Which set should I complete first?

[jchcollins]

I have never been a set collector by nature, but have made several rough starts before and now, in my early 40's - want to take another serious shot at it, so that when I'm older at some point - I will be able to say that I completed a vintage set. Where should I start? Here are the options and some of what is already "down":

*1963 Topps. I have the Rose RC, the Steve Dalkowski RC, the Banks, and the Willie Mays. Maybe 20 or so commons.

*1965 Topps. I have the Mantle, the Aaron, and a handful of commons.

*1972 Topps. I have the Ryan, the Carew, the Carlton Traded card, the Fisk RC, and a lot of maybe 50 commons.

For those of you that have completed vintage sets like this - where was the thrill? Was it in difficult high numbers? Slowly assembling the stars? Big lots of off-grade commons that you could just have fun with?

I would envision this being a task that could last 5+ years - something to be a project alongside my usual collecting MO - which is to just buy whatever my heart fancies at the time when I have the dough to do so.

Thanks for any thoughts!

[JollyElm]

Random thoughts...

- The 1963 has so many great cards (I especially love the Ernie Banks) and colors, and the semi-high series and high numbers make it a challenge. Having the Rose RC is a game changer (sorta pun intended), so that's a huge head start.

- The 1965 is an outright beautiful set. So many great cards right across the spectrum. Whether it's beneficial or detrimental depends on each individual collector, but the lack of true high numbers makes it much easier to finish.

- The 1972 is my all-time favorite set, with a world of crazy things happening -- In Action cards, high numbers, traded series, a wealth of HOF'ers, and trophy cards, for example -- but is light on tough rookies and 787 cards is a pretty stark number. Very doable, though.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

John, given your choices, I would go after '63. You already have the Rose, and that is significant. '65 is a really pretty set...with a nice Cardinals rookie in Carlton! I nearly finished that one a few years back. The only sets I have ever completed were 50s sets. I have since broken those up and sold them, keeping the pieces I really wanted..

For me, the fun of the set building process is in learning the nuances of the set you are building. For example, what are the hidden tough cards? What are the hidden gems? The other fun part is storing them in a binder and filling in the empty slots one at a time. Very satisfying!!

Hats off to you, and I wish you luck. I think about tackling a set again, but I just don't think I ever will again. Those 60s sets are huge, and I just can't spend that much money on high numbers of players from 50-60 years ago that I never heard of. There's usually some decent buys for lots on our BST.

Collect what you love. There is not a wrong way to enjoy this hobby. Do what you love, man!!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[quitcrab]

1965. Great set. Great color. Great players. I just finished the set and truly loved putting it together. Centering can be tough.
1972 is great too but too many cards ! Lots of commons!!! Good Luck in whatever direction you go in . Scott

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Random thoughts...

- The 1963 has so many great cards (I especially love the Ernie Banks) and colors, and the semi-high series and high numbers make it a challenge. Having the Rose RC is a game changer (sorta pun intended), so that's a huge head start.

- The 1965 is an outright beautiful set. So many great cards right across the spectrum. Whether it's beneficial or detrimental depends on each individual collector, but the lack of true high numbers makes it much easier to finish.

- The 1972 is my all-time favorite set, with a world of crazy things happening -- In Action cards, high numbers, traded series, a wealth of HOF'ers, and trophy cards, for example -- but is light on tough rookies and 787 cards is a pretty stark number. Very doable, though.

Thanks, I hear you. Yeah, I figure '63 since I already have the Rose might be logical. No way would I go for that set otherwise. '65 is probably my favorite aesthetically, I love those little flags and the bright colors. '72 is my favorite set of the 70's, but you are right, it's the postwar monster. The thought of nearly 800 cards is a bit intimidating.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

John, given your choices, I would go after '63. You already have the Rose, and that is significant. '65 is a really pretty set...with a nice Cardinals rookie in Carlton!

Oh! and I forgot I have the Carlton as well! Strangely enough, my card collecting pre-dates me being a Cubs fan, so for some reason that kind of thing never even enters my mind with the cards. I love all vintage equally regardless of team...

[rats60]

I would do the 1965 set first. It shouldn't take that much time. You already have the Mantle and Carlton. Nothing too tough left after that. The 1963 has the short printed mid series cards. You also need Mantle as well as the high number Clemente and Stargell RC. I would go after that next.

[mintacular]

The only / main thing you should consider is absolutely which cards design and players etc do you just absolutely love to death ..... Alsio, the thing with the dark border set at least for me is the recoloring issue and also wear on those edges and corners just look brutal on the eye, for example 63 and 71s look bad when worn whereas 68 or 72 for example the same wear is more forgiving

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by mintacular

...whereas 68 or 72 for example the same wear is more forgiving

‘68 would be a possibility as well; I already have the Ryan and Bench. Not really in love with the set aesthetics as a whole though.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[todeen]

I don't have an opinion on which set to build. But I am building the 1961 Topps set. I usually start into it when I'm bored of my other interests - it's my rainy day fallback. When I find interest in something else, I put it away, and I know it will be there again when I get bored again. I've been working on it at least 10 years now. About 60% complete.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Bigdaddy]

I finished the '65 and '72 sets last year and they were both a lot of fun to chase. But the '65 is just a beautiful set and since you've got the Mick and Hank, I'd go with that one first. Not much of a premium on high numbers and smaller than the '72 set.

