3 best. 3 worst Topps issues

[kailes2872]

Read the if you could open a box thread and it made me think about my favorite and least favorite years. I am not sure if I am down on the 70s stuff because of the nostalgia of the 50s/60s stuff but there really seems to be a drop off

Here are mine:
Worst:
70 - hate this year and the gray borders. I didn't like if 30+ years ago when I saw it for the first time and I like it even less now. When you take the awesomeness of 67-69 and 71 surrounding it, makes it even worse.

73 - this is one that I liked a lot as a kid but dislike after I have bought the set. I loved the Aaron card catching the popup. I liked the fact that it was the last Clemente issue and the fact that Willie looked very old in the Mets uniform. However, in retrospect, the cards are usually off center and miscut. My two least favorite cards are Freddie Patek and Leron Lee. The backs seem to be dungy and dirty and hard to read. I very rarely get this album out to look at.

79 - Easy target but I find nothing redeeming about this set.

Honorable mention:
78 (polarizing but I don't like it)
64 - my least favorite of the 60s and I didn't want to just list ever 70s set except 71-72 and 75-76

Best:
65 - love the pennant design. I like the black pennant for cardinals. One of my favorite Mantle cards. The 80 issue seems like abut of a hat tip to this year and 80 was my first year of heavy collecting

59 - love the format. It is the one that I have been upgrading since August so lots of energy with it.

63 - really dig the circle picture on the card. It seems like it would have been cool to open a pack of these in 63 as the cards look fantastic. I don't particularly like the floating head cards but the rest of the set makes up for it.

Honorable Mention:
67 - built the set card by card and love the green backs and clear pictures

72 - Polarizing but it is my birth year so I have always had an affinity for the magical mystery tour set

75 - As a kid growing up and becoming a big baseball fan in the early 80s, a set that had a rookie of Brett, Yount, Lynn, Rice, Carter plus a Hank Aaron Brooks and Frank Robinson, Gibson, Brock, and Killebrew was the perfect mix of the golden age and new age in one crazy colored set!

As you can see, I am new here and this might be a tired retreaded topic. If so, my apologies - if you want to provide a link to the archive I would love to read your responses. I looked back a few pages before I posted but admittedly I didn't do an extensive search.

Cheers!

[Section115]

Best: 1966, 1972, 1960

Worst: 1970, 1976, 1973


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nolemmings]

I'll chime in on this topic again. I try to look at the sets as if they were released when I was a kid, and of course many of them in fact were. My least favorite:

1. 1978. Hands down. It's as if the guy tasked with designing this set took the preceding year's issue--itself pretty unremarkable--and took 15 minutes to tweak a couple of things to distinguish it (must have been the same guy they used in 1969). Those things, an ugly uncreative script team name and the player's position, abbreviated no less, put inside a baseball, make it look like someone forgot to do their homework assignment and slapped together something in between classes. Hate it.

2. 1973. First year to issue all cards at once, and the first to dive headlong into "action shots", after an apparent warm reception from the '71 and '72 dabbling into that format. Between the hideous airbrushing gone wild to the long range who-the-heck-is that shot selection, these just fell flat. I will give them credit for the LHP/RHP distinction and it's not totally their fault that the action photography was not yet up to snuff; still, with the drab black backs and their vertical orientation that limited the stats, this was lackluster at best.

3. 1954. I won't totally re-hash my prior rant--it can be found here.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=166110&highlight=1954
Suffice it to say that the player selection was so lousy-- a 1/10 chance at getting a coach or manager and virtually no AL Champion Indian pitchers, for example-- that any kid ripping packs that year was dismally disappointed. Topps was hugely lucky that they hit on Aaron, Kaline and Banks, or this would be universally roasted as the worst Topps set ever.

BEST.

1. 1966. My first year collecting. Love the color coordination for all players on a team--also used well in '68 and '69 (same colors even). Mad that they chose that one year to exclude World Series cards as my beloved Twins had been participants. Just liked everything about the set except maybe the capless guys from the Angels and Braves in the early series.

2. 1961. Really think this is a clean design, although the photography could be better. This was the first set I ever collected that was issued before I had started collecting-- my first effort at a set from the past, and I will always remember the first card given to me--Billy Pierce. Had never heard of him, did a bit of research and saw he was quite good and this spurred me to first study many others who had played before "my time". Really started me into vintage collecting, later followed by prewar.

