If you could make the Big 3 into the Big 4, what set are you adding?

[skelly423]

It’s widely accepted that the big three sets are t206, 1933 Goudey, and 1952 Topps. If the hobby decided to make it a Big Four, which set would you nominate for the fourth spot, and why?

[molenick]

I would go with N172. First, it is Big (I think it is the biggest set not counting back variations?). Second, it adds an era not already covered. Third, while not the first set, it is the first set to attempt to include most (if not every) player.

[LEHR]

Originally Posted by molenick

I would go with N172. First, it is Big (I think it is the biggest set not counting back variations?). Second, it adds an era not already covered. Third, while not the first set, it is the first set to attempt to include most (if not every) player.

I'd second the N172's for all the reasons mentioned.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Yep, perfect choice for all the reasons specified! Can we just all agree on this and lock the thread?

[Kevin]

1981 Donruss!

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Yeah, I was gonna make a joke about those Topps disembodied heads, but how can an argument be made against OJs?

[jingram058]

N172 cards are truly amazing and historic little photos. I only have 10 of them, but I love them, and would most certainly love to have more!

+1 for all the mentioned above reasons.

[philliesfan]

Perfect choice for the N172.

Honorable mention for me would be the T3 set.

Bob

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Yeah, I was gonna make a joke about those Topps disembodied heads, but how can an argument be made against OJs?

The only argument that comes to my mind:

What is the likelihood one can ever actually complete a set?

Other than this, I agree; it's a rock-solid choice.

[Rhotchkiss]

I say 1914 Cracker Jack, but really argue against N172

I also think E107 and T3 are up there. I am totally a prewar guy, but I also think 1951 Bowman, 1953 Bowman, and 1975 Topps are pretty awesome.

1986 Fleer Basketball is pretty mighty as well

[boneheadandrube]

N172

[puckpaul]

I would go with N28. Could see the case for N172 but it’s not really collectible as a set. The best thing about the Big 3 is that you can complete these sets, they are available in quantity (with an obvious nod to the rarity of the 4 of the 524 T206 and the Lajoie). N28 covers the earlier era and is collectible though not quite as abundant). No one can come close to finding the OJ set i dont think. T3 would be great but has significant overlap with T206. No other modern set really stands out, certain cards do but not the sets…. Maybe 1989 Upper Deck but it’s too junk waxy. E107 is just too hard to collect. W600 same problem, that one seems attractive too.

[swarmee]

For the modern era, 1993 Topps Finest Refractors would be my vote as #4. Beauty, rarity, star power. Started the chrome revolution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Cracker Jack, either set would be fine.

[Casey2296]

14 Cracker Jack

[hcv123]

Good question!! While all the reasons for OJ make some sense, as mentioned it is not realistically completable. I like Ryan's suggestion of 1914 CJ or 1951 Bowman. 1993 Refractors are interesting to consider as well.

[robw1959]

1956 Topps

[Rich Falvo]

1914 Cracker Jack or 1954/1956 Topps (can't decide which, both are very popular.)

[ValKehl]

N172 absolutely, for the reasons mentioned above and for a reason not yet mentioned - the N172s have real photos of the players, whereas the "Big 3" don't have real photos! (Yes, I'm prejudiced toward card sets with real photos of the players.)

Just as T206 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different ad backs, N172 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different poses and print variations. However, if you deem a complete set to be one card of each player, then both N172 and T206 are completable, albeit with difficulty, if one has deep pockets. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that at least one of the three authors of the fantastic Old Judge tome has or is close to having a complete N172 set (i.e., one card of each player).

[darwinbulldog]

Another vote for N172.

[3-2-count]

Another vote for 1914 Cracker Jack

[Jay Wolt]

Turkey Red T3

[t206fanatic]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Another vote for 1914 Cracker Jack

has my vote as well

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Val,

What a wonderful point. I like to see what players truly looked like, not some cartoonish Bowman depiction. I honestly don't get the love for non-photo Bowmans.

