1972 Topps

[JollyElm]

I love that set and especially the 'in action' cards. You gotta remember that kids are into their own favorite team, so as a Mets fan I loved getting the Koosman, Foli, Kranepool, Frisella, Harrelson and the other 'in action' cards. It nearly doubled the size of my Mets pile, so that was a huge plus. It wasn't all about the stars, you know?

[brewing]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I love that set and especially the 'in action' cards. You gotta remember that kids are into their own favorite team, so as a Mets fan I loved getting the Koosman, Foli, Kranepool, Frisella, Harrelson and the other 'in action' cards. It nearly doubled the size of my Mets pile, so that was a huge plus. It wasn't all about the stars, you know?

As a Tiger fan, it stinks having Tom Haller and Billy Martin in action cards. I didn't collect in 72, but I did collect during the in action release of 82. No Tigers, but I still enjoyed getting a 2nd card of the stars.

[chris6net]

What was strange about the In Action Cards were that teams like the Mets,Yanks,A,s and Giants all had at least 10 cards while the Orioles with the Robinsons,Powell,Palmer,Mcnally etc. and the Cardinals with Brock,Gibson, Torre(MVP) had none. I could see the 72 Indians having none but the Padres had about half a dozen. This never made sense to me even as a kid in 1972.

[ALR-bishop]

Great and colorful set with many cool variations...or if Daren is listening...print defects

[67_Palmer]

The interesting thing is how tastes change. There was a time when I had zero interest in the 58' set. Didn't like it at all. Somewhere along the way my taste changed and I now love that set.

[Zach Wheat]

Personally I have always liked the set. I just thought they looked cool.

Z Wheat

[hangman62]

I agree it was quite 70s " hip mod" style when they came out..as a kid..I thought they were pretty cool.. that was around the time when some players like Joe Pepitone started wearing a toupee during the games

[David W]

Originally Posted by chris6net

What was strange about the In Action Cards were that teams like the Mets,Yanks,A,s and Giants all had at least 10 cards while the Orioles with the Robinsons,Powell,Palmer,Mcnally etc. and the Cardinals with Brock,Gibson, Torre(MVP) had none. I could see the 72 Indians having none but the Padres had about half a dozen. This never made sense to me even as a kid in 1972.

I agree on the in action cards. Very odd distribution. Dick Dietz, Bob Barton, George Mitterwald, in action, but not Bob Gibson or F Robby? And Hank Aaron in action is the worst of the lot.

[Cardboard Junkie]

One really needs to be experienced with powerful hallucinagenics in order to fully appreciate the 72's. Dave.

[GasHouseGang]

I always liked the 1972 design. It was nice to get back to white edges after the 1971's. But the "action" photo's were mostly lackluster at best. The Aaron action card was particularly bad. Instead of a follow through blasting a homerun, you get a card that looks like he can barely make it around the bases. They had to have better choices available than that!

[brob28]

I like the set but have to admit, it did get old shelling out the bucks for those high # commons. I wish I had a scan of it but the Bill Melton IA card looks to me like he's putting a terrible swing on the ball, nice choice Topps. The Clemente IA card is the best of the bunch.

Scans in the following post.

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by chris6net

What was strange about the In Action Cards were that teams like the Mets,Yanks,A,s and Giants all had at least 10 cards while the Orioles with the Robinsons,Powell,Palmer,Mcnally etc. and the Cardinals with Brock,Gibson, Torre(MVP) had none. I could see the 72 Indians having none but the Padres had about half a dozen. This never made sense to me even as a kid in 1972.

Interesting. I never noticed that.