3. 1956. Player selection is outstanding, love the over-sized cards, and the design and artwork are great, even if many were repeated from the prior year or two. If they could have just squeezed Musial in there somehow.

[Griffins]

Best- '67, '65, '71, '56, '55

'67 is the cleanest design of all the Topps issues, and IMO 2nd only to '53 Bowman for best design. '65 and '71 are both great designs and both sets feature good imagery. '56 and '55 are like the others, a good design that doesn't get in the way of the photography, as it should be.

Worst '73, '61, '59, '57, '58

'73, '61, and '57 all have bad, muddy images. '69 has the same problem, all the blue skies look slate gray. '59 and '58 both have bad designs that over power the images.
Topps had a bad run from '57-'62 until they went on a good run from '63-'67.

[digdugdig]

My 1st year collecting as a young-un is still one of my favorites ... '64, and '65 is great also.
'66 I thought was very bland.
Also like the '63's and '53's.
Not so much '57 and '58.
Think you're gonna get a wide range of opinions on this one!!

[Beatles Guy]

No love for '73 and '79 Topps huh? They are my two favorite sets from the 70's, go figure :) I do agree about 1970 though. Horrible design.

[JollyElm]

2. 1973. First year to issue all cards at once, and the first to dive headlong into "action shots", after an apparent warm reception from the '71 and '72 dabbling into that format. Between the hideous airbrushing gone wild to the long range who-the-heck-is that shot selection, these just fell flat. I will give them credit for the LHP/RHP distinction and it's not totally their fault that the action photography was not yet up to snuff; still, with the drab black backs and their vertical orientation that limited the stats, this was lackluster at best.

Minor point, but it was 1974 when Topps issued all the cards at once. 1973 still had the various series.

[nolemmings]

Sorry, but the 1973 were also released all at once. In some parts of the country they were released in series, but they were all printed at once and at least where I grew up in Minnesota, were all available at the same time.

[JollyElm]

Sorry, but the 1973 were also released all at once. In some parts of the country they were released in series, but they were all printed at once and at least where I grew up in Minnesota, were all available at the same time.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The whole country had the set released in series...but not your town in Minnesota? Come on.

[nolemmings]

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The whole country had the set released in series...but not your town in Minnesota? Come on.

Um, you might want to re-think that.
http://p2.la-img.com/393/1893/834019_1_l.jpg

[JollyElm]

That pack must have been issued after the season was over, sort of like those infamous 'Christmas' packs. The graphic on that pack is the same one used during the season, only it didn't have that "660 cards" verbiage on it.

135208

I have never even once heard a person claim they were all released at the same time. Look anywhere--the PSA website, Beckett, etc.--they all say the same thing: they were issued in series. That is why Beckett always listed them in separate series.

[Cardboard Junkie]

best 52 60 72
worst 73 and anything recent.

[JollyElm]

I found a site that seems to explain the 1973 wrapper issue. Apparently when the final series (high numbers) was released in certain parts of the country, they also included cards from the earlier series--but only in the high series packs released late in the summer. It's clear that all 660 cards were not available in packs from the beginning of the season onward.

"The high series packs had a unique “All 660 cards” notation in a triangle that slightly overlapped the image of the catcher. This variation had 2 different panel offers and a production code of 0-451-90-01-3."

[Vintagevault13]

Best: 1952, 1965, 1957

Worst: 1970, 1968, 1962

[Samsdaddy]

Best: 1965 is my all time favorite set. The design and bright colors makes this set a winner.

1963 is another winner for the same reasons as listed above. And, the 1975 set because it was the first year I started collecting and it brings back so many great memories as well as it was the best set of the decade.

Honorable mention goes to the 1964 set. I know some don't care for it but I really like it. If you put your cards in team order, there is no better set.
1967 set also is a super set, clean and simple design.

Now, for the worst IMHO.

1973. Very dull design.
1970, gray, dull, though I do like the All - Star cards.
Hard to come up with a third though I do not care for the 1968 issue (burlap borders), nor do I care much for the 1962 set with its woodgrain borders.

