![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
52 Topps definitely.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've always hated the oversized sets. I'm very CDO, and I don't like the way they look in toploaders. But today I picked up a couple of 56s, and I bought 2 54s earlier this week. So they're starting to grow on me.
I like the sets because they're not as big as something from the late 1950s, early 1960s. I think it'll be a bit easier to build these larger sets. Now if there were only a way to store them in pages. They don't fit in the 9 pockets, and you can't use regular toploaders because you can't use a penny sleeve. So not sure how to store them.
__________________
Anyone on Twitter? Here's my new handle @et_cardcollectr Also just created a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...t_cardcollectr |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I had to think through this for awhile but ultimately, I still like what I originally liked. Nothing really grew on me. I can see why you hated the 60 set though.
![]() |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
For me, '72 Topps. When I first started collecting they were only 14 years old, and I remember thinking they were overdone and gaudy. Of course this was before any sense of nostalgia for the 70's had developed. I remember having the Clemente base card as a kid and thinking that was cool, but moreso for the picture than the design.
Fast forward 30+ years and I think they are incredible. Rarely has a set captured an era so well (honorable mention to '59 Topps...) and the color and variety of these cards now strikes me as beautiful over gaudy. The Yaz, McCovey, Ryan, Carew, and Carlton Traded cards are my favs. I am going after the whole set, but have just started - have maybe close to 75 cards out of the monster 787.
__________________
T206 Cubs. Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 07-07-2019 at 08:50 AM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My buying cards years as a child were 64-68.My favorite set was 1965 and least liked was easily 1964.However I have grown to like those 64's a lot.
I have completed in near mint raw the 1965 & 1966 sets. Working on the high number 1967's(tough). I will finish 1964 after the 67's. I love the look of the 1963 & 1960 sets. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
72 Topps, while I agree it captures the 70's era feel, always reminds me of a theater marquee.
![]() |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Very interesting. Topps’ main office was still in Brooklyn then I think - I wonder if any theater or theateres nearby inspired that? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
T206 Cubs. Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
In the 70s I had maybe about 200 each of the 64 and 65 sets. The 64 set was ho-hum while the 65 set seemed more dynamic with its pennant. After collecting the Heritage version of each my opinion has changed, I enjoy the simplicity of the 64 design. I find that the image stands out more boldly than that of the 65 design. I'm not knocking the 65 design, it's nice, but I've grown to like the 64 version more. One set that I did like as a kid was the 72 Topps, I bought the cards from the packs, but I was never able to complete it. It still has its appeal, but I no longer would need to have that design as part of my collection. Likewise the glossy version of cards that became popular in the 80s, Topps Tiffany sets come to mind now appear gaudy to me. I got rid of them in the early 90s, so the rise in price doesn't affect me, but I wouldn't purchase them again at their original price point. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Ultra Pro makes makes vintage toploaders/sleeves for 52-56 Topps if you want to go that route. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Happy Collecting Ed |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the heads up. I will have to check them out. Do they go horizontal (I'm assuming so) vs. vertical? I really like the vertical pages. I asked my LCS about these pages on Saturday, and they didn't know what I was talking about.
I will check these out too. Will they still fit into a 2-row shoebox? That is how I have my vintage stored at this point, and it's separated by year. As long as they still fit into that 2-row, I might give them a try.
__________________
Anyone on Twitter? Here's my new handle @et_cardcollectr Also just created a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...t_cardcollectr |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree with the 52 Topps. i hated them when they first came out so ignored them. Started on the 53's and 54's then life got in the way and when I returned my mother had tossed all my cards out. Restarted again in 76 but still didn't like the 52's and passed on all except my Cubs. Monday morning quarterbacking is great but if I had only got all those 52's when I had the chance and all the others I passed on because I was a "Cub" collector.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
For me, I’ve had it go both ways. I used to not like the 1965 or 1966, but they have grown on me over time. Still not my favorites, but I like them a lot more now. OTOH, the 1961s and 1967s I’ve really cooled on over the years. In the former, I don’t like the photography as much as I used to, and the latter just looks like a low-effort ripoff of the 1957 design. And the facsimile signatures look bad on autographed cards.
__________________
Signed 1953 Topps set: 264/274 (96.35 %) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My preferences have always been away from horizontal cards. So those years remain in the background. For this question it's 1964 all the way for me. I really ignored this year as I was partial to 62 63 66 67. But lately I really come around to it. I like cards with a not of colors in the scheme. Although the format is somewhat plain, I like the shots in this set more than some others. For me in collecting this set was the price of the clemente card. Why so high? Seems like this particular year is more popular than most. Although not a rose fan, I do like this year of him 2nd to the 65. The mantle is decent but tougher to find focused. 2nd would be 58, and I know theres a lot of talk about blandness headshots of this set, but I came back around to it lately as well. At least most cards are headshots and there consistant. Saying all this though. My top 5 continue to be: 67 66 63 54 62 In that order.
cheers, billp |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1974 Laughlin Old-Time Black Stars - A Set Ahead of its Time | paleocards | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 74 | 06-16-2024 09:14 PM |
Long Time Lurker. First time poster. Crazy to gamble on this Gehrig? | wheels56 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 05-17-2015 04:25 AM |
It's the most wonderful time of the year. Cobb/Edwards auction time! | iggyman | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 68 | 09-17-2013 12:42 AM |
Anyone looking to turn their hobby into a job? Part time or full time | kengoldin | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 5 | 11-04-2012 07:43 PM |
*** Time to fire up the Network 54 Cabal again....d311s this time *** | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 5 | 12-01-2008 12:55 PM |