To add to your point, without OJs, we would likely have NEVER seen what some of these players looked like! That's huge if you stop to consider it. Sorry, a woodcut does nothing for me as a truly accurate depiction of these guys. Although usually less cartoonish, it's the 19th century equivalent of a pre-1953 Bowman for my taste.

For those who use "you'll never be able to complete it" as a strike against OJ, I will turn that around and say how awesome a fact it is that there will potentially always be new discoveries with one of the oldest sets out there! Forever new things to learn and cards to keep adding. As Val Pointed out, you can collect just a single pose of each player. When it comes to collecting anything, one of the best aspects is that you get to make the rules. Many lose sight of this and are driven by OCD to let someone else's rules control them. What brings you the most joy overall: the act of collecting or completing? The latter has been bittersweet for many, while the former has a lot more longevity.

Originally Posted by ValKehl

N172 absolutely, for the reasons mentioned above and for a reason not yet mentioned - the N172s have real photos of the players, whereas the "Big 3" don't have real photos! (Yes, I'm prejudiced toward card sets with real photos of the players.)

Just as T206 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different ad backs, N172 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different poses and print variations. However, if you deem a complete set to be one card of each player, then both N172 and T206 are completable, albeit with difficulty, if one has deep pockets. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that at least one of the three authors of the fantastic Old Judge tome has or is close to having a complete N172 set (i.e., one card of each player).

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Also, the initial point made in this thread that it represents an era not already included in the Big 3 is of extreme importance.

Including any 1950s issue is redundant to me because of the 1952 Topps. T3s are remarkable, as are Ramlys and many CJ poses, but same rule applies.

I'm amazed that nobody has thrown Play Balls into the mix. But what I mentioned in the preceding paragraph comes into play for me to a degree, as there are so many players who appeared in one of the two Big 3 sets that bookend the series.

[MuncieNolePAZ]

1914 Cracker Jack for me.

Chad

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Val,

What a wonderful point. I like to see what players truly looked like, not some cartoonish Bowman depiction. I honestly don't get the love for non-photo Bowmans.

To add to your point, without OJs, we would likely have NEVER seen what some of these players looked like! That's huge if you stop to consider it. Sorry, a woodcut does nothing for me as a truly accurate depiction of these guys. Although usually less cartoonish, it's the 19th century equivalent of a pre-1953 Bowman for my taste.

Off topic - I’m one of the few that actually prefer a 1940 play ball to
1941 - not crazy for the pastels and softened images , 1941 Ted Williams looks like a China doll and Jimmie Foxx looks like a hockey mask wearing murderer .
On topic - 1914 Cracker Jack (despite the drawings)

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'm in the 1940 camp as well. Names on fronts, photos, random inclusion of some older legends.

[vintagerookies51]

I'd put Cracker Jack at #4, then N172 then 1941 Play Ball

[oldjudge]

Obviously, my vote is N172. I think it is the greatest set ever. I also think some consideration should be given to M101-4/5.

[insidethewrapper]

I wonder how many "complete" sets exist, that is complete with the 52 T Mantle, T206 Wagner and Doyle and 33 Goudey with # 106 Lajoie. I don't believe the N172 has any. My order of difficulty would be:
1) N172 Old Judge
2) T206 with the above cards (Wagner & Doyle)
3 ) 33 Goudey with Lajoie
4) 52 T with/ Mantle

[Kidnapped18]

1914 Cracker Jacks hands down! For me this is the best prewar set.
The red background, the bios, the Hall of Famers and Star players are something special!
Cracker Jacks epitomize and are synonymous with MLB
The inclusion of the Federal League players is an added bonus

[insidethewrapper]

I also love cards with red backgrounds.

[Yoda]

E cards seem to be the step child of prewar due to many sets having cartoonish depictions of the players. I personally think the E95 &E96 Philadelphia Carmels are fantastic. Real artwork, top HOFer's with the Cobb, LaJoie and Wagner as the standouts. I love 'em.

