1956 or 1957 Topps? Which would you choose?

[Filthy]

I am new to collecting vintage, and came to Net54 looking for expert opinions and to educate myself in said subject. So, if this question is too mundane, I apologize in advance.

If you were to be "gifted" a complete set of 1956 Topps, or 1957 Topps and both sets were of similar condition...which would you choose? Which one is more desirable? And why?

This is basically a real case scenario for me, and right now I am having to choose. If I understand correctly, from what I have read, the 1957 set might actually be valued a little higher.However, I am absolutely in love with the overall design of the 56' set. I am not really concerned with a $$$ value, as these were a family members cards being passed onto me. So either way, they're not something I would ever sell or trade. So, Its just going to come down to personal preference.

I would love to hear open and honest opinions from experienced collectors, as far as pros and cons, and/or why you prefer one set over the other. Sell me on one or the other. I am open to any and all comments/opinions. Thanks!

[DBesse27]

The 56 Topps set is the greatest looking baseball set of all time. The Clemente is card porn.

[toppcat]

The 56 Topps set is the greatest looking baseball set of all time. The Clemente is card porn.

I like the 56's but to me they start to look too similar after a while with the portraits dominating. 57 has such great photography to boot.

[Samsdaddy]

I like the 56's but to me they start to look too similar after a while with the portraits dominating. 57 has such great photography to boot.

I agree.

[Mountaineer1999]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=206939

[Peter_Spaeth]

57 hands down. Especially all the ones posed on grass or with the dugout as background.

[ALR-bishop]

Hands down and hands up

[Filthy]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=206939

Thanks for the link. I'm definitely leaning more towards the 56 set, but those that prefer the 57' are pretty adamant about doing so.

[BearBailey]

1957 for me, great set, great photography, tremendous rookies. I certainly like the 1956 set but to me the 1957 set is the best of the 50s.

[bnorth]

I like the 57's way better. Besides the 55 Bowman set I do not care for the horizontal cards.

[Econteachert205]

This is a great choice to make. People are passionate on both sides but both are great sets so you really can't lose. i would personally pick the 56 and buy the major rookies from 57 at a later date.

[DBesse27]

57's look washed out to me, and boring. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a simple design, like 64, 66, 67 Topps. But 57 is dull.

[PolarBear]

The 57 is a more iconic set. I agree, the photography isn't up to 53 Bowman standards, but the muted colors make it look all the more like a vintage set.

57 is the winner hands down.

[RTK]

'57, great cards. Almost ahead of their time with great photography.

[GregC]

I'd vote 56. Eaxh card in that set looks like a miniature work of art. The vibrant colors, portrait/action image combo, a stunning Mantle/Koufax/Clemente/Aaron/Mays...

[Griffins]

Another vote for '56. The photography in '57 is muddy.

[Exhibitman]

Take the ones you like best.

Me, I prefer the scope of the 1957 set. You lose Rizzuto and Jackie but you get the other two Robinsons and over 100 more cards.

[Mark70Z]

Love the 1957 set!

[jhowie]

1956 is a much nicer looking set. I love the simple design of the '57 set, but the pictures are terrible..... grainy, dark lighting, random poses in empty parks

[ALR-bishop]

That was another Berger innovation, Anthony. As a photographer yourself you should appreciate it :)

[Batter67up]

1956 Set is my favorite 50's set.

[RTK]

1956 is a much nicer looking set. I love the simple design of the '57 set, but the pictures are terrible..... grainy, dark lighting, random poses in empty parks

Printing technology aside, the compostion of the photos is pretty good. I especially like what's in the background, snippets of the old stadiums. They capture a moment in time of a long gone era.

[ALR-bishop]

Rick-- you and another poster made reference to the stadium shots and poses. I agree that that is a strong point for this set, despite the photos being "muddy" and the stadiums empty :).

[PolarBear]

The stadiums were "empty" because the photos were taken during practice or pre-game. It's not like they would let some Topps photographer on the field during the game back in 1957.

