1953 or 1954 Topps?

[Alaskanmade]

Hey Everybody,

I'm still pretty new to baseball card collecting, but have been collecting other collectable cards on and off for around 30 years. I learned collecting other cards that i don't really care much about commons, so when I got into baseball card collecting I decided to stick with collecting sets of HOF players. I finished with my T205 HOF set, and almost finished my 1934 Goudey HOF Set, and am getting ready to start my next set.

I have decided to pick up some classic players from the 50's and have narrowed it down to either the 1953 Topps of the 1954 Topps HOF set.

1953 Topps:
- I like the art better
- Second set after the famous 1952 (similar trend)
- It includes a Mickey Mantle

1954 Topps:
- I like the signatures on the card
- It includes Hank Aaron (I like him more than Mantle)
- It includes Ted Williams

Which set would you start and why?

[Johnny T]

For me, it is the 53 set, hands down. I love the artwork more than any other set from 53 on...I especially like the background work in the signs and scoreboards which shows players names in it (many collectors don't know that).

That's not to say that 54 isn't beautiful in its own right, but 53 is "it" for me.

In the end, it really doesn't matter what I and the rest of this great forum think, it comes down to what YOU like best.

JT

[darwinbulldog]

I think the '53 set is so much better looking that you can almost ignore who the players are. Satchel Paige is a pretty nice bonus though.

[ccre]

It's '53 for me ... not even close.

[Casey2296]

-
Love the 53's, one of my favorite sets from that decade.
-

[Alaskanmade]

I understand what you mean.
But somedays I'm convinced that the 1953 is the right choice, and somedays I'm convinced the 1954 is the right choice.

For me, it is the 53 set, hands down. I love the artwork more than any other set from 53 on...I especially like the background work in the signs and scoreboards which shows players names in it (many collectors don't know that).

That's not to say that 54 isn't beautiful in its own right, but 53 is "it" for me.

In the end, it really doesn't matter what I and the rest of this great forum think, it comes down to what YOU like best.

JT

[Carter08]

53 is one of the best sets ever made in my opinion. 54 is pretty amazing, has more color, and has a huge rookie in Aaron and another great one in Kaline. A lot of people seem turned off by the lack of a top border (not to mention no Mantle). Tough call for most I assume but I think it has to be 53.

[Rad_Hazard]

1953 for sure. My main reason would be Paige and the best (IMO) image of Jackie.

[mrreality68]

like the '53's and the graphics

and especially loves how the colors pop

[Vintagedeputy]

Tough choice, but I’ve got to lean toward 1953.

[Oscar_Stanage]

54. The Banks rookie is a work of art.

[Exhibitman]

1954 Topps is my favorite Topps set.

Real photos. Two on each card

Facsimile signature.

Aaron, Banks, Kaline, Lasorda RCs

At 250 cards, relatively few stupid commons to waste money on.

The nicest looking (IMHO) Mays card, from his MVP year

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous5/websize/1954%20Topps%20Mays.jpg

Beautiful cards of Robinson, Snider, Spahn, Mathews, Berra, Doby, Irvin, Ashburn, etc.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/1954%20Topps%20PSA%204%20Robinson%201.JPGhttps://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous5/websize/1954%20Topps%20Berra.png

No Mantle but TWO freakin' Ted Williams cards!

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/1954%20Topps%20250%20Williams_%20Ted.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/1954%20Topps%20Williams%201%20SGC%2070.jpg

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

After collecting their respective autographed Archives sets 30 +/- years ago, I'm a little done to death with both sets. 1957 is the true work of art.

[bnorth]

I had the same question a few years ago. I chose the 54 and bought several cards. I unfortunately then decided I didn't really care for them and wished I had started the 53 set instead.

I like the players way more in the 54 set especially with the 2 Williams cards. The 53 are just so much more beautiful cards though.

[The Detroit Collector]

Hey Everybody,

I'm still pretty new to baseball card collecting, but have been collecting other collectable cards on and off for around 30 years. I learned collecting other cards that i don't really care much about commons, so when I got into baseball card collecting I decided to stick with collecting sets of HOF players. I finished with my T205 HOF set, and almost finished my 1934 Goudey HOF Set, and am getting ready to start my next set.

I have decided to pick up some classic players from the 50's and have narrowed it down to either the 1953 Topps of the 1954 Topps HOF set.

1953 Topps:
- I like the art better
- Second set after the famous 1952 (similar trend)
- It includes a Mickey Mantle

1954 Topps:
- I like the signatures on the card
- It includes Hank Aaron (I like him more than Mantle)
- It includes Ted Williams

Which set would you start and why?

53 looks better, but 54 is a better set IMO.
Aaron, Banks and Kaline rookies. Along with other stars like Ted Williams and Jackie Mays. No rookies in 53.

The Hank Aaron could be argued as one of the best cards in the 50s.

