Post War Set Collectors - Rank Em

[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.

[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.