Best Looking set of all time

[obcbobd]

33 Goudey

[tbob]

E94 Close Candy set.

[Matthew H]

I like Old judge, 1914 Zeenuts, and T4s... There are so many beautiful PCL sets, I'm surprised not even one has been included.

[EGreenwood]

I gotta go with the T3 / T9 set. Love the 53 Color Bowmans too.

[murcerfan]

The Large Allen and Ginters from 1888 always have to be considered IMO

[timber63401]

They wont get any love but I think a high grade 1933 Delong is stunning.

[WWGjohn]

My favorites are the 53 Bowman color set and the George C. Millers.

John

[drumback]

1. T3
2. Cracker Jack - even though the write-ups on the backs are boring.
3. Obak (1910 version)
4. T202 - the write-ups on the backs are awesome!

[Clark7781]

I'm a T card guy, but honestly, I love the look of the 1956 Topps Cards...

[oldphil]

Always have and always will like the T205s.

[TUM301]

Originally Posted by e107collector

Sticking with my favorite set of all time - E-107's.

Also think the E 107 is the best looking of all time. There`s something about the black and white sets that really intrigue me, and seeing a high graded one is just a bonus. Second choice for me, 56 Topps. Great looking set !

[dabigyankeeman]

I voted T3, these things are totally awesome.

For Topps though, I would pick 1956 by far over any other Topps set.

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

E90-1

E90-1 has of course the unique Joe Jackson card that looks AMAZING WHEN THE RED LIPS ARE PLACE CORRECTLY!

[oldjudge]

I'm with Jerry. I think the cards in the N162 set are the most beautiful of all time. I have seen some high grade copies where the image almost appears three dimensional. This is 19th century lithography at its best.

[z28jd]

My favorite set is the T209 B&W cards, the outdoor poses only really. That is amazing for me to say when you consider I have zero of them and have always liked them. They are like Cal Lg OJ cards for the middle class

[auggiedoggy]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I'm with Jerry. I think the cards in the N162 set are the most beautiful of all time. I have seen some high grade copies where the image almost appears three dimensional. This is 19th century lithography at its best.

+1

[pcoz]

Originally Posted by tbob

E94 Close Candy set.

+1

[1880nonsports]

n162 goodwin champions
n184 kimball champions - I know I know - I'm the only one.............

honorable mention T3, CJ

[kcohen]

No contest - N162

[Wymers Auction]

I like the 33 Delong Set.

[glynparson]

i love every set mentioned and listed in the poll.

[E93]

Originally Posted by glynparson

i love every set mentioned and listed in the poll.

+1
JimB

[npa589]

T3s, with the T3 Cobb at the helm

[RCMcKenzie]

I voted for T206. I'm surprised it's losing on here.

[the 'stache]

I think we can all agree that while we have preferences, pretty much all the sets being listed are incredible. They have the charm that modern cards will never achieve (and this coming from a guy that's been a modern card collector for three years).

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I voted for T206. I'm surprised it's losing on here.

I'd forgotten to vote, so I threw my hat in for the T206. The T3 set is way out in front.

[SteveMitchell]

#1 t3
#2 t205
#3 t202

[Wynn0013]

It's hard to narrow it down. I like T202s for the mix of color and black & white, plus information on the backs. A special mention for N300s and N162s.

[TNP777]

T3 for me - I'd love to own one someday.

Did anyone ever take a stab at rendering the '53 Bowman Color Reese in a T3 format? I think that'd be so stinkin' cool.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by TNP777

T3 for me - I'd love to own one someday.

Did anyone ever take a stab at rendering the '53 Bowman Color Reese in a T3 format? I think that'd be so stinkin' cool.

I think the '53 Bowman Reese was already a stab at T3. General consensus is that it's a 1941 B&W spring training photograph that was colorized. There's a couple of threads here on the forum that talk about it. I'd try to search them out for you but I stink at that stuff.

[yanks4]

Should be obvious to all.....

[RedlegsFan]

33 goudey for prewar, 52 topps post war

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

[EvilKing00]

T3 by a wide margin....

Also im surprised that t206 got more votes than T205

Last poll between just those 2 had T205's as the better looking card.

[tedzan]

Why are the 1955 BOWMAN or 1959 TOPPS sets on this list ? Regarding post-WWII sets....why isn't the 1953 BOWMAN set listed in this Poll ?

Anyhow, when one judges a set by it's looks, it doesn't get any better than this............

1888 GOODWIN CHAMPIONS (N162) set............




TED Z
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

LOOKING for these T206 guys to complete my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set (75 cards)

AMES (hands over head)....CAMNITZ (hands over head)....CRAWFORD (bat)....DOYLE (portrait)
McGRAW (portrait-cap)....McQUILLAN (bat)....TINKER (bat off)....WILTSE (portrait-cap)

[auggiedoggy]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Why are the 1955 BOWMAN or 1959 TOPPS sets on this list ? Regarding post-WWII sets....why isn't the 1953 BOWMAN set listed in this Poll ?

Anyhow, when one judges a set by it's looks, it doesn't get any better than this............