[bnorth]

Um, you might want to re-think that.
http://p2.la-img.com/393/1893/834019_1_l.jpg

I know nothing about these packs but using anything in a GAI slab to prove it is real is not a good idea. They slabbed several made up fake packs. I would be amazed if the cards in the pack are the right year.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

My favorites: 1953, 1957, 1965

My not so favorites: 1961, 1968, 1972

[K-Nole]

http://www.psacardfacts.com/Hierarchy.aspx?c=188

http://www.cardboardconnection.com/1973-topps-baseball-cards-2

http://www.1973baseballcards.com/?p=1

[m.wright58926]

Lots of dislike for the 73 set, I actually like the little icons for the positions. I know many of the pics are bad, but it makes me laugh at times, the ridiculous distant shots of like 4 players converging around 2nd base...maybe spotting a huge vintage land yacht parked under the palms in the background...perhaps it was the rookie year of the Topps art director.

Anyways - 3 best:
1. 1955 Love 2 pics and horizontal format, 56 and 60 too
2. 1965 Pennants are cool
3. 1976 Like the bars, colorful like 75 but toned down some

Worst
1. 1968 Pinkish dot design???
2. 1970 Obviously
3. 1958 Why so bland sandwiched between 57 and 59?

[BradH]

I'm sure nostalgia plays into this a lot, so for me the Best would be:
1977 - First year I really collected as a kid and I loved the little pennants at the top.

Other favorites for me (in chronological order):
1953
1957
1965
1972
1983

Worst for me:
1966 - Too bland
1970 - I own it because it's my birth year, but that's the only reason
1973 - Didn't care for the little generic characters at the bottom
1982 - To me, the single worst design ever done by Topps. As a 12-year-old I was so disgusted by this set that it turned me off to modern cards - for one summer at least - and I actually started working on a 1957 set. So I guess I can at least thank the Topps folks for inadvertently turning me on to something else. (I purchased the '57 Mantle at a card show that summer and my dad about killed me - great memories.)

[nolemmings]

Darren,

The 1973 set was issued all at once where I lived, and I don't care what you believe. As a teenager who had collected for several years at the time, I was acutely aware of cards being issued in series over the years. The people at Ben Franklin, the only store within biking distance to sell baseball cards, more than once told me how they would not order more--the new series-- until the old supply had been sold, meaning I would usually have to encourage my friends to buy or just accumulate "doubles", as I generally had completed the series. So arrival of the new series cards was a big deal every year-- until 1973. They all came out at once.

Consider this. 1972 Topps high-numbers were printed in March 1972 or later, as the beautiful "traded" mini-set included Wise, Carlton and McLain playing for their new teams--no airbrush--and these players were not acquired until the end of February/early March. So we know that high-numbers from this set (and other years) were printed using photos taken from at least Spring training if not early season games.

Now look at 1973. The so-called "high numbers" include many airbrushes, e.g Earl Williams, Davey Johnson, Larry Hisle, of players who Topps could have corrected by Spring. Most importantly, McLain is a high number with an air-brushed Braves cap--and he had been released in March, having never played a game for Atlanta that season! Similarly, high-number Ken Reynolds is shown in an airbrushed Twins cap, and he had been traded to the Brewers in the Spring, having never pitched for Minnesota! Also high-number Jack Heidemann is shown with Cleveland, when he had been traded in the Spring to Oakland. So why are these guys appearing in the 1973 high series, in airbrushed caps no less, when they had been off those teams the entire season? Why, because the cards had been printed in the Winter of '72 and all at once.

[kailes2872]

I'm sure nostalgia plays into this a lot, so for me the Best would be:
1977 - First year I really collected as a kid and I loved the little pennants at the top.

Other favorites for me (in chronological order):
1953
1957
1965
1972
1983

Worst for me:
1966 - Too bland
1970 - I own it because it's my birth year, but that's the only reason
1973 - Didn't care for the little generic characters at the bottom
1982 - To me, the single worst design ever done by Topps. As a 12-year-old I was so disgusted by this set that it turned me off to modern cards - for one summer at least - and I actually started working on a 1957 set. So I guess I can at least thank the Topps folks for inadvertently turning me on to something else. (I purchased the '57 Mantle at a card show that summer and my dad about killed me - great memories.)


