1952-1956 best value topps sets?

[1952boyntoncollector]

I seem to keep hearing that 1952 Topps are the prime topps set to keep their value and then 1952-1956....why these 4 years..why not 1957 or some other years in the grouping..is this all in my mind....did something happen after 1956 in the production of the sets..

it just appears there seems to be mental cutoff at 1956 ..that the grouping seems to be 52-56...or is that just in my mind...

[MattyC]

I never heard any rule like that. In my opinion sets are like cards in that one year or one grade is not going to determine value as much as how much care is spent in the selection of the card itself, and eye appeal.

Having built and sold entire graded sets in the past, I can say that much of realizing a set's maximum value is timing, and that is utterly random. What I mean is that any set can have periods of time when there are a few wealthy collectors duking it out, and especially when one such collector (or more) is starting out, that's a great time to sell. Then there are periods where the water just has fewer sharks.

Granted, some sets do have inherent popularity factors like key rookie cards or in the case of 1952, it being Topps' first set. So those sets have a good chance of having shark infested waters, so to speak. But it's key to temper that outlook with the knowledge that a less popular set can have a few avid collectors in it that would make a set seller at the right time realize great value.

Hope that .02 helps.

[con40]

Seems to be pretty arbitrary split. 1952 is in a league of its own among Topps sets.

1953, 54 and 55 had smaller print runs than the 1956 set did. With Bowman out of the way, Topps really let the presses run for 1956 on all series. They are much more plentiful than any previous sets. As a result, high grade commons sell for significantly less than 1955 commons from my experience.

[rsdill2]

'52 is undeniably a classic set and will always have it's following for numerous reasons.

52-56 are the original larger "vintage" size. Lots of collectors tend to separate 52-56 from 57-72 (or 73 depending on your opinion) as the two main eras of vintage cards. I stop at 72 (or 73 depending on your perspective) because that's when Topps stopped issuing cards in series.

This is somewhat related, and I realize Beckett prices are mostly useless but I once did an analysis on the sum of individual card values in a set relative to the list value of a complete set. You can see that thread here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=183323

[Zach Wheat]

'52 is undeniably a classic set and will always have it's following for numerous reasons.

52-56 are the original larger "vintage" size. Lots of collectors tend to separate 52-56 from 57-72 (or 73 depending on your opinion) as the two main eras of vintage cards. I stop at 72 (or 73 depending on your perspective) because that's when Topps stopped issuing cards in series.

This is somewhat related, and I realize Beckett prices are mostly useless but I once did an analysis on the sum of individual card values in a set relative to the list value of a complete set. You can see that thread here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=183323

Interesting observations in your old thread. Part of the reason '72 set prices are so low relative to the cumulative value of the individual prices of cards in the set is that the set is so big. It was one of the larger sets at 787 cards.

[1952boyntoncollector]

good points.i think it was the issue of the card size is why 52-56 was in my mind.