Favorite/best and least fav/worst '53 to '79 vintage complete sets?

[cardsagain74]

Going to pick them for each decade, and an overall too.

Tossing out the '52 Topps here, both because it's too easy and to focus on everything that doesn't create second mortgages to get.

My choices:

'50s

Best: '55 Topps +1. Amazing rookie cards and stacked superstar breakup value (along with the '54 T, the best combination of those factors for the entire '53- range ). I like the design of the '55 better, though. BUT, can anything really win awards without a Mantle? So, I'm going to cheat on this one. A '55 Topps set with the '56 Mantle. The design and (literally) many of the pics are basically the same anyway!

Worst: '59 Topps. There aren't any "bad" sets in the '50s, but something to had be chosen. I know this one has its share of following, but I'm not a fan of the lowercase design either.

'60s

Best: '67 Topps. I am biased here, because I feel that Seaver and Carew are underappreciated HOFers. But beyond their rookies, there's also some of the most sought after and valuable high numbers from the decade

Worst: '64 Topps. Where do I begin. Basic design, and yep I know the '67 has that too. But that's where the similarities end. No rookie card punch, awful breakup value, basically no high # bonus value, and even a Mantle that isn't very prized. Yet you'll still pay $1500-$2500 for a grade 3-5 set. If I complete my '52 to '85 run, this is my bite the bullet one. It will be tough to pay more than pocket lint for it

'70s:

Best: '75 Topps. Am a sucker for the originality of the colors, and the fact that this was the "vintage" set I always wanted as a teen. So unique and plenty of HOF rookies. All found for a very reasonable price in grade 5-7.

Worst: '74 Topps. Combines the worst breakup value, design, star power, and rookie card punch (relative to what you pay for it) of the decade. You get pretty much the same thing with a '76 for half the price.


My overall choices for the era:

Best: '55 Topps +1

Worst: '64 Topps

[Cliff Bowman]

For me, 1950’s best 1956 worst 1958, 1960’s best 1967 worst 1960, 1970’s best 1977 (sentimental reasons) worst 1971 (dislike the backs).

[ALR-bishop]

57/67/72......58/60/76-79...sorry Cliff.....67

If sets other than Topps are involved, then the 53 Bowman color set jumps to the top for the 50s

[rats60]

I mostly agree with you, except the 1965 Topps is my favorite of the 60s.
50's
1955
1957
1956

60s
1965
1963
1967

70s
1975
1971
1972

Worst
1953
1954
1964
1978

[Harliduck]

50's

Best - 1957
Worst - 1958

60's

Best - Tie for me - 1966/1969
Worst - 1962

70's

Best - 1970
Worst - 1975

[brewing]

Best
1956 Has the players and full color images.

1969 Has clean design, All Star cards, easy to read backs, and the best WS cards Topps has EVER produced.

1971 Mostly because this is the 1st set that had game photos on base cards. I'm not a big fan though because the borders suck almost as bad as the backs. 1978 is my runner up, clean design and cool AS labels. I want to like 1976, but their backs were impossible to read when I had great eyesight.

Worst
1955 It is lacking in players. B&W action shots don't help either. 1958 was considered too, but they do have the best looking AS cards.

1968 Burlap, barf!!!!

1979 The eye sore Topps logo.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by brewing

1955 It is lacking in players. B&W action shots don't help either.

The action shots are in color in 1955. It is 1954 that has them in black and white.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by rats60

the action shots are in color in 1955. It is 1954 that has them in black and white.

doh!!!!!

[campyfan39]

Great thread:

Favorites:
56 the beauty, the cards wars over so it has all the stars sans Musial
62 my late fathers favorite. Iconic Maris and love the Mays and Mantle too
75 love the color and the Brooks Robinson is one of my all time faves

Least favorite:
55 for the lack of stars and repeated images (although the rooks are awesome)
67 just looks plain to me
70 the gray makes them look dull although the Ryan is great

Happy collecting everyone and I love seeing everyones choices, that is what makes collecting fun as it is in the eye of the beholder

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Happy collecting everyone and I love seeing everyones choices, that is what makes collecting fun as it is in the eye of the beholder

Not just the difference in what's visually appealing, but the star preferences too.