And, while I agree the photography isn't up to modern standards, I think the 57 set gets a bad rap for "muddy" or "dull" pics in large part because of the Mantle card, which I think they purposely "muted" in order to wash out the bat boy in the background.

However, there's plenty of full color shots like this in the set too.

http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/66198.jpg

[Jdoggs]

both look great. 56 is probably more expensive than 57 in same grade except for the 56 mantle psa 9 sells for less than 57 mantle psa 9.

[ALR-bishop]

Not sure about it from a per card average but the 57 will likely be more expensive in the same grade just because it is so much larger

[mrmopar]

1956 is my all time favorite design and contains my all time favorite card, Jackie Robinson.

The 56 set is missing that 1 or 2 big rookie cards, otherwise I think it would probably be a hands down winner. 53 suffers the same fate I believe. 54 has Aaron, Banks & Kaline. 55 Has Clemente and Koufax, 57 has Drysdale and the 2 Robinsons. Aparicio & Alston just don't have the pop for 56.

Too bad there is not a 57 Jackie!!

[JTysver]

I like both of them. If I were going to receive one of the two sets, I would go with the 1957 set. It is more iconic. But there are two prime differences. 1957 is loaded with Rookies with good value. The second reason is the rarer mid-range numbers. These are kind of hard to find.

1956 is a really nice set and you can't go wrong with the stars in it, but the 1957 Brooks Robinson has strong value and is always in high demand. Throw onto that the rookies of Tony Kubek, Frank Robinson, Rocky Colavito, Bobby Richardson and a few others and this set is loaded with rookies. As well, the Berra-Mantle card is also well sought after.

[HRBAKER]

1957 for me by a WIDE margin.

[PolarBear]

Here's something else I'll add:

The 1957 Topps card backs are probably the best looking card back ever created for a Topps set. The red and blue is the perfect color scheme for gray stock cards (84 and 91 was the only other time red and blue was used and they look good too). Many of the card backs from the 50's-80's are little better looking than a newspaper article.

The card number in the baseball, while not unique, is a perfect design. Not to mention the text and standard cartoon. Plus, 1957 was the first year for the innovative lifetime stats.

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv53/sportscardradio/sportscardradio4/KGrHqFHJC8E92QdB1yBPmzEHb3Rg60_58.jpg

[7nohitter]

I love the '57 set, but in your original post you stated you loved the '56 set and that $$$ wasn't the issue....so take the '56 set!

[jchcollins]

1956 is a much nicer looking set. I love the simple design of the '57 set, but the pictures are terrible..... grainy, dark lighting, random poses in empty parks

Overall I would say pick the set that you like the most, but have to agree with this comment. The pictures on a good deal of the '57 cards aren't great, and even for those that are - the print defect problem in this set as a whole (perhaps because of the real photography?) is awful in comparison to a lot of other sets from the 1950's. When collecting '57s anymore, I go for the pictures being registered and as clean as possible first without that "snow" over even things like centering. This is another set where there is a wide variety in quality between some cards that get the same technical grade because of the snow problem.

[jchcollins]

The 1957 Topps card backs are probably the best looking card back ever created for a Topps set.


To briefly counter this - if you love the cartoons over the stats, there is probably not a better set in the world than 1956 Topps. That's part of why it's my favorite set ever. Not only those classic, colorful fronts - but that great full 1950's cartoon panel on the back. The pitcher trembling on the back of Ted Williams' card, or Carl Furillo's home runs hitting an airplane on the back of his? It doesn't get much more classic than that.

[Filthy]

Once again, thanks for everyones input. I hope to put hands on the sets this coming friday, to really look every card over, and make a decision.

I do have one question, as I've seen the term come up a few times: Registered. ("the pictures being registered and as clean as possible") What does "registered" mean?

[paul]

"Registered" means the colors line up properly. I'm not a printing expert, but as I understand it, each of the primary colors is printed separately on the card. Sometimes, one of the colors is offset a bit from the others, making the picture look blurry or double-visioned.