[glchen]

I think the criteria should include that the set:
(1) Is completable even in a recognized partial form, such as T206 w/o Big 4 or Goudey w/o the Lajoie card

(2) Has a headliner card. T206 (Wagner), Goudey (Lajoie), 52 Topps (Mantle)

Even though the N172 is a great set, I don't know if it has either of these criteria. The E107 is a great set with headliners in the Wagner and Mathewson cards, but I don't know if anyone has ever completed it or if there is a recognized partial set that folks agree is "complete." I don't know if the T3 Cobb is a big enough card to be the headliner. The W600 has the Wagner headliner, but again, I don't know if anyone has ever completed this set.

Given this, I would go with the 1914 Cracker Jack as entering the Big 4 with the horizontal Mathewson card as the headliner, and the Cobb as close behind.

[JollyElm]

Since I don't have a clue what an N172 is, my vote is for something with a very similar name, 1972 Topps, which is quite a monstrous (get it, sort of a latter day version of 'The Monster'?) and psychedelic fan favorite set for many of us post-war guys.

[Eric72]

Here are a few of the sets I've considered:

1949 Leaf Baseball
1986-87 Fleer Basketball (ETA: this is just one set...the TPGs have shorthanded it to "1986 Fleer")
1993 Finest Baseball Refractors

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Yoda

E cards seem to be the step child of prewar due to many sets having cartoonish depictions of the players. I personally think the E95 &E96 Philadelphia Carmels are fantastic. Real artwork, top HOFer's with the Cobb, LaJoie and Wagner as the standouts. I love 'em.

John, I assume that your "step child" comment does not include Cracker Jacks, which are E cards.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think the criteria should include that the set:
(1) Is completable even in a recognized partial form, such as T206 w/o Big 4 or Goudey w/o the Lajoie card

(2) Has a headliner card. T206 (Wagner), Goudey (Lajoie), 52 Topps (Mantle)

Even though the N172 is a great set, I don't know if it has either of these criteria. The E107 is a great set with headliners in the Wagner and Mathewson cards, but I don't know if anyone has ever completed it or if there is a recognized partial set that folks agree is "complete." I don't know if the T3 Cobb is a big enough card to be the headliner. The W600 has the Wagner headliner, but again, I don't know if anyone has ever completed this set.

Given this, I would go with the 1914 Cracker Jack as entering the Big 4 with the horizontal Mathewson card as the headliner, and the Cobb as close behind.

I agree with all of this. 1914 CJ.

[JimC]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

N172 absolutely, for the reasons mentioned above and for a reason not yet mentioned - the N172s have real photos of the players, whereas the "Big 3" don't have real photos! (Yes, I'm prejudiced toward card sets with real photos of the players.)

Just as T206 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different ad backs, N172 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different poses and print variations. However, if you deem a complete set to be one card of each player, then both N172 and T206 are completable, albeit with difficulty, if one has deep pockets. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that at least one of the three authors of the fantastic Old Judge tome has or is close to having a complete N172 set (i.e., one card of each player).

Val, piggybacking onto your points I'd personally consider the M101s and related sets. Ruth rookie is as good a headliner as you could want. Also real photos. Also virtually impossible due to all the back variations but doable if you just want a card of every player. (Maybe excuse a set that's missing the Babe.) Plus, I would rather collect the 1900s/10s/20s era guys than the 1870s and 80s players. More what we consider baseball today and more players recognizable to the average fan. Nothing against N172s. They're incredible. However, the common cards are a lot more expensive so it's probably not as accessible to most collectors.

And we haven't even mentioned the greatest set of all - - D304.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

John, I assume that your "step child" comment does not include Cracker Jacks, which are E cards.

