"Best" Cards to collect

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

I was just doing some research online and read that the three top collections were the:

--T206
--Goudey 1933
--Topps 1952

I personally collect T206s and have started some Goudey...but I don't see the 1952 Topps, I have some 1955 Topps which I like better, asthetically that is..I guess "What makes a card special" is largely in the eye of the beholder.

Having said that, however, two questions to the group:

1. What is your favorite card issuance to collect and why?

2. Beyond personal preference, what makes a particular issuance more valuable than another?

Thanks,

Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I would imagine that those 3 sets are the "top" because of their significance to the hobby; in that context the '52 topps set is correctly in the top 3. Aesthetically, I agree with your affinity to the '55 Topps offering.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

'33 Goudey is my favorite just because that's the set I'm presently working on.

There may come a day when the '57 Topps will be more a more "significant" set than the '52 Topps. It may happen because people will realize that Topps actually started producing cards in '51. Also, in '57 Topps started producing what is now recognized as the standard size for a baseball card.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

doubt it Peter, but ok.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am with you....I don't see '57 Topps taking over '52 Topps for many reasons. .....The best cards to collect are the ones that will give you the most enjoyment. For me it's one of each........


edited spellin'

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Imo unless you collect them in very high grade, there is nothing special about any of these three sets because they are so common and commonly collected.

And as you asked, that is the chief reason for the differences in price among sets: scarcity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

I'm with Gil, those 3 sets are just so mainstream, widely collected and thus boring IMO. No offense to all the collectors of them out there, just my honest opinion.

If I was trying to focus on just a few sets, why chose the same ones that everyone else does?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Well, the reason those 3 sets are collected by so many is for one main reason: they're the most-liked sets. As for the 57 Topps overtaking 52...not in our lifetimes.

[Archive]

Posted By: 57pete

Jeff L. do not underestimate the importance of the Kubek and Richardson RCs. How many Yankee RCs are in the 52 Topps set? The Mantle isn't even his RC.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Not sure that Kubek and Richardson's RCs will ever reach a level of even a 4th year Mantle card. Regardless, forget the relative rookie cards and star players contained therein: the beauty of the 52 set is what sets it apart from the 57 set at the very least.

[Archive]

Posted By: nbrazil

"If I was trying to focus on just a few sets, why chose the same ones that everyone else does?"

1.) Because they are aesthetically beautiful
2.) Contain a wide breadth of players (HOF'ers, semi stars, etc)
3.) Affordable, relative to scarcer sets in those eras

I would love to collect scarcer sets (and I have tried in the past), but when 1.) I'm simply collecting them because they are scarce and/or 2.) I have to drop down a second mortgage to get a simple common...then, I would rather give up scarcity for aesthetic enjoyment and the knowledge that i have enough money to pay my bills.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

It may happen because people will realize that Topps actually started producing cards in '51.

Topps produced baseball cards in 1951?

Peter, honestly, do you really think that there are a lot of people who collect the 1952 Topps set or buy '52 Topps on a regular basis or are fans of the '52 Topps set -- all of whom have helped elevate that set to its level of popularity -- don't know that Topps produced baseball cards in 1951?

[Archive]

Posted By: Shanon Ping

My personal preference would be a 1914 Cracker Jack set, but as far as hobby significance then yes, the T206 $ 52' Topps is at the mainstream top. Other possibilites could be the 49' Leaf set or maybe some of the rarer regional issues such as Wilson Franks or early Caramels.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Ivey

If I was rolling in dough it would be Ramlys - all of them, with a pristine Big Train.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

While I don't think the Topps 57 will ever pass the 52, I do think it has landmark quality of its own -- for the reasons those have cited above, plus it's just so clean, crisp and neat, with nothing "painted." That said, the 52 is like a legend to me, it seems to bridge a gap between pre- and post-war years, as it has some players who played pre-war, early cards of future greats, and it's art style seems nostalgic, at least to me. Plus, the #311-407 series is all I've ever heard about since I was a kid. (And now we return you to our pre-war programming.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Danny Grimes

i like 51 bowman way better than 1952 topps in my own opinion. T206 and 1933 goudey sound about right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Just a personal preference - I'd throw in a plug for the '51 Bowman set. The artwork is stunning and it contains Mantle's and Mays' RCs. Also, the #1 card is Ford's RC.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

