Who do you take: Mantle or the field?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I am working on a 54 Toppa set. I love the two Williams cards, the Aaron rookie, the Banks rookie, and the Jackie and Mays cards. Even though I have a way to go, I am already thinking about what's next. I THINK my top choices are 1955 Topps and 1956/1958 Topps. 55 has the Clemente and Koufax rookies which are awesome, but no Mantle like 54. I like Mick's cards, but I don't focus my collecting on him so to speak. In choosing 50s sets to build, does Mantle or his absence determine which sets you choose to build? Do you always go with Mantle, or are you drawn to the field with rookies like Clemente and Koufax?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[rats60]

I would pick 1955 Topps with the Clemente and Koufax RC. If I was to pick a set for Mantle, it would be 1951 Bowman or 1953 Bowman.

[pokerplyr80]

I am a big Mantle fan and collect his cards, but I would not base a decision on which set to build on whether or not he's in it. I also think 55 would be great.

[Peter_Spaeth]

3 major rookies in 55T (or you could say 2 I suppose) and some very nice other cards. Hard to argue with that.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Appreciate the feedback, gentlemen. '55 is definitely where I have been leaning. I have always been a big fan of the coloring of the cards in that set...especially that 2nd year Aaron. Just something about it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mays, Aaron, Williams, Jackie all very attractive cards IMO in addition to the RCs.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I'll eventually be collecting all the 50's sets so whether Mickey is in the set or not doesn't matter to me. I do try to pick up the Mantle towards the beginning of collecting a set.

It sounds like you maybe want to have a Mantle in the set you're working on. I could be wrong there, but that's what I'm hearing when I read your initial post. I'd go with the 1956 set personally. It has a really cool Mantle and isn't that terribly big of a set, although bigger than the 250 card 1954 set you're already working on. Whatever you choose, I wish you the best on your journey.

AndyH

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I hear ya, Andy! I really like all of the 50s Topps set A LOT! (except for '59 for some reason). I already have '53 and right now I especially like '55 and '58. Hopefully, I will eventually have all the ones mentioned. Just prioritizing I guess.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[KCRfan1]

The 1956 set is loaded! No major rookie cards, but all the names are there including an iconic Mantle card.

[jasonc]

Ditto on 1956 set. I've built it and it has a lot of big stars.

And I would take 1955 over a set that has Mantle. 1955 is a beautiful set. My opinion of course.
Good luck Robert on what you decide.

[Republicaninmass]

Being a Boston fan, I did 55 because I had no Mantle! Kind of shot myself in the foot collecting 52 topps thereafter

[rats60]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

The 1956 set is loaded! No major rookie cards, but all the names are there including an iconic Mantle card.

There is no Musial. That is why I would do the 1953 Bowman set for a Mantle. It has all the stars that are missing from 1954 & 1955 Topps.

[Gr8Beldini]

Man, I hate complete sets that don't include the best players in Baseball. That's why 1956 is the best set of the 50's. Beautiful design combined with the best selection of 1950's superstars. Only set with Mantle, Jackie, and Ted. Add to that Mays, Aaron, Feller, Clemente, Campy, Yogi, and on, and on, and on. Only missing superstar is Musial.

[bnorth]

For 50's sets the 59 Fleer is by far the best. It even says "Baseballs Greatest" on the back of every card.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

You guys are right, there are some awesome sets from the 1950s. I strayed the last couple of years and spent a lot of hobby funds elsewhere and am now very regretful. I can't help but think of what I could have accomplished if I had just stayed true to what I have always liked. I am in the process of unloading some other parts of my collection and hope to use those funds to make some real progress. Thanks for your input in this thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini

Man, I hate complete sets that don't include the best players in Baseball. That's why 1956 is the best set of the 50's. Beautiful design combined with the best selection of 1950's superstars. Only set with Mantle, Jackie, and Ted. Add to that Mays, Aaron, Feller, Clemente, Campy, Yogi, and on, and on, and on. Only missing superstar is Musial.

No significant rookies. Major drawback IMO.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by rats60

There is no Musial. That is why I would do the 1953 Bowman set for a Mantle. It has all the stars that are missing from 1954 & 1955 Topps.

Spot on Rats! Can't believe I missed that one......

+1

[Peter_Spaeth]

Name the only (period) set with Mantle, Mays, Musial, Williams and Jackie.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Name the only (period) set with Mantle, Mays, Musial, Williams and Jackie.

1952 Berk Ross

[Peter_Spaeth]

Indeed. I don't think any other set has even 4 of the 5.

[ls7plus]

In my personal opinion, the '55 is the best looking Topps set of all--absolutely beautiful cards!

May your collecting bring joy, over and over,

Larry