Post War Set Collectors - Rank Em

[Harliduck]

I was talking to a guy at our local shop over the weekend and he was just getting into vintage Topps set collecting. First thing he asked was what sets are the hardest by decade? Doing sets from all decades, it was a fun talk. I would love to hear others perspective on this for fun...what's your opinion? Here is mine -

Ranked by degree of difficulty
Factors - Cost, Scarcity, High Numbers, HOF Rookies, Series, Number of cards in set, ect...


1970s

1. 1971 Topps (Condition sensitive, High numbers, 752 Cards, HOF Stars)
2. 1972 Topps (High numbers, 787 Cards, Stars/Traded in High's, HOF Stars)
3. 1970 Topps (High numbers, 720 Cards, Nolan Ryan, Bench, HOF Stars)
4. 1973 Topps (Last set by Series, Schmidt RC, HOF Stars)
5. 1975 Topps (Regular or Mini's, Brett & Yount RC, other HOF RCs)
6. 1978 Topps (No series, Murray, Molitar, Morris RCs)
7. 1974 Topps (No series, Winfield RC, Aaron Specials)
8. 1976 Topps (No series, second year cards)
9. 1979 Topps (No series, Smith RC)
10. 1977 Topps (No series, low cost stars, poor RC's (Murphy)

1960s

1. 1961 Topps (SP High numbers, All Stars, HOF RCs & Stars, 6 Mantles)
2. 1963 Topps (SP High numbers, HOF RC's & Stars, Rose RC)
3. 1966 Topps (SP High numbers, HOF RC's & Stars)
4. 1967 Topps (SP High numbers, HOF RC's & Stars)
5. 1962 Topps (High numbers, HOF RC's & Stars)
6. 1960 Topps (High numbers, HOF RC's & Stars)
7. 1964 Topps (Semi Tough High numbers, HOF RC's & Stars)
8. 1965 Topps (HOF RC's & Stars)
9. 1968 Topps (HOF RC's & Stars, Ryan RC)
10. 1969 Topps (HOF RC's & Stars)

1950s

1. 1952 Topps (SP High numbers; Mantle, Mathews, ect..)
2. 1957 Topps (SP Mid Series, 6 HOF RCs, HOF Stars, 407 Cards)
3. 1954 Topps (Aaron, Banks, Kaline RCs, 2 Williams, HOF Stars)
4. 1959 Topps (SP High numbers, HOF RC's & Stars, 572 Cards)
5. 1955 Topps (High numbers, HOF Stars; HOF RCs, only 206 Cards)
6. 1953 Topps (SP High numbers, Low HOF Stars)
7. 1956 Topps (342 Cards, HOF Stars, Mantle)
8. 1958 Topps (494 Cards, HOF Stars)


Top 10 Toughest Topps Sets Postwar -

1. 1952 Topps
2. 1957 Topps
3. 1954 Topps
4. 1961 Topps
5. 1963 Topps
6. 1966 Topps
7. 1959 Topps
8. 1955 Topps
9. 1967 Topps
10. 1953 Topps




OK...just one set collectors experienced OPINION...pick me apart! Again, this is Ranked by toughest to complete...not aesthetics.

[JollyElm]

I think you did a yeoman's job with your list. My sets really run through the 60's and 70's and it seems you have them pretty much ranked wisely. Of course, anything after 1973 can be listed and relisted a whole bunch of different ways, but they all just kinda get grouped together in the 'easy' category.

Overall, a nice 1966 set is probably much harder to achieve than the 1963 set...but then there's that damn high number Rose rookie. Oof! The entire 60's decade in general (save 1965, 68 & 69) is a slave to the high numbers.

[Harliduck]

JE...that's funny...I have either got the 60s set, or have a decent start EXCEPT 1963. I know how tough the 66 set is...really no concept of 63 only to know that there is tough SP High numbers...and yes, I ranked it higher because of the damn Rose card...a card I don't yet have.