In general, it seems like the premium on the '72 highs (along with the '71s) makes putting together the set much more expensive than buying one complete. More so than other years.

[Hxcmilkshake]

If you're a centering nut, 72 IA cards will drive you crazy.

I would go with the set you can get the best deal on a large chunk/ starter set. Then as you fill in the rest the costs won't be too out of hand.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[quitcrab]

If you go 1965 I have a nice starter lot with sharp cards but OC. Thanks Scott

[tschock]

I would go after the '65 or '72 set rather than the '63. You already have the Rose RC, so you can 'start' that one anytime. I am not a fan of the '65 design, but I get why people like it. Your toughest one will be the '72 set, between the number of cards and the high numbers (though for me the '72 was the easiest and I completed it in 1972 since I bought the set from an ad in the back of The Sporting News). Part would also depend on the condition you are looking for.

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by tschock

I would go after the '65 or '72 set rather than the '63. You already have the Rose RC, so you can 'start' that one anytime. I am not a fan of the '65 design, but I get why people like it. Your toughest one will be the '72 set, between the number of cards and the high numbers (though for me the '72 was the easiest and I completed it in 1972 since I bought the set from an ad in the back of The Sporting News). Part would also depend on the condition you are looking for.

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

I'm leaning toward '65. Aesthetically it's probably my favorite design, and the lack of challenging high numbers probably makes it's 598 easier than 1963's 576. While I will do '72 at some point, I don't want to start with a set that has nearly 800 cards. VG-EX should probably work for me condition wise to do the '65s - ironically the 3 big stars I already have out of that set (Mantle, Aaron, Carlton) are already about 4's. I also forgot I have the Tiant rookie in an SGC 5.5.

[jchcollins]

So yeah, it's gonna be '65. Just bought a nice raw Joe Morgan RC at the LCS. Next spending will be around a month from now for my birthday, where I will try to be disciplined and just buy a nice common lot...

[hcv123]

I guess it's a bit late to make a case for the 63 set! It is the one set I started - made it about 40% in and stopped. It is my favorite set of the 60's. 2 great rookies in Rose and Stargell. Mid career cards of some of baseball's best (Clemente, Mantle, Mays, Aaron) in addition to plenty more star power. Some tough high #'s (which I see as a positive challenge - not a deterrent).

Well, have fun doing the 65 - keep us updated!

[Brucepug]

Having done the 67', 68', 69', 70', 71' and 72 set in the last 4 years, I can tell you without a doubt the 1972 set was my favorite. It also was only my second to ever do, so its totally doable.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

So yeah, it's gonna be '65. Just bought a nice raw Joe Morgan RC at the LCS. Next spending will be around a month from now for my birthday, where I will try to be disciplined and just buy a nice common lot...

I wouldn't worry about the commons. I would look for the Hunter RC, Perez RC, Clemente, Koufax, Mays and Aaron. Then move on to the other Hofers before filling in with the commons. The big cards increase in price at a greater rate.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by rats60

I wouldn't worry about the commons. I would look for the Hunter RC, Perez RC, Clemente, Koufax, Mays and Aaron. Then move on to the other Hofers before filling in with the commons. The big cards increase in price at a greater rate.

That's my natural tendancy anyway. I do have the Aaron in an SGC 4.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I guess it's a bit late to make a case for the 63 set! It is the one set I started - made it about 40% in and stopped. It is my favorite set of the 60's. 2 great rookies in Rose and Stargell. Mid career cards of some of baseball's best (Clemente, Mantle, Mays, Aaron) in addition to plenty more star power. Some tough high #'s (which I see as a positive challenge - not a deterrent).

'63 was a close second. If I can show some discipline with this one, and it doesn't take me a decade - '63 will likely be next. I do like the idea of chasing high numbers (even if in lower grade) at some point. Not really a big fan of the '63 Aaron, but the rest of the star cards from what I know are all pretty decent in the eye appeal dept.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

'63 was a close second. If I can show some discipline with this one, and it doesn't take me a decade - '63 will likely be next. I do like the idea of chasing high numbers (even if in lower grade) at some point. Not really a big fan of the '63 Aaron, but the rest of the star cards from what I know are all pretty decent in the eye appeal dept.

You can do it, John! It's just gonna take a little patience!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Jcfowler6]

The rush is checking off the boxes for me.

Sometimes it’s fun to make rules like can’t buy anything online.

The high numbers are fun but can be a bugger at times.

Getting those rookies or big stars is truly great feeling.

I like the challenge of finding centered cards.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gpaal]

I have the 65 and 72 sets done and I am down to 10 cards to complete the 63 topps set I do need a Mantle and Banks.,.

If it was me I would really focus on completing a set. I'd say go after the 65 set it isn't that bad on high numbers. The 72 topps can be hard chasing the high number. 63 would be my last set to rap up.