mathews but no Mantle yet.

From my perspective, Im glad I decided to do it. It to me represents the ultimate topps set and collection and it's amazing to look through. The lower to mid grade makes it affordable (I'm sure my mantle will be a PSA1 like my Mathew when I get it) and it should hold its value. I've been upgrading when I can and am hoping to sell my ungraded cards and graded dups (I have about 100 ungraded and 40 graded dups) to help fund some of the hi's)

I figure it will be a set that I will continue to upgrade and add to through the years. I'm not overly concerned about variations and figure I'll pick them up someday

I say go for it, you won't be sorry!

[Vintagevault13]

Here is my 2 cents

I struggled with the same question over the last couple of years and decided to do a low grade 52 topps graded set, all Psa graded (in case I ever decide to part with it). I've been looking for Psa3 to 4 and am closing in on the low series - need about 60 more. Have also picked up a few hi series along the way and figure I can pick those off little by little. I do have a Mathews but no Mantle yet.

From my perspective, Im glad I decided to do it. It to me represents the ultimate topps set and collection and it's amazing to look through. The lower to mid grade makes it affordable (I'm sure my mantle will be a PSA1 like my Mathew when I get it) and it should hold its value. I've been upgrading when I can and am hoping to sell my ungraded cards and graded dups (I have about 100 ungraded and 40 graded dups) to help fund some of the hi's)

I figure it will be a set that I will continue to upgrade and add to through the years. I'm not overly concerned about variations and figure I'll pick them up someday

I say go for it, you won't be sorry!

I am with you. Just starting on my 52 lower grade set, but I am excited about working on it. Other sets may have better pics, players, etc., but these are not what interest me. The 1952 cards are simply one of the iconic sets in our hobby (along with T206 and 1933 Goudey). It is a unique piece of history that set the standard for others that followed.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

52 is a nice set. I am going to acquire a few of the key cards over time from the set to give me a good sampling.

[Paul S]

Robert, IMHO that is the way to do it. I'm not a set collector or type collector, yet somehow I get close to one and am satisfied with the other. Really, if you want to finish your other sets then do it. The 52T will come. Slow and steady wins the race.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Thanks, Paul. I will most likely spend 2014 picking up the last 10 or so I need to finish '41 Play Ball (Joe D will probably come in 2015) and buying some more '57 Topps stars. Aside from that, I plan on picking up star cards from '53 Bowman (like Musial, Reese, Hodges, Feller, etc) and possibly another set like '52 Topps. That's the cool thing about our hobby, it's never really over, and it is always fun!

[jasonc]

Personally, I'd rather have the '54, '56, '57 and '59 sets...I find '52 to be overrated. Also suggest you look at earlier issues or a Bowman '53 set to change things up...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

I agree. Personally I am slowly working on the 1956 set, but If I chose another it would be the 1954 set, the big 3 rookies in there, plus it is a lot easier because of not too many cards in the set, plus for some reason I do not like the design of the 1952 cards, 1954, 1955, 1956 has more eye candy IMO. Of course, like they say collect what you like, cause somebody will likely have a different opinion.

[brian1961]

I really agree with you on the 1956 set. With Bowman out of the way, Topps had the field to themselves, and they made sure to come up with a winner. The last of their giant-sized cards. Great design--a nice combination of head shots with painted action photos. Maybe there aren't lots of rookies, but that can be over-rated. The key is they're simply beautiful cards. There's NOTHING ugly about these; they're gorgeous. The introduction of team cards was a sweet addition. Wish Don Drysdale and Stan Musial had been included, but no set is perfect.

I think you're on the right track. Salute. ---Brian Powell