I agree on the 70s...bummer they quit putting out cards by series...and being born in 1970, and buying my first packs in 78, never got to experience the strategic buying by series as a kid. I did however build 78 and 79 and on up through packs...my childhood passion.


63 vs. 66....probably depends on the deal you can get on your Rose!!

[Harliduck]

And thanks on the comments for the post...I LOVE ranking things...

[Zach Wheat]

Good topic. I am mainly a set collector, but did not find it too difficult to complete a '57 or '54 set. Absolutely agree with the difficulty in completing a '52 set, even without all the myriad variations.

I had trouble completing a '55 Bowman due to the high numbers and all the umpires, which apparently for some odd reason, kids didn't save!

So I would probably re-rank accordingly.


Z Wheat

[Harliduck]

I didn't rank the Bowmans sets...for me and this go around, and the last time I put sets together, I didn't have much experience with them. When I was young I was given a 55 Bowman set in trade and each card was in Poor condition at best...and really had zero to do. I can only imagine how those umpire cards would fare...I too couldn't stand them when I had them.

I didn't take variations in consideration as well...I only do base sets. Would variations (outside the obvious 52 set which even without is the undisputed toughest) change any ranking?? Al??? Haha.

[JollyElm]

The 1969 set would vault up the list if variations were considered. Those white letter cards are a nightmare, and the fact that three of them are Mantle, McCovey and Perry means there's always going to be a long road ahead of you. The other 60's sets are relatively easy to tackle with regard to the variations. 1966 and 1967 are a little (with apologies to Bruce Springsteen) tougher than the rest.

But I'll give 1962 a special mention. The pose/logo variations are relatively easy to acquire, but assembling the entire green tint set (which I did) is tough due to the sheer volume of cards (85+). And there are so many people who can't tell the difference between regular cards and their GT brethren, which is a whole other issue. Since there are only a couple of HOF'ers included (Kaline and Santo immediately come to mind), pricing isn't too much of an issue, but some of the green tint Babe Ruth Specials (especially card #140 with Lou Gehrig) are tough to come by. The Babe Ruth/Hal Reniff number mishaps present even more problems. If variations were included, the '62 set would definitely climb a few spots higher.

[vintagecpa]

The 57 is tougher than the 54? The only sets I tackled in the past was 1958-60. I was going to blindly start building the 57. What do I have to look forward to?

[MattyC]

I would never have thought this had I not spent seven years doing it, so bear with me... But assembling a high-grade (MINT-GEM MT) 1975 Mini Set was one of the most challenging experiences of my collecting life. A wall is eventually hit. Those cards are plagued from the factory with massive OC and print issues. Entire color combos (red/yellow & green/yellow) are almost always found too short and riddled with print defects. And then the epidemic of tilt, which is so detectable to the eye, thanks to the design of the cards.

Some of those commons were pricey and rare just in 8-grade, with lower pop PSA 9 commons routinely hitting low four-digits. In terms of 70s sets, I'd put it right beside the black beauties.

Glad I emerged unscathed and lived to tell the tale

[ALR-bishop]

I have done them all, with any variations listed in SCD (and then some, but not card stock color differences other than the 52 reds and blacks) , but worked on them so long ago that I do not have a good feel for how hard it is currently to assemble them.

As Zach mentioned, a 1952 "Super" set with all catalog and some non catalog variants is really tough. The super set in the recent H&S auction went for $ 150,000 ( you need 2 Mantles among other things).