The '55 T or '56 T contradiction is interesting. From a player standpoint, I'm focused more on what the '55 Topps has (rather than its drawbacks), because the top of the set is amazing. And since I cheated with Mantle, I just don't focus on the other missing guys like Feller, Ford, Wilhelm, Campanella (especially since it's not any of the earliest years for those guys, and they are all second tier HOFers of importance for mid '50s sets). And the reused photos for '56 stand out negatively to me a lot more than anything reused a little earlier, because of how the design is so similar to the '55. It often appears like you're getting a card almost identical to the prior year (but less valuable)

BUT I can totally see why plenty of people focus more the other side of it!

[ksfarmboy]

Favorites:
1956. Love the style, pics and player selection.
1968. The year I was born and the player selection.
1978. The first year I collected. I like the design, player selection, and the all-star shields.

Least favorites:
1959: I like them all but this is the one that I like a little less than the others.
1966: Don’t care for the design or pictures. Several stars in it for the liking though.
1973: Hate the design and most of the pictures.

[Bigdaddy]

Favorites:

1956 - just love the cards - portraits and an action shot, the artwork is stunning
1965 - pennants, what more can you say? And the photos are so bright and clear, along with a decent RC class
1977 - Not the most striking set, but a personal favorite, with the All-Star banners

Blahs:

1958 - solid backgrounds? really? The A.S. cards are the only saving grace
1969 - is there a card that is not airbrushed?
1974 - what's to like? A couple of good action shots framed with the 3rd grade art class winner for the Topps design contest in 1974.

[55koufax]

Worst: '64 Topps. Where do I begin. Basic design, and yep I know the '67 has that too. But that's where the similarities end. No rookie card punch, awful breakup value, basically no high # bonus value, and even a Mantle that isn't very prized. Yet you'll still pay $1500-$2500 for a grade 3-5 set. If I complete my '52 to '85 run, this is my bite the bullet one. It will be tough to pay more than pocket lint for it

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......

[cardsagain74]

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......

Points 1,3, and 4 do not apply much outside of your "cherished" grade 8 and above.

2. I don't like the '67 Mantle at all either. Willing to overlook that for the rest of the set

5. Differing subjective opinions.

6. Mid-high grade '64 T Roses definitely command good prices, but "tons of $$$" is quite an exaggeration, and it doesn't nearly make up for the deficiency of anything near cadillac cards for the set . And I imagine that you are highly overstating the relevance of the leader and combo cards to most collectors. If you like them, fantastic. It doesn't make me wrong about how the value breaks down for the set (outside of your world of top 10 registry owners)

7. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse, snide, and overly offended. Obviously anyone would rather have a '64 than a '79, but it was clear from my explanations how some of my preferences were based on the bang for your buck.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Favorites: 1965 - pennants, what more can you say? And the photos are so bright and clear, along with a decent RC class

I was very close to picking the '65 too for that decade, and for the exact reasons you mentioned. Star rookie card power barely won out with my '67 choice.

Loved the '81 Topps set as a little kid because of the hats. And those '65 pennants are about as good!

[hcv123]

Best:

1955 - Just something about the colors, design and horizontal format that captivated me as a 13 year old kid (not in 55) and still captivates me today! 1956 as a runner up and if I was to add a single card - it would likely be the 54 Aaron over the 56 Mantle!
1963 runner up -1967
1972 - Like the overall design - very early "70's" and large size with great player selection. runner up 1975 - one of my favorites as a kid

Worst:
1959 - Tough choice - nothing I consider bad, just the worst of the best
1965 - Just something a bit boring to me about these
1974 - Interesting photographs and it about ends there.

[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.

[Phil68]

I am assuming these in properly printed, centered, pack-fresh condition:

Best of the 50's...
1955

Worst of the 50's...
1959

Best of the 60's...
1967

Worst of the 60's...
1968--frankly, IMO, by far the ugliest set ever made.

Best of the 70's...
1977

Worst of the 70's...
1974...although their are an handful of worthy recipients

Overall Best for me...
1955

Overall Worst...
1968

Taking it a step further...
Best of the 80's...
1988

Worst of the 80's...
1989

[BillP]

1950's -
1) 54 Always been partial to the format, wished more stars were included
2) 58 just a personal preference for color background and player selection

1960's - tough choice
1) 67 - Clear photos, clean back with stats, high numbers challenging
2) 63 - I like the color format
3) 66 - 3rd choice but on any day could be #1
4) 62 - different, try to get past the headshots

1970's -
1) 75
2) 78

least favorite:
1950's -
1) 55
2) don't have another

1960's -
1) 61 - just can't collect this year, there's nothing that holds me in on this year
2) 60

1970's-
1) 73
2) 79
3) 72

[55koufax]

Obtuse, snide, and overly offended? HUH?