I hear you on the 82's. I had a paper route and as a 10 year old that year, I bought several 36 pack boxes and 2 500ct vending boxes. I put together 2 full and nearly a 3rd complete sets. Not only were the cards ugly and over produced, but 81 was the strike year so the the stats on the back were underwhelming - 4 guys tied for the AL home run lead with 22 - how lame. Ricky Henderson had 56 stolen bases to lead the AL after having 100 the prior year and 130 the year after. Of all years to have money in my pocket it had to be that abomination of an issue...

[savedfrommyspokes]

My 3 best:
1. 1972
2. 1965
3. 1967

My 3 Worst:
1. 1961
2. 1964
3. 1966

[BillP]

It's tough for me to assign the top 3, so I just list them:

1967: First year I remember having multiple packs to open. Still remember opening up the George Banks card and his position read OF . 3B, was that a new position off 3rd base? I just didn't get it. Clean format and colorful, one of the things I like about my favorite sets. Series 1-5 plentiful, series 6 not so, series 7 a mystery. Favorite Card: Yaz

1963: 3rd set I went after when re-collecting. Love the colors and the backs. Two high number series and multiple stars plus variations. Favorite Card: Koufax

1966: I don't know whether I like this set due to the high numbers ( which overall are my favorite group to Collect) or the straight forward design. Favorite Cards: G Perry, Choo Choo Coleman, Clarke.

4th: 1965 Topps football: Had about 3/4 of the set, like the fact that 22 players were offered from each team and tall cards. Wished BB tried it.

Worst: Based on pre-73 sets.
1961 - Bland, and there is no great photos of the stars.
1969- The card stock seemed thinner and a lot of duplicate photos from prior years
1960 - just don't like the horizontal format.

I will say that up until 5 years ago I considered 64 weak, but I have come around on it to the point that I am 52 cards away from completing it.

billp

[ALR-bishop]

What amazes me is that a guy as astute as Anthony could be so wrong about 57 and 59:)

Todd-- I get what you say about 54, but it is even more true of the iconic 52 set which is also full of coaches, managers and guys who hardly played at the ML level, if at all.

[stlcardsfan]

You guys are only considering the fronts. 1970 has the best backs of any year! Clear, bright and ultra easy to read (especially when you get older). But I digress:

Best:

1967
1972
1965

Worst:

1958
1962
1968

[Tennken]

My best:

1. 1967
2. 1953
3. 1971

My worst:

1. 1970
2. 1968
3. 1969

[KCRfan1]

My favorites in no certain order:

1973
1952
1955

My least favorites in no certain order:

1979
1982
1978

More of my least favorites would be the junk wax from 1986 to present.

Fun thread, as we all have our own personal likes and dislikes.

[spec]

Darren,

The 1973 set was issued all at once where I lived, and I don't care what you believe. As a teenager who had collected for several years at the time, I was acutely aware of cards being issued in series over the years. The people at Ben Franklin, the only store within biking distance to sell baseball cards, more than once told me how they would not order more--the new series-- until the old supply had been sold, meaning I would usually have to encourage my friends to buy or just accumulate "doubles", as I generally had completed the series. So arrival of the new series cards was a big deal every year-- until 1973. They all came out at once.

Consider this. 1972 Topps high-numbers were printed in March 1972 or later, as the beautiful "traded" mini-set included Wise, Carlton and McLain playing for their new teams--no airbrush--and these players were not acquired until the end of February/early March. So we know that high-numbers from this set (and other years) were printed using photos taken from at least Spring training if not early season games.

Now look at 1973. The so-called "high numbers" include many airbrushes, e.g Earl Williams, Davey Johnson, Larry Hisle, of players who Topps could have corrected by Spring. Most importantly, McLain is a high number with an air-brushed Braves cap--and he had been released in March, having never played a game for Atlanta that season! Similarly, high-number Ken Reynolds is shown in an airbrushed Twins cap, and he had been traded to the Brewers in the Spring, having never pitched for Minnesota! Also high-number Jack Heidemann is shown with Cleveland, when he had been traded in the Spring to Oakland. So why are these guys appearing in the 1973 high series, in airbrushed caps no less, when they had been off those teams the entire season? Why, because the cards had been printed in the Winter of '72 and all at once.