The 52 and 54 "Canadian" grey backs are almost impossible now

It was hard but fun to find all the green tints in 62'

The 58 yellows and 69 whites are also challenging

Collecting any Topps insert or test sets for each of those years can also add to the complexity...or adding a pack to the set. If you do packs I think 56 and 58 are the toughest

[stlcardsfan]

Great list John. I would probably rank 66 and 67 ahead of 63. But of course the Rose is a major factor. In fact, I would probably rank 61 and 67 as tied for 1st, followed closely by 66. Those 67 highs with Seaver, Carew, and B. Rob are killers. Just think if the 66's had that kind of star power in the last series, they would probably be first by a mile. Heck the 591 common can run you $100 in ExMt. I built back to 59 and have pretty much quit, even though I have decent starter sets going back to 53. I had "set builder fatigue" and now have 3 kids! It expensive, as we all know, but so much fun. Maybe go back and tackle it again someday. I look at various websites every day though, especially this one, so once it's in your blood it's hard to get out.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by stlcardsfan

Great list John. I would probably rank 66 and 67 ahead of 63. But of course the Rose is a major factor. In fact, I would probably rank 61 and 67 as tied for 1st, followed closely by 66. Those 67 highs with Seaver, Carew, and B. Rob are killers. Just think if the 66's had that kind of star power in the last series, they would probably be first by a mile. Heck the 591 common can run you $100 in ExMt. I built back to 59 and have pretty much quit, even though I have decent starter sets going back to 53. I had "set builder fatigue" and now have 3 kids! It expensive, as we all know, but so much fun. Maybe go back and tackle it again someday. I look at various websites every day though, especially this one, so once it's in your blood it's hard to get out.

Ha! You are addicted....

Z Wheat

[Zach Wheat]

If we are talking about condition, I can't think of another 70's set that would be as difficult as the black border '71's. I have a set and am content with sort of black edges with some gray showing underneath.

I might change my mind one day.....but for that very reason, I rarely look at the set.

Z Wheat

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

If we are talking about condition, I can't think of another 70's set that would be as difficult as the black border '71's. I have a set and am content with sort of black edges with some gray showing underneath.

I might change my mind one day.....but for that very reason, I rarely look at the set.

Z Wheat

That's how I would describe my set as well, probably why I am still needing over a 100 cards...just frustrating.


I think if you are building graded registered sets my list would definitely change, although I have zero experience scouring for 8s and 9s. I ranked them assuming I am like most...VG-EX to EX...mid grade set builders.

That might be a whole other thread...what are most set collectors range of condition? I HATE any type of creases...don't mind soft corners...the only miscuts I hate are when another card is showing, although I look for centering when I can. My sets are primarily EX and the slightest crease the card must go. There is a part of me that would like to grade and register a set, like my 66's would be high, but I would rather invest that kind of money into more cards...that's just me.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

That's how I would describe my set as well, probably why I am still needing over a 100 cards...just frustrating.


I think if you are building graded registered sets my list would definitely change, although I have zero experience scouring for 8s and 9s. I ranked them assuming I am like most...VG-EX to EX...mid grade set builders.

That might be a whole other thread...what are most set collectors range of condition? I HATE any type of creases...don't mind soft corners...the only miscuts I hate are when another card is showing, although I look for centering when I can. My sets are primarily EX and the slightest crease the card must go. There is a part of me that would like to grade and register a set, like my 66's would be high, but I would rather invest that kind of money into more cards...that's just me.

Couldn't agree more. If a card has a wrinkle or crease, it has to go. I do the best I can on centering. Most of my collection is ungraded. However, many of my "star" cards are graded. Basically, I would much rather spend my money on more cards in the ex-exmt range rather than on grading fees. For a time, earlier in life, I got caught up in the grading craze. If a card wasn't PSA 8 or better, I didn't want it. By doing this I really limited the cards I could afford. Also, I stopped appreciating the cards and was only buying the holder. I had forgotten why I love this hobby so much. And that is what it still is for me----a hobby. This is by no means a knock on anyone who loves grading and graded cards. There is no wrong way to collect. Basically when I buy a graded star card now, I am attempting to avoid trimmed or otherwise altered cards. Even then, I am looking in the 5-6.5 range.

[Rickyy]

Great List John and great thread.