I am not offended in the least. I prefaced the entire commentary acknowledging you are quite entitled to your own subjective views on 1964 Topps.

I just corrected all the assumptions you erroneously made. It is evident you know very little about the set perhaps other than an expertise in 3's, 4's and 5's.

Does it make you feel good by bashing me and every other collector in 8+ that disagree? I and all the others that are serious collectors that respect and "cherish" the 1964 set will keep on doing what we do - and that is to collect the best possible cards in HIGH GRADE for this wonderful set.

I (we) only wish you were right about how inexpensive it is....

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

Obtuse, snide, and overly offended? HUH?

I am not offended in the least. I prefaced the entire commentary acknowledging you are quite entitled to your own subjective views on 1964 Topps.

I just corrected all the assumptions you erroneously made. It is evident you know very little about the set perhaps other than an expertise in 3's, 4's and 5's.

Does it make you feel good by bashing me and every other collector in 8+ that disagree? I and all the others that are serious collectors that respect and "cherish" the 1964 set will keep on doing what we do - and that is to collect the best possible cards in HIGH GRADE for this wonderful set.

I (we) only wish you were right about how inexpensive it is....

Your preface went out the door with your original point 7. If you can't sense your offense taken and snide tone there, then I don't know what to tell you. Now you've run with that even further with the "bashing" claims. I'm not peronsally bashing anyone. It's only about what I think of the set, just like others have already talked about how substandard they think my pride (the '55T is) and the other "worst" descriptions.

And for the record, the only assumption you "corrected" was that top grade '64s may not apply to my point. Everything else was more or less a difference of opinion or your own biases/exaggerations.

Anyway, I have no interest in a prolonged flame war, here or anywhere else. Good luck to you and your collecting

[55koufax]

Good luck to you..

[JollyElm]

I only really collect two 1950's sets, so my love/hate is very limited.

1957, although very murky looking, is my favorite. A huge number of star cards, the Bums are still in Brooklyn, and the tough semi-highs and rookies make it quite an (arguably fun) burden to complete. And ending it with Yogi and the Mick? Nice.

1959, with a knothole thing??? Come on, Topps. They basically blocked out half of the picture for no reason whatsoever.


The 1960's has all sorts of great things.

1969, with it's clean and beautiful look, shoulda/woulda/coulda been my favorite, but so many of the pictures are just reused shots from other years due to the labor climate, so it doesn't count. If you collect autographed cards, this set is perfect for you.

1961 has too many headshots, but the wicked tough high numbers save the day.

1962, with the green tints and other variations, makes it a fun and challenging set to collect, but the woodgrain itself? Yick.

1965 is my favorite. I love the pennant design, and in the years before action shots were introduced, it provides so many beautiful portraits. The lack of tough high numbers is the biggest problem with it.

1968 burlap is the worst. Not a fan.


The 1970's was a roller coaster ride with many cool sets.

1974 was an incredibly great looking set. I have no idea why people throw so much disdain at it. Yowza. Here's a celebratory thread from a hundred years ago...https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=172335

1972 is my favorite set of all time, and I could yammer on about it forever. Because the cards were way overproduced, they are pretty easy to find...but you need to secure 787 different ones. Ouch. And trying to complete a CENTERED set????!!!!!! That is a frustrating journey. Although they feature such a B-list of players, the 'In Action' cards are quite delicious, and then throw in the wide variety of other things (some weird) like awards, boyhood photos, playoffs and WS, it becomes a hugely extensive thing to assemble. The high numbers with the awesome 'Traded' subset is a great way to cap it off. One hundred thumbs up!!!

1971 is a thumbs down only due to the black borders. You just look at them and the corners start turning white with wear. The set itself in theory is beautiful, and I've come to adore it greatly, but that black just negates it all. I mean, just thinking about removing cards from your binder to send them off for grading makes you sweat like a bomb tech trying to cut the right wire and defuse the explosive.