Todd is right on the money. I ended 16 years of collecting out of packs when Topps did not issue the 1973 set in series -- at least in the Boston/Brookline, Mass. area. Since 1959 I had purchased a box each time a series came out, discovering even at the age of 12 that that was the most efficient way to get all the cards in a series, at least when you lived in a rural area as I did until 1967. That strategy did not work when all 660 cards were distributed at once, so I just bought the entire set from a dealer.
Bo.b Richa.rdson

[NateMack]

My 3 favorites are:
1. 54 Topps, surprising to hear that so many people dislike the set. I feel like each card is a work of art and the bright colors are amazing! A very great day when I got the Banks and Aaron RCs!
2. 56 Topps, these were the cards of legend when I was growing up and today. A truley amazing set and jam packed with all the stars again...
3. 58 Topps, the first set I completed when I got back into collecting after a lengthy stoppage, I really love the colors and with each of these 3 sets I love reading the backs of the cards as well!
- runners up: 55T, 53T, 52T, 59T, 72T, 64T, 65T

My 3 worst:
1970, gray borders make these cards very drab. Not much to look at
1968 Topps, differing front patterns and ugly design
1971 those black borders are a nightmare, every ding is magnified
- runners up: 73T, 74T, 76-79T, 62T

[nolemmings]

...
Todd-- I get what you say about 54, but it is even more true of the iconic 52 set which is also full of coaches, managers and guys who hardly played at the ML level, if at all.

True to some extent Al, but not nearly as bad. By my count there were only about 15 managers/coaches out of 407 in the '52 set, about one out of 27 cards (asssuming I didn't miss some). In '54 there were 26 out of 250 cards, better than 1 in 10. I get what you're saying about the undistinguished players, but at least Topps rolled the dice and gave kids a chance to look at someone relatively within their age group and not those old coots who had long since hung 'em up.

Todd is right on the money. I ended 16 years of collecting out of packs when Topps did not issue the 1973 set in series -- at least in the Boston/Brookline, Mass. area. Since 1959 I had purchased a box each time a series came out, discovering even at the age of 12 that that was the most efficient way to get all the cards in a series, at least when you lived in a rural area as I did until 1967. That strategy did not work when all 660 cards were distributed at once, so I just bought the entire set from a dealer.
Bo.b Richa.rdson

Thanks Bob- nice to see someone else remembers.

[BillP]

Todd is right on the money. I ended 16 years of collecting out of packs when Topps did not issue the 1973 set in series -- at least in the Boston/Brookline, Mass. area. Since 1959 I had purchased a box each time a series came out, discovering even at the age of 12 that that was the most efficient way to get all the cards in a series, at least when you lived in a rural area as I did until 1967. That strategy did not work when all 660 cards were distributed at once, so I just bought the entire set from a dealer.
Bo.b Richa.rdson So Bob, you opened 7th series wax boxes in 66 and 67? I also live in Massachusetts and I can tell you in the Taunton/Lakeville area I never saw the last series. Shifted to Philly Football about late Aug / Sept. Rack Packs were around in grocery stores and Woolworth's but only early series.
Back to my questions, what do you remember about opening them, distribution wise.

thx billp

[spec]

So Bob, you opened 7th series wax boxes in 66 and 67? I also live in Massachusetts and I can tell you in the Taunton/Lakeville area I never saw the last series. Shifted to Philly Football about late Aug / Sept. Rack Packs were around in grocery stores and Woolworth's but only early series.
Back to my questions, what do you remember about opening them, distribution wise.

thx billp

Bill,
In 1966 and '67 I did most of my collecting in Winter Park and Orlando, Fla., where I was in college. I have no recollection of the 1966 high numbers, but I do remember not finding 7th series cards in 1967 until I visited my cousins in North Reading, Mass., around Labor Day. The precise details escape me, but I bought a box there (I think my younger cousin did, too) and we were able to complete our sets. I think we got the only two boxes in that neighborhood because the convenience stores all were pushing the Topps Red Sox stickers, which didn't excite me (although I did complete a set). Also had trouble finding the 1967 6th series in Pensacola, Fla., where I lived and collected from 1957 to 1967, but I found a box in Mountainside, NJ, while visiting my aunt on our way up to Boston.

[Harliduck]

To all who are posting nuggets on the 66s and 67 high number packs...THANKS!


