[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

So of course you can dislike '64 - that is your personal choice. That said, your facts are incorrect. As a holder of this set in high grade who has been collecting it and upgrading, buying, selling 8's and above for over ten years here is what I feel.

1) There is definitely high # bonus value - way way more than '65 and other sets.

2) The Mantle may not be "prized" but it is hands down a thousand times nicer of Mantle than the '67. His righty pose with a bat cocked hands down beats the facial close up of a hung over Mickey in the dugout.

3) Maybe if you are looking for 587 cards in grade 3 to 5 it isn't competitively collected, however, right now, the top ten on the registry could not be more competitive with these '64s. Come June, Mr. Nuber's unbelievable #1 and 9.6 set up for auction. Just wait and see what those prices bring.

4) Pricing on 8.5, 9 and 10's have been insane for the past 6 to 12 months on the '64s. Prior to that, very affordable and somewhat easy to pick them up. No longer the case.

5) What is wrong with a "basic" design? As you stated, the '67 you and the world cherishes is extremely similar. I believe "basic" in the design world can be a very good thing.

6) The first 11 leader cards in the '64 set have the greatest star power on them of just about any leader cards ever. The combo cards are as good as it gets with AL Bombers, Tops in NL, Giant Gunners, Sox Sockers, etc. The second year Rose card is incredibly sweet and it commands a ton of $$$, and quite frankly is a thousand times handsomer than the lame head job on the '63 RC. The star cards are all there and look really great. The Koufax WS card is one of the greatest Koufax cards of all time. What an image! I could go on and on and on.

7) I suggest you save your "lint" for the '79 set. That one is just "killer". Much rather have it than a '64......

Although I would not pick '64 as my favorite, I do agree that it is very underrated. 1966 is my pick from the decade, although if you say 1965 I'm not hating you. '61 is a personal fave because of my beloved Twins first season that year, but I recognize that the set is an acquired taste. OOPS-- EDITED because I forgot to add a "worst". I don't care for the '62's because of the somewhat muddy pics and the condition sensitivity of those wood backgrounds, but must admit they can look damn sharp when they're crisp and relatively untouched.

From the 50's, I would take '56, mostly because of player selection. I do not like the '54s, for reasons I've stated in other threads. Topps got real lucky landing Aaron, Banks and Kaline among the slim pickings it produced, and the huge number of coaches and managers is very off-putting. There's a recent thread about guys in Topps sets looking ancient to kids back in the day-- now with that in mind peruse a gallery of '54s and tell me you're not horrified. Also you Tribe fans-- like that Indians' player selection? Oh well, it was only your World Series year, no need to have your heroes to look at on cards then. You'll be back playing for the title in a mere what, 40+ years?

As for the 70's, I'm a bit partial to 1974, but there are others in the first half decade that I like too. Also like the '76s, although I agree the backs could be better. I have about three or four full sets of '79s collected by pack too, so obviously didn't mind the looks of them. 1970 and 1973 are blah but arguably innovative in one sense or two, but 1978 is a total throw away IMO, after a year that wasn't much better.