Similarities of 2 Major Sets....T206 & '52 Topps

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

On this Forum there is no argument that the T206 set has to be the
favorite Pre-WWII BB card issue. I also think many would consider the
1952 Topps set to be the most popular Post-WWII set.

Actually, these 2 sets are quite similar in many ways. 1st..most significant
is the fact that each of these sets have, arguably, the most prized cards in
their respective eras....Wagner and Mantle. And, don't forget that it was
the '52T Mantle that sparked the excitement in this hobby back in 1980. In
any event, the "hype" and publicity on these two cards have generated a lot
of interest in these two sets.

2nd....To complete these two sets you need to collect 500+ cards in each.
If you are "fortunate" enough to complete a T206 set, you have 524 cards.
And, if you are a real serious 1952 Topps collector, you have 552 cards.
This includes all legitimate variations: 552 = 407 Red Backs + 82 Black Backs
(with Page & Sain errors) + 3 DP Hi#s (Mantle, J Robby & Thomson) + 60 Gray
backs (cards #131 - 190 Series; these are extremely rare).

3rd....There are 38 different Hall of Famers (HOF) in the T206 and there are
24 HOF players in the '52T set.

4th....The cards of these sets were produced in the many millions; therefore,
many cards are still available, making it easier for many collectors to acquire.

5th....Both sets were innovative in their time, the T206 set was the first
huge colorful BB card issue in the 20th Century. And, the 52T set was the
first large set in the post-war era; LARGE in 2 ways.....number of cards
and card size.

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

great comparison, TRex! Very interesting!
Now how about the contrast!!!

best,

herbivore Barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim James

Ted,great observation! I have long been a fan of the early T sets,and the early Topps issues.'52 and '55 are my favorites.The'55 set,in my opinion,is the most beautiful R set,R-319 is up there also,in my personal HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I love the 55 Topps set. Simple, unclutter design with a potrait and anction shot. The 56 set is too busy compared to the 55s. The 55 set was also the first older set of cards I completed and pursued when I started collecting cards other than what could be bought at the corner store. The other thing that appealed to me about the set is that there is no Mantle. I have a serious dislike for the guy. I never saw him play and only knew the drunken sot that I got to meet on several occasions. So my impression of him is not good and I had a hard time justifying shelling out the money it takes to buy his cards.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Well, I've got another two cents to donate here. My thinking is that the similarities between a set issued over multiple years and the '52 Topps is an indicator of what was actually achieved in 1952.

But limiting the comparison to t206 & '52 Topps ignores the fact that the multi-year Goudey run may result in greater annual sales than the multi-year t206 run. And as far as comparing multi-year issues to '52 Topps - the n172 has some stars, difficulties, subsets, and other attractive features to offer as well.

I really think that by the above definition, '52 Topps stands alone, and a comparison among the other three (and maybe PlayBall) would be more fair.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Net54ers get yer' brand new 1952 Topps here!

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

As per the topic at hand, I much prefer the 52 Topps to t206. However, the high numbers from 52, and backs from both sets have no interest to me. I can't stand the Yankees and Mantle and am ambivalent about Wagner, so the two grails are a wash for me. The design for 1952 makes for an amazing set, the use of color is absolutely brilliant. Other than 40-50 cards from the t206, I think it's a rather ugly (gasp!) set.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

My comparison was simply given an entire issue (i.e., T206 or '52 Topps)
and noting their undeniable similarities (as I have described).

Yes, the 1933 -1941 Goudey issues produced a tremendous number of cards.
Look how many have survived ? And, especially the 1933 Goudeys.....kids
were buying 33G cards until they ran out of pennies because of all those
missing low#s. We all are aware of the missing LaJoie (#106); however,
how many collectors, nowadays, appreciate the fact that Goudey did not
issue #s 97, 98 99, 107 - 114, 121 - 129, and 142 until much later that
year. This is why these particular Low #s do not have the "Big League"
logo strip on the front of the card, as do cards #1 thru #189.


Great "marketing trick" by Goudey that year. Anyhow Gil, I did not com-
pare this Goudey set to the '52 Topps set simply because there are only
239 cards in it. But, no doubt, with the four Ruth's and two Gehrigs and
all the other great HOFers, it indeed was (and is) a very popular set.

You get no argument from me here. In fact, the '33 Goudey set was the
very 1st Pre-War set that I completed; back in the mid-80's.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

One point which I was hoping to crystallize was that in one year Topps Candy & Gum Co. assembled what Goodwin & Co., the American Tobacco Trust, and perhaps Goudey Gum Co.; required several years to accomplish.

I therefore conclude that there is only a battle among the non-Topps competitors for second place in historic, comprehensive sets. The winner is way far ahead of the pack.

That t206 and Old Judges are viewed as single sets, while Goudey and PlayBall are not, is an unimportant curiousity in this analysis; I think.

Edited to reduce stoopidity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach

"One point which I was hoping to crystallize was that in one year Topps Candy & Gum Co. assembled what Goodwin & Co., the American Tobacco Trust, and perhaps Goudey Gum Co.; required several years to accomplish."

I beg to differ, Topp's issued their first set in 1948. By 1952 they had already produced multiple sets. 1948 Topps Magic Photos, 1951 Topps Red Backs and Blue Backs, 1951 Topps Connie Mack's All Stars, and 1951 Topps Current All Stars. This proves that Topps had been producing cards for multiple years prior to the 1952 Topps set, it took them several years to accomplish a great all around set.

[Archive]

Posted By: dd

Both are great sets and I enjoy collecting 'em. One similarity I've noticed is that collecting these sets is hard on the wallet.


The smartest man I ever met was uneducated.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Zach

As a kid, who started collecting BB cards in 1947, believe me, those
"minor" Topps issues you refer to where not too popular back then. Mostly,
because these cards (whatever) were not even available in most stores.
And, in talking with other veteran collectors, most didn't see these either.

The Leafs and the Bowmans were the popular BB, FB, and Boxing cards in
the 1948 - 52 years. When we first saw the 1952 Topps cards, in the
Spring of '52, we were really excited and we could not get enough nickles
to buy the '52T packs. And, the means for getting "enough nickles" those
days were going around the neighborhood and collecting as many large
soda-pop bottles as we could find, and exchange them at the local grocery
store for 5 cents a bottle.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott T

(From the people that brought you the "Lincoln-Kennedy" coincidences...)

A key card from the T206 set is the Eddie Plank. Many 1952 sets were made to walk the "Plank" when they were dumped in the ocean.

</feeble attempt at humor>


Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Zach: Im sorry that I continue to be unclear. What I meant was that in a single (not necessarilly their first) year, Topps accomplished what others required multiple years to achieve.

Edited to add: However, your observation has merit. It would have been nice to see the n172 and t206 sets undergo the same cycles of improvement which Topps had.