As for me...I only so far have completed Topps set from 1970-79 (loose no graded cards) and my main criteria/gripe was no diamond cuts/tilted card and as much as possible sharp corners and no dings...this made a real challenge because the 70's run is particularly bad for miscut cards..... taking that into account, I found the 71 (for the obvious black borders) and the 75's and 78's (really bad year for diamond cuts) to be a real challenge... also the 76's had its share of off the kilter and tilted (I must have upgraded the George Brett card at least 5 times over the years). The 73's were just tough too because it was always fuzzy in terms of picture quality...although I admit I sort of cheated on that one and bought the 3rd and 4th series from Larry Frisch collated from his vending cases when I was a kid

Ricky Y

[PM770]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

That might be a whole other thread...what are most set collectors range of condition? I HATE any type of creases...don't mind soft corners...the only miscuts I hate are when another card is showing, although I look for centering when I can. My sets are primarily EX and the slightest crease the card must go. There is a part of me that would like to grade and register a set, like my 66's would be high, but I would rather invest that kind of money into more cards...that's just me.

This describes me exactly. Fuzzy corners are acceptable. Creases NO WAY. I'll tolerate 99/1 centering but not miscuts with the other card showing or diamond/tilted cuts. In fact in the past month, I purchased a '59 Topps Willie Mays All-Star for $29 that had 1/99 centering side-to-side, but otherwise great corners, nice vivid color, a perfect card in every other way. Only 16 to go on my 59 set!

I also agree that '71 is toughest of the 70s, but don't dismiss the difficulty of the '75s. Those colors are tough on the corners too.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

That might be a whole other thread...what are most set collectors range of condition? I HATE any type of creases...don't mind soft corners...the only miscuts I hate are when another card is showing, although I look for centering when I can. My sets are primarily EX and the slightest crease the card must go. There is a part of me that would like to grade and register a set, like my 66's would be high, but I would rather invest that kind of money into more cards...that's just me.

John, loved the original list and read it with great interest.

72 was the first year I collected so when I sold most of my child hood cards about 20 years ago, I kept my 72's - and all my 80's stuff .

Funny- even though I'm pretty obsessive today, as a kid I don't remember "needing" to complete the sets. In 72 I did end up with most of the cards series 1 thru 5 and about half of series 6.

When I started collecting again about 4 years ago, I spent most of my effort on pre-war cards, but in my spare collecting time I finished up my childhood 72 set.

My preferred grade is right in line with the condition of those 72's that were played with, sorted countless times and ways, and generally enjoyed by a second grader. I don't mind creases or dull corners in fact I almost prefer them since it brings the price down considerably. I do however have a problem with off center cards - it starts to bug me at about 55-45.

In the last few years I've also completed a 73 topps set and a 52 bowman set. Both in "kid-grade" (translated to probably F/G/VG).

I suspect I'll have a go at another post-war set someday soon which is why I appreciate your lists. A lot of good insight there!

Leaning toward 56 topps since I have all the hofers and it is a small set.


Thanks again,

Tony

[7nohitter]

I'm wondering what others find difficult about the '57 set. I am about 3/4's of the way through putting it together (admittedly in VG-EX) condition....I love the look of 'used' cards so I don't mind creases and soft corners.

I have had no problem finding cards in any condition...In fact I started with the biggies (there are many in this set): Aaron, Banks, Mays, F. Robinson, Kaline, Williams, etc...

I know the mid series is 'tough' but nothing that I've found to be impossible.

It's been a fun set to put together!

[Harliduck]

[QUOTE=stlcardsfan;1170348]Great list John. I would probably rank 66 and 67 ahead of 63. But of course the Rose is a major factor. In fact, I would probably rank 61 and 67 as tied for 1st, followed closely by 66. Those 67 highs with Seaver, Carew, and B. Rob are killers. Just think if the 66's had that kind of star power in the last series, they would probably be first by a mile. QUOTE]

Those are good points...and your right, Gaylord Perry, Billy Williams, Robin Roberts and Willie McCovey are great players, but rather mild HOFers. Imagine of the Palmer Rookie, or Mays/Aaron/Mantle or even the Fergie Rookie were in the high numbers.