Back to your original question, I would definitely pick the 56 set. In my opinion, it is one of the most beautiful card designs ever produced. Plus it has Jackie Robinson, Bob Feller and Phil Rizzuto. You lose out on a few rookies, but you can pick up other cards of all of those guys for fairly cheap. To me, there's something nice about having cards of guys like Jackie and Feller that date the set to an earlier era. On the down side, the set does have fewer cards than the 57 set and does not have the two nice group cards that you'll find in the 57 set.

[brian1961]

"which would you choose? Which one is more desirable? And why?

from what I have read, the 1957 set might actually be valued a little higher.However, I am absolutely in love with the overall design of the 56' set. I am not really concerned with a $$$ value. ... So, Its just going to come down to personal preference."



Look bro, I have tried to distill the major contradictions and your answer.

Really, this should be about what YOU like and what you love. Comically speaking, are going to wait for a 2-1 majority with a minimum of 10 responses?

Your choices are both superb sets. You will get strong opinions for either one or the other, or even both. It won't drive ya nuts, but come on, friend, you yourself say, "I am absolutely in love with the overall design of the '56 set. I am not really concerned with $$$ value."

So, go with the great 1956 set, because you absolutely love the design, and you don't care about the money.

No matter which set you get, some chowderhead is gonna chirp up with, "You really blew your chance, bub. I'd have picked (the set you did not pick) in a heartbeat! Well, goody for him. You pick the one YOU love. They are both fine Topps sets, both worth boo coo, and both will probably appreciate. You'll tend to enjoy the set more if you already love its looks. So, there's your answer. Get the 1956 Topps, your own personal preference; there's nothing wrong with your taste, and nuts to everybody else!:D

Nice opportunity, if I may say so.

Regards, Brian Powell

[PolarBear]

The "pictures" are actually printing, with each color overlaying the previous color. In other words, each sheet goes through several printing stages where yellow is printed, then green, then red, etc. (not necessarily in that order)

If the sheet is slightly out of alignment between prints, then the colors will be slightly out of "register". In other words, the "picture" will look blurry.

[ALR-bishop]

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/img172.jpg

[conor912]

However, I am absolutely in love with the overall design of the 56' set

Sounds like you just answered your own question.

[the 'stache]

57 hands down. Especially all the ones posed on grass or with the dugout as background.

The ones with ghosts in the background are the best. :)

I love both sets, but the '56 is one of my favorite Topps issues of all-time, so I'd have to go with that.

[jasonc]

I could see how everything is one way or the other, as both sets are really nice, but they are both so different.
I will vote for 1956, the bigger cards, the player selection and the artwork are fantastic.

The 1957, however, has the Brooks RC, one of the my favorite cards.

[arexcrooke]

I'll weigh in with my opinion. Personally I love both sets. My preference is for the 1956. I really like cards that are horizontal. I'm currently working on a HOF set from 1956 and am loving it. However I will also be working on a 1957 HOF set when j get done with the 56s.
Let me give you another way of looking at which set to chose:
If you are actually looking to collect (I don't know if you do or are going to start) and the 56s are you favorite then take the 57s and then build your own 1956 set. If you enjoy the thrill of collecting this could be an option as you get both sets eventually and you get to build the set you have admitted to liking more.
Just my .02

[Filthy]

Well, I just wanted to update the thread, as I have now actually gone through everything, and made my decision. (Which was pretty easy actually, after seeing what all was there.)

This wasn't just the 2 sets...but an entire collection. so last night, I had a chance to look over everything. Ill post it below, as I don't think it needs its own thread.

1956 Topps- Complete set I chose this set, mainly because I just love the overall look, but more importantly it was my Uncle that was putting together this set about 30 years ago, and he would take me to card shows as a kid..to find these cards. (As it was pre internet days) So, there is sentimental value here more than anything. What I didn't know, previous to now was that he also had a shoebox full of duplicates/triples of a lot of the cards. When I found the box, I assumed that it would be doubles/triples of commons. There were 220 extra 1956 cards in the shoebox including (2) Hank Aarons, (2) Ted Williams, (2) Ernie Banks (3) Sandy Koufax and one extra card #135..Mickey Mantle!

