Post War Set Collectors - Rank Em

[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?