T206, 1914-15 Cracker Jack, 1933 Goudey, and 1952 Topps pretty much take the cake for me. I would collect them all if I could, but I can't, so I chose T206 (HOFers only, less Plank and Wagner) and 1933 Goudey (whole blasted thing). Regarding 1952 Topps in particular, it is very expensive because of the high numbers, and the centering problems drive me crazy. My second choice for post-war would be 1956 Topps, much more affordable and an outstanding effort by Topps in my opinion. I don't really care about rookie cards per se, although I admit the 1954 Topps Banks, Aaron, Kaline are pretty cool.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Rob,

I wasn't really thinking about people already collecting '52 Topps, I was referring to new collectors that might choose '57 Topps over '52 Topps.

For my own collection, I decided to focus on '33 Goudey instead of '52 Topps because I had never completed a prewar set. However, I certainly wouldn't mind adding a '52 Topps Mantle and a '52 Jackie Robinson to my collection.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

1.) Because they are aesthetically beautiful
2.) Contain a wide breadth of players (HOF'ers, semi stars, etc)
3.) Affordable, relative to scarcer sets in those eras

I would love to collect scarcer sets (and I have tried in the past), but when 1.) I'm simply collecting them because they are scarce and/or 2.) I have to drop down a second mortgage to get a simple common...then, I would rather give up scarcity for aesthetic enjoyment and the knowledge that i have enough money to pay my bills.

1. Tons of other issues that are just as, if not more, aesthetically beautiful as the Big Three.
2. as do so many other issues
3. many affordable, especially in lower grade

I'm not saying you have to sell your house and collect n167's, or have to go track down the Alpha Engravings, I just personally think collecting the Big Three is kinda unoriginal.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

If the sets are unoriginal, be original with them!
They can be simply made to be striking. Start off collecting all three with only yellow backgrounds. Organise them alphabetically according to height, as Ol' Casey required. Stand back look at them and post them for us all to enjoy. Then do the blue set. Etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: nbrazil

"1. Tons of other issues that are just as, if not more, aesthetically beautiful as the Big Three.
2. as do so many other issues
3. many affordable, especially in lower grade

I'm not saying you have to sell your house and collect n167's, or have to go track down the Alpha Engravings, I just personally think collecting the Big Three is kinda unoriginal."

Fair enough. I think a certain segment of collectors do collect these sets solely because it's highly popular and because PSA/SCD/Beckett etc say it should be collected. But, I think we shouldnt put all collectors of these sets in one basket. I collect T206s because it's a 500+ card issue, meaning it pretty much captures all players in that era, it has different poses for key players, it's aesthetically beautiful, its relatively cheap price (given supply and minus the big guys) and I like the back/error variety. I'm not going to stop collecting this set simply because everyone else is collecting it.

I think what you're trying to say is that collectors should collect sets not simply because other people are doing it..but because of more sincere reasons tied to inherent qualities in this set and in collecting as a hobby. If that is what you are saying, then i agree. If you are saying that we shouldnt collect these three specific sets just because everyone else is doing it...regardless of each collector's individual reasons for collecting them...then i whole heartedly disagree. It's like me saying you shouldnt buy an Ipod because everyone owns one. If you reply back to me and say "yeah, that's true but I bought one not because everyone else is doing it but because, after some considerable research, I found that an ipod has features that match what i want in a hand held music player"..then I would back off.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

With cards, your memories and the type of card you enjoy, will seldom let you down. Follow your instincts. I like the historical aspects of card-collecting, so I try to focus on key sets.

For me I prefer the '33 Goudey to both the T-206 and the '52 Topps. To me '33 Goudey symbolizes the birth of the Yankee dynasty and has numerous Hall of Famers.

Although I have both T-206s and '52 Topps, I doubt that I will ever come close to completing the sets. But the '33 Goudey I would like to complete it someday.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

<<But the '33 Goudey I would like to complete it someday.>>



Did you get the email I sent you yesterday?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jim,

I sure did, I'll probably respond by the end of today. Thanks.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

If '52T, '33G, or t206's are your true passion, then heck yes, collect away! The only point I was trying to make is that I personally find them to be somewhat boring/trite since they are so widely collected and available. No argument that they are good looking, affordable cards that offer a wide selection of players.

