What to do??

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Ok, I know this is strictly opinion and there really is no answer, but I am grappling with the question that I consider about every 6 months: Should I pursue a low grade '52 Topps set? I have a complete set of '53 Topps, about 75% of '59 Topps, 25% of '57 Topps, and I am 11 cards short of a '41 Play Ball set. I love the look of the 52s, but if I pursue it, even in low grade, I will almost completely put all of my other projects on hold. Also, the other sets I really like such as '54, '55, '56, and '58 Topps and '53 Bowman Color will probably never happen. Typing this, I almost convince myself that I know what I need to do...leave '52 alone and enjoy all the others. But, those 52s are beautiful..even with those high numbers!

[Big Six]

Personally, I'd rather have the '54, '56, '57 and '59 sets...I find '52 to be overrated. Also suggest you look at earlier issues or a Bowman '53 set to change things up...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by Big Six

Personally, I'd rather have the '54, '56, '57 and '59 sets...I find '52 to be overrated. Also suggest you look at earlier issues or a Bowman '53 set to change things up...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree. Personally I am slowly working on the 1956 set, but If I chose another it would be the 1954 set, the big 3 rookies in there, plus it is a lot easier because of not too many cards in the set, plus for some reason I do not like the design of the 1952 cards, 1954, 1955, 1956 has more eye candy IMO. Of course, like they say collect what you like, cause somebody will likely have a different opinion.

[brian1961]

I really agree with you on the 1956 set. With Bowman out of the way, Topps had the field to themselves, and they made sure to come up with a winner. The last of their giant-sized cards. Great design--a nice combination of head shots with painted action photos. Maybe there aren't lots of rookies, but that can be over-rated. The key is they're simply beautiful cards. There's NOTHING ugly about these; they're gorgeous. The introduction of team cards was a sweet addition. Wish Don Drysdale and Stan Musial had been included, but no set is perfect.

I think you're on the right track. Salute. ---Brian Powell

[Vintagevault13]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Ok, I know this is strictly opinion and there really is no answer, but I am grappling with the question that I consider about every 6 months: Should I pursue a low grade '52 Topps set? I have a complete set of '53 Topps, about 75% of '59 Topps, 25% of '57 Topps, and I am 11 cards short of a '41 Play Ball set. I love the look of the 52s, but if I pursue it, even in low grade, I will almost completely put all of my other projects on hold. Also, the other sets I really like such as '54, '55, '56, and '58 Topps and '53 Bowman Color will probably never happen. Typing this, I almost convince myself that I know what I need to do...leave '52 alone and enjoy all the others. But, those 52s are beautiful..even with those high numbers!

Robert,

I struggled with the same nagging desire to tackle the 52's. I have somewhat compromised and decided to systematically begin building a VG-EX low # set (1-310). I have obtained the first five cards (including a low grade Pafko) in the past month and my 2014 goal is to complete the first series (1-80). I am not going to worry about variations at this point. Except for Pafko, Berra, Mays, and Billy Martin, most of the low # cards are pretty reasonable. I agree that the 1952 set is beautiful and the iconic nature of it makes it very attractive. Good luck.

[ALR-bishop]

I have a 52 set, but much prefer looking through my 57 or 59 sets. The 52 set is full of managers, coaches and guys who never or hardly ever really played at the ML level ( due primarily to Topps trying to come up with a big set during the contract wars with Bowman).

The 53 Bowman set is my only Bowman set but love it because of the great color photos and the Musial

[brob28]

I think Al has hit on one of the biggest reasons to work on the other sets first: so many subjects in the '52 set are essentially "cup of coffee" type players/coaches that the others sets would be much more enjoyable IMO.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Matt and Al, in thinking it over I tend to agree with you guys overall. I really want 54, 55, 56, and 58 Topps and the 53 Bowman Color (Al, that is one of my favorite non-Topps sets) in addition to what I have or am working on. I have considered building the first 80 of the 52 set, but I have thought about doing some player collecting, which would help me dabble in more sets without building the whole thing.

[Zach Wheat]

I appear to be in the minority, but I get a lot of enjoyment looking at my near set of '52 Topps. I am missing approx. 17 or so high numbered cards. I enjoy looking at this set probably more so than any other set. The only sets that come close are the '54 & '56 Topps sets.

The hi numbered series, although somewhat intimidating to try to collect the complete run in its entirety, contains a number of stars. I would find it difficult to pick up the accumulated knowledge of this set that guys like Al-R, SMPEP (Patrick), Ted Z and many others have without absorbing information and collecting it over time.

I would also be concerned with trying to pick up some of the variations at a later date. Many of the '52 Topps collectors realize that there are a handful of dealers that horde certain variations whenever they pop up. I am sure it happens with others sets described above - I am just not aware that it happens to the same extent.


Z Wheat

[darkhorse9]

Here's my challenge with the 1952 Topps set.

My goal has always been to have a complete set from every year. I'm inches away from having that goal back to 1954.

My question has always been, will a 1952 Topps set truly be "complete" with just 1-310 - or should I go with a 1952 Bowman set instead?

I'll admit to be a completist and there is NO WAY I could EVER justify buying even a low grade 52 Topps Mantle. So completely completing that set is not an option.