3 Favorite -

55 Topps
66 Topps
67 Topps


3 Least -

58 Topps
72 Topps
77 Topps


This changes for me all the time, lol. I also LOVE the 71 Topps set which I just completed and worked thru several upgrades to finally call my entire set EX. TOUGH fricken set...most work I have EVER done. I have over 400 doubles of this set due to all the work involved...

[BillP]

Bill,
In 1966 and '67 I did most of my collecting in Winter Park and Orlando, Fla., where I was in college. I have no recollection of the 1966 high numbers, but I do remember not finding 7th series cards in 1967 until I visited my cousins in North Reading, Mass., around Labor Day. The precise details escape me, but I bought a box there (I think my younger cousin did, too) and we were able to complete our sets. I think we got the only two boxes in that neighborhood because the convenience stores all were pushing the Topps Red Sox stickers, which didn't excite me (although I did complete a set). Also had trouble finding the 1967 6th series in Pensacola, Fla., where I lived and collected from 1957 to 1967, but I found a box in Mountainside, NJ, while visiting my aunt on our way up to Boston. I agree on the RS stickers, coincidently, I was on vacation as late as February of 68 in Lexington, ma and was able to buy them. Pasted them to my matchbox case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

dislike a lot
1970
1968
1960
1973

(don't consider anything after 1975 a real card :D)

like a lot
1965 (WHY does Mantle have to have his eyes almost closed though, ruins what could have been a great card?)
1957
1952
1954
1971
1967

[ALR-bishop]

Peter--you talking about the card where he is hitting a home run while whiffing on a Gibson fastball ?:)

I have lots of non cards alongside my real cards ;)

[Gr8Beldini]

Best:
1956 with the beautiful action shots and best player selection (by far) of any 1950's set. Only set with Jackie, Ted Williams and Mantle together. If only there were a Musial...
1965: Yogi and Spahnnie as Mets; Beautiful contrast between the heavy blue Yankee uniforms and the pink border. Ditto the Dodger blue against the orange. Nicest looking group of key cards (excluding the Clemente who looks somewhat constipated).
1963: Love the color borders and quality of photographs. Nicest reverse of any vintage set. My favorite Mays, Clemente and Koufax cards. The only card of Dalkowski... Ashburn, Hodges, Marv, Choo-Choo, Woodling, Casey (et al) look killer in those Mets uniforms.
Worst:
1961: Boring design with drab photography (other than the magnificent All-Star cards). Ugliest Mays and Killebrew cards of all-time.
1959: More border than photograph. Ugliest Mantle (tied with the 67 Topps mug shot).
1968: Dumb design; laden with hatless pix and black magic markered hats; boring reverse.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter--you talking about the card where he is hitting a home run while whiffing on a Gibson fastball ?:)

I have lots of non cards alongside my real cards ;)

No the regular issue #350.

[novakjr]

Basing mine mostly on looks..and a bit on rookies..

Best

'54- Love the offset border. The color portraits are nice, but I love the contrast of the B/W action shot. Just a great layout and design altogether. Aaron, Banks, Kaline and Lasorda makes for a pretty nice HOF RC class..

'57- Just a simple and gorgeous set.. The selection of HOF RC's in nearly unrivaled. Even a pretty nice selection of non-HOF RC's..

'75- I get how some people can be turned off by the bright borders. BUT I love it. Also, a pretty nice selection of HOF RCs...

Hon mention- 52 and 53. Gorgeous sets. I probably should've listed '52 instead of 75. No matter how gorgeous '53 is, I can't give it too much love due to it's lack of HOF RCs. Also, really like the pennants on '65..

Worst

62- It's really strange, because I love the woodgrain on the '87 set, but not so much on the 62s.

64- just a really boring design.

73- same as 64, but somehow managed to be more boring..

Hon mention- 68, I think they're kinda ugly, but for some reason I still like the set. 69 and 70, may rival the boringness of 73, but I can't bring myself to completely hate them...

[vintage954]

Top 3

-1956
-1967
-1968

Bottom 3

-1961
-1966
-1970

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hard to top 55 for rookie cards.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Top 52....60....72

Bottom 57....69, 73

[Sidepocket]

1963 may be the best looking when in NM centered condition. Just gorgeous. And yes they were great fun to open back in the day! Almost HD quality photos compared to everything that came before. Phenomenal backs, easy to read, even a cartoon.