In 63 that Rose is just iconic.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

I'm wondering what others find difficult about the '57 set. I am about 3/4's of the way through putting it together (admittedly in VG-EX) condition....I love the look of 'used' cards so I don't mind creases and soft corners.

I have had no problem finding cards in any condition...In fact I started with the biggies (there are many in this set): Aaron, Banks, Mays, F. Robinson, Kaline, Williams, etc...

I know the mid series is 'tough' but nothing that I've found to be impossible.

It's been a fun set to put together!

I ranked 57 so high because there are more HOF Rookies than any other set I believe. 6! Two of those are in the tough mid-series (Brooks/Bunning) and the sheer number of HOF stars is really high, especially when you compare it to the other sets. Throw out the 52s...and really think about it by year. 53s...low star power...54s...you got the big 3 rookies then a bunch of commons/coaches...55s...three big time HOF rc's but only 206 cards. 56s...lots of second year cards, all affordable, and still a low amount of cards. 58s & 59s lack the BIG rookies and the commons are cheap and available (even the 59 highs aren't that bad). So to me, when you compare with the other years, it just is quite tough in comparison. Just my opinion, and I only need 3 more to complete.

[Harliduck]

Here is the number of HOF Post War Topps Rookies by year -

1952 T - 3 (Wilhelm, Mathews, Williams)
1953 T - 0
1954 T - 4 (Aaron, Kaline, Banks, Lasorda)
1955 T - 3 (Killebrew, Koufax, Clemente)
1956 T - 2 (Alston, Aparicio)
1957 T - 6 (Drysdale, Bunning, F Robinson, B Robinson, Mazeroski, Herzog)
1958 T - 1 (Cepeda)
1959 T - 3 (Gibson, Anderson, Frick)
1960 T - 2 (Yastrzemski, McCovey)
1961 T - 3 (Santo, Marichal, Williams)
1962 T - 2 (Brock, Perry)
1963 T - 2 (Stargell, Oliva)
1964 T - 1 (Neikro)
1965 T - 4 (Carlton, Hunter, Morgan, Perez)
1966 T - 3 (Jenkins, Palmer, Sutton)
1967 T - 2 (Seaver, Carew)
1968 T - 2 (Ryan, Bench)
1969 T - 3 (Weaver, Jackson, Fingers)
1970 T - 0
1971 T - 1 (Blyleven)
1972 T - 1 (Fisk)
1973 T - 2 (Schmidt, Gossage)
1974 T - 1 (Winfield)
1975 T - 4 (Carter, Yount, Brett, Rice)
1976 T - 1 (Eckersley)
1977 T - 2 (Dawson, Sutter)
1978 T - 2 (Molitar, Murray)
1979 T - 1 (Smith)
1980 T - 1 (Henderson)





There are for sure other high cost rookies that aren't HOFers...most notably 63 Rose...but back to 57, there is the Richardson and Kubek rookies as well that are pricey. Other non HOF Rookies to consider - 58 Maris, 70 Munson, etc...

[campyfan39]

Very cool list of HOF RC's.
Thanks for posting.

I agree with all of the lists pretty much but I think 53 is tougher than 57 IMO. Some pretty big ones like Mantle and Mays second cards, Paige, etc. then the high numbers including Podres and Gilliam RC's.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Very cool list of HOF RC's.
Thanks for posting.

I agree with all of the lists pretty much but I think 53 is tougher than 57 IMO. Some pretty big ones like Mantle and Mays second cards, Paige, etc. then the high numbers including Podres and Gilliam RC's.

I may have undervalued the 53s. I have a small chunk of them, but nothing of note and have not actively pursued them with any type of focus. I ranked by lack of HOF RC's, low number of cards, and low number of stars. The Mays & Mantle are classics and spendy for sure...but I think what I didn't consider is just how expensive those high numbers are. After looking around, I think you have a point...