I'm all for joining the masses when it comes to new gadgets like ipods. But there's just sooooo many cool vintage card choices and alternatives out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: nbrazil

"The only point I was trying to make is that I personally find them to be somewhat boring/trite since they are so widely collected and available."

so, for you, are scarcity and the number of collectors of the set the main factors in what makes a set not boring? So, if you cut the supply and the population of collectors of t206's by half, would you consider t206's not as boring? so, collecting cards is a function of how difficult it is to find the card? and so, say, are d304's less boring than T3's because they are more scarce and less collected?

please dont take any of the above questions as loaded or as insults to your collecting habits. i know that having a "conversation" through a computer takes away important visual and sound cues that set a friendly tone. ive had one too many internet spats to realize that people can get quite easily offended when the tone of friendliness is not easily conveyed.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

All of those questions you asked of Jeff, I would basically answer "yes" to, except for getting rid of half the T206's . Also, I am glad you pointed out the friendliness of your questioning. It's very difficult to always be taken the correct way behind a keyboard. Even though I think T205's are one of the most beautiful sets ever made I think they are a little boring (for my taste). I know that even more collectors don't understand my collecting habits, which of course, focus on the more obscure issues and mainly only 1 of each...It's all good........regards

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jeff,

There is a positive side to having many collectors of the key sets. There are many collectors that share your interests and there's a greater sense of a collecting community. With that it's easier to trade and/or buy cards from the key sets.

Also, there's nothing that says that collecting is limited to the key sets. Personally, besides trying to collect Goudeys I'm also looking for what I consider key vintage cards from other sets.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

so, for you, are scarcity and the number of collectors of the set the main factors in what makes a set not boring??

-combination of both scarcity and visual appeal (which of course is personal taste). I don't like ugly scarce cards.

So, if you cut the supply and the population of collectors of t206's by half, would you consider t206's not as boring??

-yes

so, collecting cards is a function of how difficult it is to find the card? and so, say, are d304's less boring than T3's because they are more scarce and less collected?

-again, both scarcity and visual appeal are factors for me. I definitely like a challenge, but the prize still has to be pretty. In your example above, I would rate T3's less "boring" for me b/c I personally consider T3's the best looking cards ever made.

That's why I don't really care for T206's, there are better looking cards out there (or at least w/o argument just as pretty), more challenging cards, and cards that every casual collector in the world doesn't own and already know everything about.

If I had a t-shirt that I really liked but noticed that everywhere I went I saw 3 or 4 other people also wearing the same t-shirt, it would lose it's appeal to me too.

Not offended at all, makes for good discussion!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

that's the point Peter, I don't want easy. And, I already get a sense of collecting community from any and all the card collectors out there, such as yourself.

[Archive]

Posted By: John H.

"To me '33 Goudey symbolizes the birth of the Yankee dynasty..."

The Yankees won the World Series in 1923, 27, 28 and 32 and lost it in 21, 22 and 26. Babe Ruth was in his second last season with NY in 1933 and they didn't win or play in another WS until 1936. '33 Goudey is a landmark set for many reasons but the Yankee dynasty was beginning a bit of a lull and a changing of the guard that year.

I think that completing any one of the T206, '33 Goudey or '52 Topps sets would be a tremendous accomplishment for any collector. Personally, I like the '52 set the most of the three but I think '56 Topps is an absolutely gorgeous set. I also like '57-'60 and '63-'65 a lot.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Eric and John: I have both the 55 and 56 Topps sets. I'm curious why you both picked 56 over 55.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

I have a 1956 Topps set because 56 Topps were the first baseball cards I ever saw. The set is "collector grade." For a lot of people 1952 Topps filled this same role.

The "best" cards to collect are always the ones that you enjoy the most.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Jeff -- I guess I slightly prefer 1956 Topps over 1955 because it is a larger set (340 vs. 206 cards), and has Mickey Mantle in the set, plus I like the action scenes in the background.

Many years ago I had complete Topps sets from 1953 through 1956, plus a good portion of 1952. I always thought those were the nicest looking Topps issues, I guess mainly because of the artwork. But I don't collect them now, having been there and done that in my previous collecting lives. Since I got back in the hobby last year I have focused more on pre-war material -- mainly T206 and 1933 Goudey. I am definitely a sucker for the all-time classics.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

The ones that make you happy...