1888 GOODWIN CHAMPIONS (N162) set............




TED Z
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

LOOKING for these T206 guys to complete my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set (75 cards)

AMES (hands over head)....CAMNITZ (hands over head)....CRAWFORD (bat)....DOYLE (portrait)
McGRAW (portrait-cap)....McQUILLAN (bat)....TINKER (bat off)....WILTSE (portrait-cap)

Hands down the finest looking 19th century set. Maybe the best overall.

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Why are the 1955 BOWMAN or 1959 TOPPS sets on this list ? Regarding post-WWII sets....why isn't the 1953 BOWMAN set listed in this Poll ?

Anyhow, when one judges a set by it's looks, it doesn't get any better than this............

1888 GOODWIN CHAMPIONS (N162) set............




TED Z
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

LOOKING for these T206 guys to complete my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set (75 cards)

AMES (hands over head)....CAMNITZ (hands over head)....CRAWFORD (bat)....DOYLE (portrait)
McGRAW (portrait-cap)....McQUILLAN (bat)....TINKER (bat off)....WILTSE (portrait-cap)

Nice cards Ted!!

[conor912]

Yeah, '59 Topps isn't even the nicest set of 1959 (I give the edge to Bazooka), let alone of all time.

I know it's not perfectly on topic, but here are my favorites, by decade:
10's: T3
20's: 1921 Exhibit
30's: 1933 Goudey
40's: 1941 Play Ball
50's: 1953 Bowman
60's: 1965 Topps
70's: 1975 Topps
80's: 1984 Fleer
After the 80's is where my eyes glaze over.

[ZenPop]

I'm a visual person... so, here you go...

[PolarBear]

I voted T3 based on your choices.

The following are also beautiful sets:

N28
N162
T218 - probably the most beautiful sports set of all time. Too bad no baseball players were included.
T205
1914 CJ's
1950 Bowman
1953 Bowman color
1955 Topps
1957 Topps football

[rdwyer]

T205's.

[campyfan39]

56 T by a mile IMO

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

1953 Bowman Color, hands down...you should edit the poll to add it

Best looking card ever

+1. The best example of how simplicity can be beautiful. No typography whatsoever to distract you...just gorgeous color photographs of players from baseball's golden age. Old-time uniforms, stadiums long gone. It doesn't get any better than this.

[btkpath]

.....definitely partial to CJ's.....specifically, the 1914's!

[ZenPop]

With a nod to the T3s...(which I agree are the most glorious looking set)... the proof is in the pudding: These sets are just awesome... something awesome about all of them (for instance... LOVE the Bowman 50-52... the 50s are like little paintings... the lack of any type on the front enhances the beauty even more... )

Row 1: The 1909-11 T206, 1911 T205, 1910-11 Turkey Red Cabinet Cards, 1912 T207, 1914 Cracker Jack,

Row 2: 1933 Goudey, 1934 Goudey, 1935 Diamond Stars, 1941 Playball,

Row 3: 1950 Bowman, 1951 Bowman, 1952 Bowman,

Row 4: 1952 Topps, 1953 Bowman, 1953 Topps, 1954 Topps, 1956 Topps.

[frankh8147]

Pre-war- R309-1 Goudey Premiums (I especially like the Ruth- it's just a parger than life image which I think perfectly portrays the babe.

Post war- another vote for 1956 Topps

[VoodooChild]

I'm going to go a little "outside the box" here. I know this is not a pre-war set, but I have a background in photography. There are cards that I collect strictly for the photo regardless of the player. For me, baseball card photography started to turn the corner with the 1973 Topps set. There a many cards in that set where the photographers got creative with the action shots:

[dabigyankeeman]

Originally Posted by VoodooChild

I'm going to go a little "outside the box" here. I know this is not a pre-war set, but I have a background in photography. There are cards that I collect strictly for the photo regardless of the player. For me, baseball card photography started to turn the corner with the 1973 Topps set. There a many cards in that set where the photographers got creative with the action shots:

Wow, i thought i was the only one who appreciated great action shots on cards no matter who the player is!! Great choice VoodooChild!!!! 1971 also had a lot of action shots, in fact 1971 is really the first set since 1956 that had a lot of action shots in it. For that reason, i consider 1971 a milestone set. My alltime fav is still 1956, what great action and backgrounds on so many of those.

[oldjudge]

Goodwin's Champs, N162, hands down. Poll is worthless without this set included.

[ZenPop]

Speaking as a designer, I'm going to go thumbs down on the '73 set action shots. The backgrounds are too cluttered... and the featured player often gets lost.

I do get (I think) your main point... that this (and the '71 & '72 set) tried to do something different... but it just doesn't work for me...

To each his own...

[VoodooChild]

Hey John, I hear you on the '73's, but I think there might have been some limitations with lenses and film speed back then. I don't think there were large aperture 800mm lenses and 3200 speed film back then to make focused stopped action and "blurred" backgrounds possible. I'm just giving props for the effort for actually thinking about camera angles, composition, capturing different game situations, and playing with depth-of-field (slightly out of focus foreground/in focus background). It's the fist time I saw that with baseball card photography was the point I was trying to make.