I'm not well versed in graded cards, so don't want to assume on condition..but it looks like, he was putting together a set, and then upgrading as he found nicer examples. (I would guess most of them to be between 3-5, with a few that might be able to pull a 6 or 7) but fortunetly for me, it looks like when he was upgrading.....without selling/trading the previous lower grade card. (Just moving them to the final resting place...the shoe box) But pics are provided.....


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpspu0qb342.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpspu0qb342.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps6qw3ozwo.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps6qw3ozwo.jpeg.html)



http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsdzxaarqa.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsdzxaarqa.jpeg.html)



http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsxiwiia55.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsxiwiia55.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsxbi2dkkn.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsxbi2dkkn.jpeg.html)

[Filthy]

As far as "all the other stuff.....

-Stack of 1953 singles (14 cards all "commons" except for Roy Campanella)
- 1955 Double Headers
-The other complete set of 57' Topps set
-Stack of 58' Topps (20-30 cards)
-6 pages of 1959 Topps, including several duplicates of no name Rookies
-Tons and Tons of 1950s Movie cards. Probably 1,000+ cards.
-Cowboy Western cards (25 or so)
-President Cards
-Elvis Presley Movie cards (12-15 cards)
-Complete Set of some Movie Star/rock star from the 50s. (Elvis, James Dean)
-Some kind f 1950s War cards, with planes, guns, military etc... (100+)

Either way, just thought I would share. It was cool just to go thru a lot of this stuff.. (Feel free to comment, or share any info that you might have on some of the non sports stuff as well) I didn't think it warranted its own thread.



http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpshyldkof9.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpshyldkof9.jpeg.html)



http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsyk80vjtm.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsyk80vjtm.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsarg1ydkc.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsarg1ydkc.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsnhsguoqy.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsnhsguoqy.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsz7byhpwf.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsz7byhpwf.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpszaohthkz.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpszaohthkz.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpswh0s5eup.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpswh0s5eup.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpslg9jij3v.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpslg9jij3v.jpeg.html)




http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpskbyec7ac.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpskbyec7ac.jpeg.html)


http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq241/Filthy09/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpslmj9jlew.jpeg (http://s452.photobucket.com/user/Filthy09/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpslmj9jlew.jpeg.html)

[arexcrooke]

Holy smokes!

[MCoxon]

This probably only opens the can of worms more, but it might help to compare player-by-player and which set has the best cards of your favorites:

My choice of 1956 or 1957 for selected players:

- M. Mantle: 1956 (seems to be a hobby icon, not that others don't like 57)
- R. Clemente: 1956
- S. Koufax: 1957
- H. Aaron: 1957
- W. Mays: 1956
- T. Williams: 1956
- R. Campanella: 1956

Also:
- Only in 1956 set: Jackie Robinson, Bob Feller, Monte Irvin, Al Rosen
- Only in 1957 set: Brooks, Frank Robinson, Don Drysdale, Rocky Colavito

[irv]

Beautiful collection, Filthy! :)

I never knew movie star/music star cards existed, but I do know a lady who would love to have that Elvis card. :D

[arexcrooke]

Any of the cards for sale or trade?
I could use some of them for my personal collection!

[Filthy]

Any of the cards for sale or trade?
I could use some of them for my personal collection!

I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do just yet. I'm getting everything sorted/catalogued and then go from there. Will definitely let you know though.

[arexcrooke]

I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do just yet. I'm getting everything sorted/catalogued and then go from there. Will definitely let you know though.

Sweet! Let me know whenever you get a chance. I'd be interested in 56 and 57 Hall of Famers

[TheNightmanCometh]

Let me second the option to buy some of the cards in your collection. Definitely let me know once you've done what you need to do and I'll let you know what I'm looking to get. :-)