Topical sets - which years do you go with?

[jason.1969]

I'm guessing many of you at some point have attempted to complete collections such as these--


1957 Milwaukee Braves world championship team
AL MVPs - 1952-2000
Historic seasons/records (e.g., 1961 Roger Maris)


I am curious if you go with cards that match the specific year of interest (e.g., 1957 Topps in the case of the Braves world champs) or if you go forward a year. For instance, would your Triple Crown theme set include the '68 Yaz or the '69 Yaz?

My next set of interest is the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers--this was their first year ever winning the World Series. I would LOVE to build this set using 1955 Topps, but I will most likely opt for 1956 Topps instead. On the bright side, I save a mint on Koufax--but more importantly, the '55 set excluded Campy.

P.S. The exclusion of Campy came back to bite Topps 20 years later when they issued their MVP subset. "Hmm...wait a minute...we must have one around here somewhere, right? Ah crap, just make one up I guess!!"

173391

[1963Topps Set]

And they made one up with a Los Angeles Dodger cap to boot!

[jason.1969]

Classic! I didn't even notice that.

[swarmee]

Another interesting sidenote about Berra/Campanella in the 1975 MVPs subset: they were both MVPs in 1951, according to card #189. Maybe everyone else already knew that!

[1963Topps Set]

As for the 1955 Topps Campanella, they used a black and white head shot as well! They had to make up a 1951 Campy for that card too!

[brewing]

As for the 1955 Topps Campanella, they used a black and white head shot as well! They had to make up a 1951 Campy for that card too!

Even today with their archives series, they consistently screw the pooch on cards. The lack of effort is appalling. The 1953 archives was probably the worst.

[1963Topps Set]

This was a debate I had in another thread. Topps cannot reproduce the magic they had in their cards pre 1975.

[mrmopar]

I never really chased any custom sets like you describe, although I would try to get all of the subset cards, like the 75T MVPs or the 76 Topps All Time Greats, etc.

I have played outside the box a little more with autographs, such as trying to get as many Dodgers, those who played on an all star team and the item doesn't have to match the year or team.

To address your example, if I were to assemble a 1955 Dodgers team collection, I would go with the 56 Topps set for a couple reasons. First, I like the design better. Second they show the 55 stats and these guys were actually on the team in 55. With themed sets like that, it is possible that a set made in 55 for example may have a player who moved on and never played with the 55 team. Lastly, although neither year is complete for the team, I believe the 56 set is larger than the 55 with more players to collect.

[HRBAKER]

This was a debate I had in another thread. Topps cannot reproduce the magic they had in their cards pre 1975.

Amen.
Without Heritage and Archives to a lesser extent they are rudderless.

[Shoebox]

I have started creating my own custom sets for Cy Young winners, League MVPs, AS game and WS MVPs. My restriction for the set is that card was issued in the year the player won the award. So players that win the award multiple years I need multiple cards. If a player won multiple awards in the same year I use the same card to fill the slot in each set. Also when putting them together I try to use a variety of cards issues. So if you look at any one year from these sets their will be more just regular Topps cards from that year.

[1963Topps Set]

I have started creating my own custom sets for Cy Young winners, League MVPs, AS game and WS MVPs. My restriction for the set is that card was issued in the year the player won the award. So players that win the award multiple years I need multiple cards. If a player won multiple awards in the same year I use the same card to fill the slot in each set. Also when putting them together I try to use a variety of cards issues. So if you look at any one year from these sets their will be more just regular Topps cards from that year.

And what do you do if there was no card issued for that player the year he won an award?

[mrmopar]

That reminds me. I have always collected the Topps all rookie team cards and those years that Topps didn't use the trophy symbol was irritating (74 and 79-86). There were a few years where the guy got a card, but no trophy when others had one.

However, I decided to collect signed versions. I found the actual ART player lists and went with the cards of those years anyways, trophy or not. It was a great plan except a few guys didn't even have cards made the year the card should have been issued with a trophy. Danny Ainge (1979) and Charles Johnson (1995) come to mind. There might have been another as well.

I lack the skills to make custom cards, so I just got something else signed, the closest Topps card.

[Shoebox]

And what do you do if there was no card issued for that player the year he won an award?

Have only been doing this for the postwar era to avoid that situation. For these awards I haven't come across a situation where there was no card available. If I tried to do the same for pre-52 or for ROY winners it might be an issue and I would need to expand my parameters but for now I have lots of cards to chase without needing to do that. :D

[jason.1969]

Good reasons have been given for the 56 set vs 55 re: first Dodgers championship team. Perhaps amazingly for a set back then, the 56 Topps Dodgers set includes everyone who played for them in the series except four minor players who totaled 9 WS AB (Don Hoak, Russ Meyer, Frank Kellert, George Shuba). Now here's the question...

Hoak, Meyer, and Kellert all appear in the 56 Topps set...as Chicago Cubs! And meanwhile, four 56 Topps Dodgers did not play in the WS (Koufax, Neal, Walker + Randy Jackson, who was not yet on the team). For the card display I want to build, do I include the Cubs cards? Exclude Koufax/Neal/Walker/Jackson? I guess it comes down to whether my set will honor the 55 season, the 55 series, or simply the 56 Topps Dodgers. Luckily the three aren't too far apart.