Post War Set Collectors - Rank Em

[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.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

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.

Couldn't agree more. If a card has a wrinkle or crease, it has to go. I do the best I can on centering. Most of my collection is ungraded. However, many of my "star" cards are graded. Basically, I would much rather spend my money on more cards in the ex-exmt range rather than on grading fees. For a time, earlier in life, I got caught up in the grading craze. If a card wasn't PSA 8 or better, I didn't want it. By doing this I really limited the cards I could afford. Also, I stopped appreciating the cards and was only buying the holder. I had forgotten why I love this hobby so much. And that is what it still is for me----a hobby. This is by no means a knock on anyone who loves grading and graded cards. There is no wrong way to collect. Basically when I buy a graded star card now, I am attempting to avoid trimmed or otherwise altered cards. Even then, I am looking in the 5-6.5 range.

[Rickyy]

Great List John and great thread.

As for me...I only so far have completed Topps set from 1970-79 (loose no graded cards) and my main criteria/gripe was no diamond cuts/tilted card and as much as possible sharp corners and no dings...this made a real challenge because the 70's run is particularly bad for miscut cards..... taking that into account, I found the 71 (for the obvious black borders) and the 75's and 78's (really bad year for diamond cuts) to be a real challenge... also the 76's had its share of off the kilter and tilted (I must have upgraded the George Brett card at least 5 times over the years). The 73's were just tough too because it was always fuzzy in terms of picture quality...although I admit I sort of cheated on that one and bought the 3rd and 4th series from Larry Frisch collated from his vending cases when I was a kid

Ricky Y

[PM770]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

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.

This describes me exactly. Fuzzy corners are acceptable. Creases NO WAY. I'll tolerate 99/1 centering but not miscuts with the other card showing or diamond/tilted cuts. In fact in the past month, I purchased a '59 Topps Willie Mays All-Star for $29 that had 1/99 centering side-to-side, but otherwise great corners, nice vivid color, a perfect card in every other way. Only 16 to go on my 59 set!

I also agree that '71 is toughest of the 70s, but don't dismiss the difficulty of the '75s. Those colors are tough on the corners too.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

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.

John, loved the original list and read it with great interest.

72 was the first year I collected so when I sold most of my child hood cards about 20 years ago, I kept my 72's - and all my 80's stuff .

Funny- even though I'm pretty obsessive today, as a kid I don't remember "needing" to complete the sets. In 72 I did end up with most of the cards series 1 thru 5 and about half of series 6.

When I started collecting again about 4 years ago, I spent most of my effort on pre-war cards, but in my spare collecting time I finished up my childhood 72 set.

My preferred grade is right in line with the condition of those 72's that were played with, sorted countless times and ways, and generally enjoyed by a second grader. I don't mind creases or dull corners in fact I almost prefer them since it brings the price down considerably. I do however have a problem with off center cards - it starts to bug me at about 55-45.

In the last few years I've also completed a 73 topps set and a 52 bowman set. Both in "kid-grade" (translated to probably F/G/VG).

I suspect I'll have a go at another post-war set someday soon which is why I appreciate your lists. A lot of good insight there!

Leaning toward 56 topps since I have all the hofers and it is a small set.


Thanks again,

Tony

[7nohitter]

I'm wondering what others find difficult about the '57 set. I am about 3/4's of the way through putting it together (admittedly in VG-EX) condition....I love the look of 'used' cards so I don't mind creases and soft corners.

I have had no problem finding cards in any condition...In fact I started with the biggies (there are many in this set): Aaron, Banks, Mays, F. Robinson, Kaline, Williams, etc...

I know the mid series is 'tough' but nothing that I've found to be impossible.

It's been a fun set to put together!

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

I'm wondering what others find difficult about the '57 set. I am about 3/4's of the way through putting it together (admittedly in VG-EX) condition....I love the look of 'used' cards so I don't mind creases and soft corners.

I have had no problem finding cards in any condition...In fact I started with the biggies (there are many in this set): Aaron, Banks, Mays, F. Robinson, Kaline, Williams, etc...

I know the mid series is 'tough' but nothing that I've found to be impossible.

It's been a fun set to put together!

I ranked 57 so high because there are more HOF Rookies than any other set I believe. 6! Two of those are in the tough mid-series (Brooks/Bunning) and the sheer number of HOF stars is really high, especially when you compare it to the other sets. Throw out the 52s...and really think about it by year. 53s...low star power...54s...you got the big 3 rookies then a bunch of commons/coaches...55s...three big time HOF rc's but only 206 cards. 56s...lots of second year cards, all affordable, and still a low amount of cards. 58s & 59s lack the BIG rookies and the commons are cheap and available (even the 59 highs aren't that bad). So to me, when you compare with the other years, it just is quite tough in comparison. Just my opinion, and I only need 3 more to complete.

[Harliduck]

Here is the number of HOF Post War Topps Rookies by year -

1952 T - 3 (Wilhelm, Mathews, Williams)
1953 T - 0
1954 T - 4 (Aaron, Kaline, Banks, Lasorda)
1955 T - 3 (Killebrew, Koufax, Clemente)
1956 T - 2 (Alston, Aparicio)
1957 T - 6 (Drysdale, Bunning, F Robinson, B Robinson, Mazeroski, Herzog)
1958 T - 1 (Cepeda)
1959 T - 3 (Gibson, Anderson, Frick)
1960 T - 2 (Yastrzemski, McCovey)
1961 T - 3 (Santo, Marichal, Williams)
1962 T - 2 (Brock, Perry)
1963 T - 2 (Stargell, Oliva)
1964 T - 1 (Neikro)
1965 T - 4 (Carlton, Hunter, Morgan, Perez)
1966 T - 3 (Jenkins, Palmer, Sutton)
1967 T - 2 (Seaver, Carew)
1968 T - 2 (Ryan, Bench)
1969 T - 3 (Weaver, Jackson, Fingers)
1970 T - 0
1971 T - 1 (Blyleven)
1972 T - 1 (Fisk)
1973 T - 2 (Schmidt, Gossage)
1974 T - 1 (Winfield)
1975 T - 4 (Carter, Yount, Brett, Rice)
1976 T - 1 (Eckersley)
1977 T - 2 (Dawson, Sutter)
1978 T - 2 (Molitar, Murray)
1979 T - 1 (Smith)
1980 T - 1 (Henderson)





There are for sure other high cost rookies that aren't HOFers...most notably 63 Rose...but back to 57, there is the Richardson and Kubek rookies as well that are pricey. Other non HOF Rookies to consider - 58 Maris, 70 Munson, etc...

[campyfan39]

Very cool list of HOF RC's.
Thanks for posting.

I agree with all of the lists pretty much but I think 53 is tougher than 57 IMO. Some pretty big ones like Mantle and Mays second cards, Paige, etc. then the high numbers including Podres and Gilliam RC's.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Very cool list of HOF RC's.
Thanks for posting.

I agree with all of the lists pretty much but I think 53 is tougher than 57 IMO. Some pretty big ones like Mantle and Mays second cards, Paige, etc. then the high numbers including Podres and Gilliam RC's.

I may have undervalued the 53s. I have a small chunk of them, but nothing of note and have not actively pursued them with any type of focus. I ranked by lack of HOF RC's, low number of cards, and low number of stars. The Mays & Mantle are classics and spendy for sure...but I think what I didn't consider is just how expensive those high numbers are. After looking around, I think you have a point...