Val, I love CrackerJacks, even the caramel corn. The artwork is unrivaled for the time. My bad not to exclude them from my small hit on E cards.
But the problem today with them is they are hard to buy and when some hit the auction circuit, they fetch prices I am not used to. They have truly been discovered or re-appreciated. I remember when Lew Lipset or Barry Sloate held an auction there would inevitably a nice selection of Cracker Jacks. Not so today. I have a few nice '14s and '15s which I guard like a hawk.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by JimC

Val, piggybacking onto your points I'd personally consider the M101s and related sets. Ruth rookie is as good a headliner as you could want. Also real photos. Also virtually impossible due to all the back variations but doable if you just want a card of every player. (Maybe excuse a set that's missing the Babe.) Plus, I would rather collect the 1900s/10s/20s era guys than the 1870s and 80s players. More what we consider baseball today and more players recognizable to the average fan. Nothing against N172s. They're incredible. However, the common cards are a lot more expensive so it's probably not as accessible to most collectors.

And we haven't even mentioned the greatest set of all - - D304.

Jim, I'm with you in that M101-4/5 is one of my "Big 4 sets" (even though I'm not a set collector). IIRC, the only major star of that time period that is missing from this set is Matty.

The following are my personal choices for the"Big 4 sets":
- N172 - Surely, Goodwin & Co.'s success with the first very large baseball set would have influenced the ATC to issue its very large T206 set.
- M101-4/5 - Real photos of the players. All the major stars of the era are included, except Matty. Lots of different ad backs, some quite scarce, which enhances collector interest, just like the T206 set.
- E121-80/W575-1 and all the related issues with all the different ad backs. Same reasons for inclusion as for M101-4/5.
- 1957 Topps - First set (IIRC) to be issued in the now-standard 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" size. First Topps set to have real color photos of the players.

Jim, if I were to list my "Top 25 sets," I might be able to bring myself to include the D304 set.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I don't know. I'd consider E90-1 for the 4th spot. It has the Joe Jackson, two Wagners, Cobb, Young, the iconic Oakes which is usually on any discussion of the best-looking prewar card.

And I just feel like a nice caramel set should be represented. And I am excluding the Cracker Jacks as caramels, I'm only taking about the smaller sized caramels that are the size of T206s. It's completable and difficult to complete.

Just my thoughts guys.



.

[yanksfan09]

Cracker Jack both years

[uniship]

1914 Cracker Jack is my vote. Greatest set ever produced. Checks all the boxes.

[swabie2424]

Originally Posted by uniship

1914 Cracker Jack is my vote. Greatest set ever produced. Checks all the boxes.

Agreed. 1914 CJ gets my vote. Love them!

[Beercan collector]

Is it safe to say the Big 5 is fairly clear ?

[Beercan collector]

With the addition of the 19th century set And something that’s not Gum or tobacco makes for a tidy group 🙂

[orator1]

19th Century baseball is overlooked but should be represented.
1886-1890 N172 gets my vote.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

First of all, I completely understand the popularity for CJs. Their beauty and player power speak for themselves. If that's all you care about, then they are a clear front runner.

I side with whoever first proposed the idea that it would be nice to have a different era represented, however. CJs are too close in issue to T206s, so there's far too much player overlap.

Several of you take issue to including a set that can never be completed (yet each of the Big 3 share this problem for most people's budgets). So, where do we go from here? Have E120s been suggested? A decent-sized set which is shoehorned in between T206 and 1933 Goudey. A great HOF selection and it offers many wonderful obscurities if you like that sort of thing. Aestheically pleasing, and the design is certainly representative of its era. Here we have a bunch of Roaring 20's players who straddled the Deadball and later eras. As with the Goudeys, you can even collect their Canadian counterpart should you wish. If you're into even more parallels, you'll be kept busy! There's a lot to like with this set.

I heartily disagree with any post-1950's suggestions due to their "youth" and overabundance. Give it time; perhaps it will make sense later on. I definitely don't want to hear the word "refractor" in this discussion at all! But your picks are your own. Everybody has the right answer (for themselves).