[kailes2872]

It always starts with 56 for me. 340 cards. 34 HOfers. Just perfection.

As an aside, in retrospect, it is hard to believe that Topps won the card wars. We think about 54 for Aaron, Banks, and Kaline and 55 for Clemente, Koufax, and Killebrew - but in 54 and 55 those were just dudes. All of the names were in Bowman. 53 Bowman is considered by most the best post war set of all time. The 55 TV set was innovative - like if Topps did an iPhone set in 2008. Still Topps won out. 56 is the culmination of their creative apex in fighting the card war - so much that they went to 57 and copied the 53 Bowman idea but put names on the front of the cards.

58 is probably my least favorite. Just too plain with the solid backgrounds. Definitely a step back from the prior years.

I love the 65s with 63 a close 2nd. I don’t like 68 and 69 is a combo of 67 & 68.

The magical mystery tour set of 72 will always be a favorite because it is my birth year. I like 73 because it has a cool Mays, Clemente, and Aaron. Sort of the end of an era. I like 78 because it was the first cards I collected. And the all star badges are awesome. With the Jackson perhaps the greatest baseball card ever made.

79 Topps ugh. So utterly terrible in every regard. I also hate the ‘70 set but the yellow backs are nice.

[cesarcap]

Favorites:
50's - 56 over 300 pieces of art, excludes team cards (I like backs) and Harridge
60's - 67 great design, multiplayer cards, popular RC's and highs
70's - 75 good r/c's, minis, HoF's and affordable

Worst:
50's - 58 if they only used the 59 font here...
60's - 68 others have already noted the negatives
70's - 70 I actually think some of the pix and subsets are cool, but the grey borders are so bland.

[jgannon]

I can never definitively ever name anything as "best" or "favorite", but I do have "favorites". And if I'm naming a favorite set, I'm not taking into account anything about it's resale or breakup value, or how many rookie cards or stars the set has. And over the years, my favorites have actually changed.

What follows are just MY opinions. It's great that we all see things differently and feel differently about the cards. Having these discussion help make the world go 'round! We don't have to agree!


For the 50's:

Favorites:

1952 and 1956 Topps - (Baseball cards as art. The 1955s' are regal and majestic but I just like the 56's better, with the more involved background pictures. There's been a lot of great discussion about them here on the forum.)

1952 and 1953 (color) Bowman


Least Favorite:

1951 Topps - (I actually like them, but I've never felt drawn to them in any big way. Still nice...)


For the 60's

Favorites:

1960, 1967, 1969 Topps (It's funny, I never used to be drawn to the 1960 set. But as I've gotten older, I just started to dig them more. Great photos and design on the front. I love the season highlights and the cartoons on the backs. And with the 1969 set, it started to dawn on me what an amazing design that is. Great pictures, everything.)


Least Favorite:

1962 Topps - (NEVER liked that set. That wood paneling for me, was just a downer. I never got an uplifting feeling looking at those cards. The only vintage set I really just don't like.)



For the 70's:

1970 Topps - (For me, the LAST classic set. I've grown to like the 1971's over the years, but for me, baseball cards just went downhill after that. The 1973 was the beginning of the that constant white border thing. I know the 1975's were different. I like the 1973 card, but after that they all seemed a bit of a variation of that for awhile. They just didn't do it for me.)


There's something great really about ALL of the sets (with the exception of those 1962's, lol. I know that some people really might like that set, so my apologies.)

I would like to say something about the 1968 Topps though. That was the first year I really began to collect. It was so exciting getting the cards, learning about the players, and understanding for the first time what baseball cards were all about. When listing my favorites above, I was approaching things from an aesthetic angle. But I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the 1968's. I like how they look. They have a whole different feel than any other set, and I never looked at the border as "burlap". There is actually a two-tone color to the borders that burlap doesn't have. They were great cards, in my opinion. And I would say that even if they weren't the first set I collected.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by brewing

1969 Has clean design, All Star cards, easy to read backs, and the best WS cards Topps has EVER produced.

Yeah, those World Series cards are GREAT!

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by jgannon

There's something great really about ALL of the sets (with the exception of those 1962's, lol. I know that some people really might like that set, so my apologies.)

