Vote! Worst Topps produced set of the 50's

[Econteachert205]

1958! The color backgrounds often have a dirty look even when in good shape.

[pclpads]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

1958! The color backgrounds often have a dirty look even when in good shape.

+1 Lousy card stock. Makes me think these were the forerunners to the Vennies. Far too many head shots. Unimaginative pics, but one is a classic: Red Wilson's boob shot.

[sbfinley]

Lots of hate towards 58. It's actually my favorite. There isn't a real clunker in the 50's in my opinion, but I voted 57 as it seems quite bland to me.

Originally Posted by pclpads

+1 Lousy card stock. Makes me think these were the forerunners to the Vennies. Far too many head shots. Unimaginative pics, but one is a classic: Red Wilson's boob shot.

Just for you.

[

[Rich Klein]

I was torn between 1958 and 1959 in my choice and chose 1959 because of the very small photos. Good to see that 1958 has more votes than 1952-57 combined

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Lots of hate towards 58. It's actually my favorite. There isn't a real clunker in the 50's in my opinion, but I voted 57 as it seems quite bland to me.



Just for you.

[

How can you know love a set that includes cards such as this?

58 MICK.jpg

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

How can you know love a set that includes cards such as this?

My late father's birth year, mainly. But I also love the color, the All-Star subset, the World Series Batting Foes, and some of the portraits are amazing (Aaron, Mathews, etc.). Yeah the Mantle is crud, but he what ?? three decent looking Topps issues? Anyways, it could be 490 closeup shots of Wally Moon's eye brows and it would still be special...

[campyfan39]

57 is bland in comparison IMO and many of the cards have writing that's hard to read. Stunned at the opinions of 59 they are perfect in the eyes of this beholder

[egri]

It came down to 1958 or 1959 for me, and in the end 1959 "won" out. The 58 backgrounds are kind of dull, but at least there's some variety in the pictures. With the 59s it's "have a head shot...and another head shot...and another..." And I'm not big on facsimile signatures; it doesn't look good once the card gets signed.

I've also never really warmed up to the 1952 set. Like one of the above posters mentioned, I understand the significance of that set to the hobby, but IMHO I just don't think the artwork was generally that great. There are a few where I have difficulty telling the players apart, and I'm not crazy about how some were horizontal and others vertical.

[brewing]

I voted for the 1958 set, although it is the 2nd 50's set I completed.

I will say that I used to love the 1957 set and I now view it as the 2nd worst of the 50's. Photos are bad, design is simple but I have noticed that I can't read the words on the front on a bunch of cards. They could have done better.

[clydepepper]

IMHO of course...

I liked ALL of them! Every set has its bad cards, but, overall, they were really appealing - to me anyway. For every bad card, there were several really good ones.

With all the technical improvements, this years Topps base set design is inferior to any of those prior to 1986 (which was a bad product).
.
.