1957 had that "old school" look, great backgrounds including several of the billboard covered fences that to me were part of what made the old stadiums so classic. Baggy uniforms, small gloves, interesting colors, they almost look like they came from the forties.

1961 although much hated I really like the photo/painting style of the cards. Cool in their simplicity although like many issues too many hatless head shots.

There really aren't any bad designs in the 50's/60's in my opinion. Well, maybe 1958 although it's growing on me.

Worst? 1979 I think. Horrible quality, not even fun to open the centering is so atrocious.

1970 is pretty boring.

1981 is very unmemorable. But 1989 is worse.

[Orioles1954]

Worst to first--Pre-1980 only. Working in the auction industry I've handled the majority of these sets hundreds of times. My ranking is based on the "whole picture" including design and player selection.

1974---worst by a mile
1970
1979
1977
1978
1973
1976
1975
1969
1966
1964
1971
1972
1968
1960
1958
1962
1959
1955
1961
1954
1963
1967
1957
1965
1956
1953
1952

[ALR-bishop]

Welcome Sidepocket. I agree with you almost 100 percent

[bobsbbcards]

I'll take a shot at the worst-to-first list (1951 to 1979). If there's a particular series of that year where the skill of the photographers/design department clearly stood out, it's shown in parenthesis:

1979
1978
1973
1975
1974
1962 (high numbers)
1958
1970 (semi highs)
1977
1959
1976
1951
1953
1971 (high numbers)
1964 (semi highs)
1952
1961 (high numbers)
1963
1960
1972 (semi highs and high numbers)
1955
1968 (first series)
1954
1965 (semi highs)
1957
1966 (semi highs and high numbers)
1969 (first and second series)
1956
1967 (semi highs and high numbers)

[bobsbbcards]

Wandering through the first 132 or so cards from 1969, it continues to amaze me how beautiful some of the cards are. Here are some that exemplify Topps baseball in the '60s (in numerical order):

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps013Stanley.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps020Banks.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps030Allison.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps046Peterson.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps050Clemente.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps055Grote.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps070Helms.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps085Brock.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps090Koosman.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps095Bench.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps097Bradford.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps100Aaron.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps104Blass.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps110Shannon.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1969/1969topps/69Topps150McLain.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

Good list, Bob, except, as usual, you are wrong about 1959:rolleyes:

[onlyvintage62]

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The whole country had the set released in series...but not your town in Minnesota? Come on.

It has been verified (even by Topps), that parts of the country had all the cards released at once. It was a marketing test to see how it would impact sales.

The reason being is that they were losing money by printing cards in series, as demand fell off by the 6th and 7th series.

I know that the entire states of California and Florida - at least- had the card released in one shot.

[onlyvintage62]

I'll take a shot at the worst-to-first list (1951 to 1979). If there's a particular series of that year where the skill of the photographers/design department clearly stood out, it's shown in parenthesis:

1979
1978
1973
1975
1974
1962 (high numbers)
1958
1970 (semi highs)
1977
1959
1976
1951
1953
1971 (high numbers)
1964 (semi highs)
1952
1961 (high numbers)
1963
1960
1972 (semi highs and high numbers)
1955
1968 (first series)
1954
1965 (semi highs)
1957
1966 (semi highs and high numbers)
1969 (first and second series)
1956
1967 (semi highs and high numbers)

Thanks for the effort, that list is spot on IMO. Notice how the early / mid seventies cards are usually deemed the worst overall. The 73, 74 sets (also the FB sets of that year) were HORRIBLE from a paper stock standpoint and a C minus from a photo standpoint. It is my understanding that Topps was going thru some tough financial times then and cut back on the quality of the paper.

How about the fifth series of 1969, the one of the photos with the filter over the lens.

Disagree with you on the first series of 1968.. apparently it tested so bad that they had to change it.

For some reason in most cases the later series cards had better quality photos.

Just my two cents.

[Jayworld]

I find it somewhat interesting that in many cases, the year sets that rank high on lists are the ones that people first collected, which suggests more of a nostalgia feel in many respects regarding the rankings.