I would like to say something about the 1968 Topps though. That was the first year I really began to collect. It was so exciting getting the cards, learning about the players, and understanding for the first time what baseball cards were all about. When listing my favorites above, I was approaching things from an aesthetic angle. But I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the 1968's. I like how they look. They have a whole different feel than any other set, and I never looked at the border as "burlap". There is actually a two-tone color to the borders that burlap doesn't have. They were great cards, in my opinion. And I would say that even if they weren't the first set I collected.

I actually kinda like the look of the brown border sets (and find some appeal in them being an occasional change from the norm.)

You knew the opinions here would be varied, but the differences are even more vast than I would've expected!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

I actually kinda like the look of the brown border sets (and find some appeal in them being an occasional change from the norm.)

You knew the opinions here would be varied, but the differences are even more vast than I would've expected!

Yeah, I really enjoy reading why everyone likes what they like! As was said above, beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

And it's good to know, that I am not alone in liking the 1968 Topps set! I think it was a subtler set in a lot of ways. There's something about the pictures. There's just a different quality about them. But each year's pics have their own feeling, of course. I like the backs of the 68's as well. Their own style, easy to read stats, the cartoon, etc.

Edit: Oh, wait a minute! Maybe you were talking about the 1962 set? But either way, it's great all of our differing opinions!

[mikemb]

Best -

50s 1956 Great design and pictures

60s 1965 Love the pennants and team colors

70s 1979 Basic but well done

Worst -

50s 1958 Boring

60s 1968 Boring

70s 1975 Boring and ugly

Mike

Mike

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Edit: Oh, wait a minute! Maybe you were talking about the 1962 set? But either way, it's great all of our differing opinions!

Both the '62 and '68. Plus the '55 Bowman

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Both the '62 and '68. Plus the '55 Bowman

Yeah, I like the 1955 Bowman. The whole TV set thing was cool. Not my favorite set, but I still like it.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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

I imagine there may have been some disappointment about the coaches as any kid might feel getting any number of cards they might not covet for any reason, from the card not being a favorite player, or one that they had too many of, etc. I haven't seen those threads that you mention. But I suppose kids really may not have wanted the coaches as they may not have wanted league presidents and/or umpires in other sets in later years, I guess. When I was collecting as a kid, it never bothered me to get a Leo Durocher or a Herman Franks, or an Alvin Dark when they were managing. But everyone going to have a different reaction to everything. Obviously, the '54 set wasn't as complete as other sets. If there were more cards to the set, having all those coaches might not have been, or be, seen as a detriment, but just a nice addition.

As far as not valuing having coaches in the 1954 the set now, I say we were lucky they included them. What great lore and history to have on a baseball card of that year the great Earle Combs (whose birth date on the back is 1899!), as well as other great players and baseball men such as Heinie Manush, Augie Galan, and Johnny Hopp.

As far as not having enough Indians in the set, you can't fault Topps for not having a crystal ball to not only a) not be able to predict who was going to win the A.L. pennant that year, but also b) not be able to predict the memorabilia industry, nor what would be deemed important or desirable by future collectors!

Apart from all this, one thing I feel the 1954 Topps set has that makes it special and different, is the very alive quality it has about it. There is a rawness and a boldness about the set. They are big cards, and the close-up photos of the players just jump off the cards.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Both the '62 and '68. Plus the '55 Bowman

I only have a few sets that I really dislike and the 55 Bowman is one of them. I think the TVs look cheesy plus Bowman couldn't figure out how big to make the cards. The 53 Topps looks like high school art projects with poor art and is mostly portraits. The 54 Topps with their black and white action shots look lame when Bowman was making beautiful color sets. After that Topps really stepped up their game with 3 of the nicest card sets ever made. Those 3 are really the only ones that I would say I don't like. The 64 Topps is my least favorite of the 60s, but the Clemente is one of my favorite cards. The 78 Topps is the only 70s set that I don't really like a lot, but there are lots of great cards like the Reggie Jackson.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I imagine there may have been some disappointment about the coaches as any kid might feel getting any number of cards they might not covet for any reason, from the card not being a favorite player, or one that they had too many of, etc. I haven't seen those threads that you mention. But I suppose kids really may not have wanted the coaches as they may not have wanted league presidents and/or umpires in other sets in later years, I guess. When I was collecting as a kid, it never bothered me to get a Leo Durocher or a Herman Franks, or an Alvin Dark when they were managing. But everyone going to have a different reaction to everything. Obviously, the '54 set wasn't as complete as other sets. If there were more cards to the set, having all those coaches might not have been, or be, seen as a detriment, but just a nice addition.