[dbrown]

2 cents:

Because of the black and red borders of the name box, really good looking '53s are harder to find. Unless you can afford 8s and 9s, you will always be striving for something kind of impossible, like with a '71 set. The white borders of '54 are so much more generous in terms of eye appeal at the same grade.

[GasHouseGang]

I've always been partial to the 54's myself, but do love some of the 53's. I just like the 54's better as a set.

[toledo_mudhen]

and you haven't even mentioned the absolute best set of the 50s which is 1955 Topps....... (queue the haters :) )

[obcbobd]

53 for me

One drawback to the 54 Topps is if you put them in eight page sheets all facing the same way in the front, 1/2 the cards in the back will be upside down

[raulus]

Why not both!?

Aside from the fact that they'll set you back a pretty penny, that is.

Part of the fun with working on a couple of different sets at the same time is that you're unlikely to stall out and get bored for too long, particularly with these sets since the print runs were so large and they are so actively traded today. Even if you're picky and excessively deliberate in your approach, you should have plenty of options for fussing over the details while you carefully make your selections for each piece.

Of course, if you're working on a relatively limited budget and time is a factor, then you're better off just picking one. But barring that, my vote would be for both.

[brian1961]

Howdy, Alaskanmade. I read your OP a couple times and feel you would be best to go with the 1954 Topps HOF set. You point out that you prefer Hank Aaron over Mickey Mantle, and you like Ted Williams. As you know, the '54 Topps has 2 gorgeous Ted Williams cards.

Further, the plethora of colors adds much to the appealing design of the 1954s, giving them a nice variety in presentation. As you stated, you like the signatures on the cards. The addition of the small black 'n white photo accompanying the color shot is usually well-done. All in all, I think 1954 Topps is YOUR best fit, bro.

Now, should there be a 1953 that says, "man, I wish I owned that", fine, buy it and enjoy it. It's not as if you're collecting the set, so a type card or two is a happy place.

Wishing you the very best, and a peaceful, satisfied choice in your decision. Have a grand time, bro.

--- Brian Powell

[insidethewrapper]

Either set would be great to have of HOF'ers. The 1953 Topps Set contains 23 HOF'ers and the 1954 Topps Set has 22 HOF'ers, but 4 are RC's. Good Luck and have fun putting it together.

[rats60]

and you haven't even mentioned the absolute best set of the 50s which is 1955 Topps....... (queue the haters :) )

This would be my choice too, or 1956 if you want a Mantle. Picking between 1954 and 1953, it would be 1954 easy. The Aaron RC is the one essential card out of the two sets, plus you have Kaline and Banks RCs and two Ted Williams vs Mantle, Feller, Campy and Paige.

I have never been a fan of the artwork. Is that really Whitey Ford? Compare his 1951 Bowman to the 1953 Topps. Bowman artwork 1950-52 was far superior in my opinion.

[campyfan39]

53 is my favorite all time set.
The art is incredible, its the best image of Jackie, Gilliam, Ford and arguably Mickey.

Also 54 does not have Stachel or Campanella (my fave card of all time)
Other than the Mays where the pose seems out of place it is 53 for me hands down

However, there are some 1953 commons that can be pricey for the player and that is something to consider I suppose.

Good luck and have fun

[kmac32]

1954 Topps for sure as there is the Banks and Aaron rookie cards

[refz]

Both sets are fantastic but 1953 all the way. You may enjoy it to the point of doing the entire set… lookout!!

[cubman1941]

I have put together the 54 set and am working on the 53. I think it depends on what you prefer and your budget. I will never finish the 53 set as my budget won't let me at this time. Believe it or not when I was working on the 54 set there was one common I had a hard time finding. This was before the internet and one had to hit card shows to find cards. I finally found the elusive card at a card show in Baltimore. I like the 53 set, as others have said, the artwork stands out.

[bmattioli]

I like and collect both, great art..

[ejharrington]

1954 by a mile

[lumberjack]

The '53 set was the first set I collected. Yeah, I'm that old. A big kid friend down the street gave me Sam Jones and Jackie Robinson. I was hooked.

The art work was all over the place. Some images had a near photographic quality while others looked like bad art fair drawings Charlie Dressen, John Mize and Irv Noren should have filed suit against Topps.

The '54 Topps really popped, but they began using the same head shots year after year after year. They could have done better.

Oh, look at the 1953 Bowmans. They are so perfect, they don't even look like they were made for kids.

All said, the 1953 Topps hands down. Nostalgia ain't what it used to be....

[babraham]

53 looks better, but 54 is a better set IMO.
Aaron, Banks and Kaline rookies. Along with other stars like Ted Williams and Jackie Mays. No rookies in 53.