My first set to complete outright from packs was 1977, but I had been collecting since 1974. I think from pure design and photo quality (as well as backs), the 1976 set is a very clean set. Although the 1975 set gets a lot of love, from the unusual multi-color front designs, the Yount/Brett rookie cards, and the vertical backs, but I think the backs are very hard to read, especially in lower lighting conditions. Heck, I even have to get out a magnifying glass to see the numbers on the backs at times unless I put the card under direct light.

The 1969 and 1964 sets are beautiful sets and nice, clear backs, too. I thought the 1981 set was and unusual and distinct set with the team caps in the lower left corner; they even got the Pirates pillbox cap correct and the Padres "yellow mission bell" front panel on the caps. 1982 was a poor design, as was 1984, which in effect was a redesign of the 1983 cards with action shot and panel.

[Gr8Beldini]

For some reason in most cases the later series cards had better quality photos.

Just my two cents.

Totally agree, particularly in 1969, 1971, and especially 1972.

[Rich Klein]

Best: 57, 67, 77

Worst: 58. 59. 73

Rich

[bobsbbcards]

Disagree with you on the first series of 1968.. apparently it tested so bad that they had to change it.

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps020Robinson.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps025Javier.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps035Hargan.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps045Seaver.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps050Mays.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps061Smith.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps078Northrup.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps080Carew.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps086Stargell.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps092Kranepool.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps100Gibson.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps104Dietz.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps003NLRBILeaders.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps006ALHRLeaders.jpg

[onlyvintage62]

Point Taken Those are gorgeous!! But always wondered why they changed design. Given the know fact that TOPPS was somewhat cost conscious to say the least why the change. I had heard that it tested poorly and had gotten a bad reaction.

Does anybody have any insight?

[ALR-bishop]

62--when you say change in design are you referring to differences in the burlap background ?

Those sure are great cards Bob

[bobsbbcards]

A lot of people aren't enamored by the "wide mesh" burlap in the first series and a half or so. I prefer the wide mesh, but that's not what I like best about the first series. It's just that the photos, lighting, and colors seem more vibrant. I'd have trouble choosing nine cards in the remaining series that catch my eye like these do. The poses also start repeating themselves in the later series (big head-no hat, just about to swing, just about to pitch, just about to stop squatting, I'm a manager and I like to shout, etc.). Exceptional cards:

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps520Brock.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps390Mazeroski.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps355Banks.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps290McCovey.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps251Sanguillen.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps230Rose.jpg

http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps480ManagersDream.jpg http://www.bobsbbcards.com/images/baseball/1968/1968topps/68Topps154WSGame4.jpg

[ALR-bishop]

Mesh differences in the same card within the separate Topps Milton Bradley Game set
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img657_zpsae4a6f77.jpg

[bnorth]

Mesh differences in the same card within the separate Topps Milton Bradley Game set
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img657_zpsae4a6f77.jpg

Different photo cropping on Frank also.

[33rd Street]

1953 topps- I realize sets from the fifties suffer from the bowman/topps mini war but in 53 topps got a great Mantle in there a high number mays and that great Paige! Top it off with the best card (my opinion) of Robinson to open the set and I can live with no Snider, Musial etc. these cards just scream nostalgia to me. Little pieces of art.

1956 Topps- I guess you can tell I'm a 50's guy by now. Now that bowman's gone topps gets to load up this issue with every great except Musial. For eye appeal and collectabilty this is topps best issue in my opinion it's lacking any rookie class at all that little go go sox SS doesn't excite many collectors but there are 33 HOF's in this classic.

1957 Topps- last year for New York Giants and the bums! Set has it all, legends of the sport and a great rookie class. Centered 57's are some of my favorite cards.

Worst

1968-1970- nothing about these three years excites me. The only good thing that happened was Mantle never had a 1970 card! Thank god I didn't have to see the mick on some of the goffy early seventy issues with huge sideburns and polyester uniforms!!

1958 Topps- very colorful but the worst of the fifties in my opinion.

1974- this is topps worst issue ever in my opinion. Just so happens its the year I was born. Yuck.

[glynparson]

Best
1. 1952
2. 1953
3. 1955

Worst

1. 1990
2. 1976
3. 1973

[glynparson]

I was born in 1972 these are far from the first sets I collected. 1980 topps was the first one I put together. 1979 was the first year I bought a pack of cards. 1981 would be my favorite from my youth.