As far as not valuing having coaches in the 1954 the set now, I say we were lucky they included them. What great lore and history to have on a baseball card of that year the great Earle Combs (whose birth date on the back is 1899!), as well as other great players and baseball men such as Heinie Manush, Augie Galan, and Johnny Hopp.

As far as not having enough Indians in the set, you can't fault Topps for not having a crystal ball to not only a) not be able to predict who was going to win the A.L. pennant that year, but also b) not be able to predict the memorabilia industry, nor what would be deemed important or desirable by future collectors!

Apart from all this, one thing I feel the 1954 Topps set has that makes it special and different, is the very alive quality it has about it. There is a rawness and a boldness about the set. They are big cards, and the close-up photos of the players just jump off the cards.

I'll grant you the design from Topps 1954 set is beautiful. But when more than one out of ten cards in a set is a coach or a manager, I have to believe the youngsters were unhappy. Can you imagine 60-80 managers and coaches in the Topps sets from the 1960's and 1970's? Even then, you'd still have 500+ other cards to enjoy, rather than the 224 that Topps issued in 1954.

As for the Tribe, maybe no one could predict 111 wins and a pennant, but how do you not include any of their four future HOF pitchers--Feller, Wynn, Lemon and Newhouser? Kids are opening Topps packs during that baseball season in anticipation (no checklists) and the sole Cleveland pitcher they see is Dave Hoskins? Yes, that Dave Hoskins. Not Dave Hollins or Clem Haskins, but Dave Hoskins. No offense to Mr. Hoskins, but yuck. Great design or not, as a kid I want to see and read the cardbacks of the guys making the newspapers and radio every day, not a bunch of grandpas and sometimes players.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

I only have a few sets that I really dislike and the 55 Bowman is one of them. I think the TVs look cheesy plus Bowman couldn't figure out how big to make the cards. The 53 Topps looks like high school art projects with poor art and is mostly portraits. The 54 Topps with their black and white action shots look lame when Bowman was making beautiful color sets. After that Topps really stepped up their game with 3 of the nicest card sets ever made. Those 3 are really the only ones that I would say I don't like. The 64 Topps is my least favorite of the 60s, but the Clemente is one of my favorite cards. The 78 Topps is the only 70s set that I don't really like a lot, but there are lots of great cards like the Reggie Jackson.

We either completely agree or disagree about most sets, cause I love the '53 Topps design as well (especially the background artwork and bright colors.)

And I like how it contrasts with the '52 Topps, which can have a more dark and even slightly foreboding feel at times.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I'll grant you the design from Topps 1954 set is beautiful. But when more than one out of ten cards in a set is a coach or a manager, I have to believe the youngsters were unhappy. Can you imagine 60-80 managers and coaches in the Topps sets from the 1960's and 1970's? Even then, you'd still have 500+ other cards to enjoy, rather than the 224 that Topps issued in 1954.

As for the Tribe, maybe no one could predict 111 wins and a pennant, but how do you not include any of their four future HOF pitchers--Feller, Wynn, Lemon and Newhouser? Kids are opening Topps packs during that baseball season in anticipation (no checklists) and the sole Cleveland pitcher they see is Dave Hoskins? Yes, that Dave Hoskins. Not Dave Hollins or Clem Haskins, but Dave Hoskins. No offense to Mr. Hoskins, but yuck. Great design or not, as a kid I want to see and read the cardbacks of the guys making the newspapers and radio every day, not a bunch of grandpas and sometimes players.

This "what would kids have felt at the time" is such an interesting view. 1954 and 1955 Topps would have felt fairly empty to many of them. As mentioned earlier, no one would've cared about Aaron, Banks, Kaline, Koufax, and Clemente at the time. It would've been mostly about no Mick and plenty of other guys.

Then came 1956, which solved most of that while adding great background shots again, as well as the team cards and checklists. Gotta think that collecting would've been so much more enjoyable for the average kid that year than the prior two.