I agree with this! :)

[MikeGarcia]

1954 by a mile



...All 50's Topps sets are a challenge for centering weenies but with 1954's the top-to-bottom is a special hell. I think the two Braves are about as good as you're going to find . I'm obviously living with the two Yankees , but always looking for slightly better.
..http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/IMG1954TOPPSSGC_NEW.JPG

[ParisianJohn]

Can I pick 1955 Topps?? I love the two images against the gradient backgrounds (if I'm using "gradient" correctly).

But if we're looking at 1953 vs 1954... They're both pretty awesome, but I have to lean towards 1954 if only because I have this guy in my collection.

576869

[stkuhl]

My vote is 53 Topps. I love the artwork, you get Mantle and Paige, and the cards just seem less busy. That said, you couldn't go wrong choosing either set. Happy collecting.

[Exhibitman]

I am an outlier here but I do not like the art on the 1953 set. Just doesn't do it for me.

My solution is to collect 1954 and pick up a few 1953s that I like.

[ChasingPaper]

54 gets my vote. A portrait of the player and action pose in one card and I also do not care much for the artistic design on the 53s.

[rhettyeakley]

I am an outlier here but I do not like the art on the 1953 set. Just doesn't do it for me.

My solution is to collect 1954 and pick up a few 1953s that I like.

I agree. Way too many giant heads.

There was a lot of potential with the 1953’s but they (stupidly imo) chose to do all close up head shots!

If all the cards looked like the 1953 Topps Willie Mays it would possibly be my favorite set from the 1950’s.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'm simply not a fan of artwork on cards from this late in the game, especially when this era produced some of the most beautiful photography in the history of the sport. I suppose I'm partial to seeing actual images of these players. There's something far more authentic about that experience.

1953 or '54 Topps? How about 1953 and 1954 Bowman? Talk about things of beauty. Man, have some of those those colors aged better than the finest spirits. Same goes for the previously mentioned '57 Topps photos.

[lumberjack]

Probably the best critique of Topps and Bowman comes from, "The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book," by Fred Harris.

They described a card from the '58 T set as looking as though a gravy boat landed on top of the man's head.

In order to cover all the bases, if a player was traded, they would shoot him without a baseball cap. Jeeze, everybody knows a baseball player wears a hat, otherwise they look like the guy who came over to fix your sink.

I think Topps got as good as it was going to get in 1957. TCMA tried to copy that about 18 years later.

As a kid, I was so wrapped up in owning the early 50s Bowmans that I never realized there were black lines around the players. It was as though Gauguin was working for Bowman Gum.

[ValKehl]

I am an outlier here but I do not like the art on the 1953 set. Just doesn't do it for me.

I'm another outlier. Gimme the 1954 Topps with the real photos. It won't surprise anyone that I'm not enthralled with T206, T205s, T207s, 1933 Goudeys, etc. Gimme the real photo cards, such as the Old Judges and the various 1916 to late 1920's black & white cards, every day of the week.

[conor912]

The '54 design always bugged be...specially the border choice. Either put the white on all four sides or do a full bleed, but the white on three sides just makes every single card look miscut to me.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

The '54 design always bugged be...specially the border choice. Either put the white on all four sides or do a full bleed, but the white on three sides just makes every single card look miscut to me.

Yes, I'm sure a lot of people feel this way.

Frankly, if I had to collect either '53 or '54 but had the option for doing other '50's Topps sets, these two would be right at the bottom for the decade (outside of 1951, but I don't personally count those as major sets). Bottom of the barrel.

[Mrc32]

I am an outlier here but I do not like the art on the 1953 set. Just doesn't do it for me.

My solution is to collect 1954 and pick up a few 1953s that I like.

This is the right answer for me. I've completed the 54 set. It is beautiful. And I have a 1953 Paige card....

[Hobbyandcollectibles]

I love 53 for the fact that the borders go around the card. The borderless top of the 54s aren’t aesthetically pleasing to me.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230701/5222aca27e510b2f54b3314e4c4ca231.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G1911]

1953. I like the high quality art, actual paintings, rather than the cut and paste photos on the 1954's. Also do not like the 3 edge border on the 1954's. Not sure why they did this, it doesn't look good and it leads to the problems with the backs.

If player selection is factored, the 1953 gap widens for having Mantle and Paige's best card by far in place of Aaron.

Both lose points for the backs. The 1953's for having the facsimile auto on dark grey stock over the write-up on back making it annoying to read, and the 1954's for losing sense of direction and the cards being oriented differently, making them annoying to flip over in a stack and a nightmare in a binder.

[rhettyeakley]

I collect Topps cards autographed (just my preferred method) and despite the fact that I like ‘54 better I prefer any set in autographed form that does NOT already have a facsimile signature on front. Kills the look overall having a facs and real signature together.

Least favorite set to collect autographed ever? 1975 Topps.

[bbcard1]

I'd start with the 54. It is more attainable. If you get a shot to add a 53 Mantle while working on a 54 Topps, no one will stop you. I personally love the art but dislike the design of the 53s.