Just think if it turned out that something combined a 1956 type with the rookie cards of '54 and '55? Even better that it didn't work out that way, though. Would rather have a mix over the years than just one perfect superset

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I'll grant you the design from Topps 1954 set is beautiful. But when more than one out of ten cards in a set is a coach or a manager, I have to believe the youngsters were unhappy. Can you imagine 60-80 managers and coaches in the Topps sets from the 1960's and 1970's? Even then, you'd still have 500+ other cards to enjoy, rather than the 224 that Topps issued in 1954.

As for the Tribe, maybe no one could predict 111 wins and a pennant, but how do you not include any of their four future HOF pitchers--Feller, Wynn, Lemon and Newhouser? Kids are opening Topps packs during that baseball season in anticipation (no checklists) and the sole Cleveland pitcher they see is Dave Hoskins? Yes, that Dave Hoskins. Not Dave Hollins or Clem Haskins, but Dave Hoskins. No offense to Mr. Hoskins, but yuck. Great design or not, as a kid I want to see and read the cardbacks of the guys making the newspapers and radio every day, not a bunch of grandpas and sometimes players.

Yeah, good point about there not being a lot of the star players from the Indians that year, not to mention stars from other teams. Maybe the info is out there, but I wonder what went into who was signed and included on certain sets. I'm only beginning to look into these kind of things.

And yeah, I think I made the same point about the coaches perhaps being more "acceptable" to the kids of the day if there had been more cards in the set. And certainly if negative receptions did exist regarding the high number of coach cards, the dearth of some of the obvious stars I imagine would also have had to have been a part of that.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Yeah, good point about there not being a lot of the star players from the Indians that year, not to mention stars from other teams. Maybe the info is out there, but I wonder what went into who was signed and included on certain sets. I'm only beginning to look into these kind of things.

And yeah, I think I made the same point about the coaches perhaps being more "acceptable" to the kids of the day if there had been more cards in the set. And certainly if negative receptions did exist regarding the high number of coach cards, the dearth of some of the obvious stars I imagine would also have had to have been a part of that.

I said it earlier, but still hard to believe that Topps won the war. The cards looked great but the player selection was meh.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

This "what would kids have felt at the time" is such an interesting view. 1954 and 1955 Topps would have felt fairly empty to many of them. As mentioned earlier, no one would've cared about Aaron, Banks, Kaline, Koufax, and Clemente at the time. It would've been mostly about no Mick and plenty of other guys.

Then came 1956, which solved most of that while adding great background shots again, as well as the team cards and checklists. Gotta think that collecting would've been so much more enjoyable for the average kid that year than the prior two.

Just think if it turned out that something combined a 1956 type with the rookie cards of '54 and '55? Even better that it didn't work out that way, though. Would rather have a mix over the years than just one perfect superset

I really don’t think that Mantle would have been that big until 1956. Berra won his 2nd & 3rd mvps in 1954 & 1955. Mays was MVP in 1954. Williams and Jackie were recent MVPs. Only Campy was exclusive with Bowman from the big name award winners. Bowman losing Teddy Ballgame to Topps would have been bigger than Mantle missing from Topps in my opinion.

[jchcollins]

Most of the superlatives have already been covered, so I will skip descriptions. My favorites are ‘56, ‘65, and ‘72.

I don’t really hate anything else, although I will say I’m generally less enamored with ‘57 Topps than most people. Overall they just strike me as dull, and in terms of color they don’t hold a candle to the ‘53 Bowmans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Both the '62 and '68. Plus the '55 Bowman

You know, I think I'll take back what I said about the 62's. While not my favorite set, I think I was thinking of a few cards I have that are just not in the best shape. I looked at a couple online, and yeah, I like 'em.

[55koufax]

So this "dis-liked" 1964 set is way beyond popular and competitive right now on the PSA Registry. Results in from 5-11 and recently.

1. No. 435 Davalillo. PSA 9 = $202.50 (highest price by far in 7 years)
2. No. 487 McCormick. PSA 9 = $202.22 (I paid $47 for an 8.5 10 years ago)
3. No. 501 Veale. PSA 9 = $150 (avg for 3 sales in 2020 - prior not close)
4. No. 120 Drysdale. PSA 9 = $415 (avg for 2 sales in 2020 - prior avg from $200 to $300 every year)

Common 9's that are not exactly ultra low pops pulling in $150 to $200. That is insane.