Favorite/best and least fav/worst '53 to '79 vintage complete sets?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by brewing

1955 It is lacking in players. B&W action shots don't help either.

The action shots are in color in 1955. It is 1954 that has them in black and white.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by rats60

the action shots are in color in 1955. It is 1954 that has them in black and white.

doh!!!!!

[campyfan39]

Great thread:

Favorites:
56 the beauty, the cards wars over so it has all the stars sans Musial
62 my late fathers favorite. Iconic Maris and love the Mays and Mantle too
75 love the color and the Brooks Robinson is one of my all time faves

Least favorite:
55 for the lack of stars and repeated images (although the rooks are awesome)
67 just looks plain to me
70 the gray makes them look dull although the Ryan is great

Happy collecting everyone and I love seeing everyones choices, that is what makes collecting fun as it is in the eye of the beholder

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Happy collecting everyone and I love seeing everyones choices, that is what makes collecting fun as it is in the eye of the beholder

Not just the difference in what's visually appealing, but the star preferences too.

The '55 T or '56 T contradiction is interesting. From a player standpoint, I'm focused more on what the '55 Topps has (rather than its drawbacks), because the top of the set is amazing. And since I cheated with Mantle, I just don't focus on the other missing guys like Feller, Ford, Wilhelm, Campanella (especially since it's not any of the earliest years for those guys, and they are all second tier HOFers of importance for mid '50s sets). And the reused photos for '56 stand out negatively to me a lot more than anything reused a little earlier, because of how the design is so similar to the '55. It often appears like you're getting a card almost identical to the prior year (but less valuable)

BUT I can totally see why plenty of people focus more the other side of it!

[ksfarmboy]

Favorites:
1956. Love the style, pics and player selection.
1968. The year I was born and the player selection.
1978. The first year I collected. I like the design, player selection, and the all-star shields.

Least favorites:
1959: I like them all but this is the one that I like a little less than the others.
1966: Don’t care for the design or pictures. Several stars in it for the liking though.
1973: Hate the design and most of the pictures.

[Bigdaddy]

Favorites:

1956 - just love the cards - portraits and an action shot, the artwork is stunning
1965 - pennants, what more can you say? And the photos are so bright and clear, along with a decent RC class
1977 - Not the most striking set, but a personal favorite, with the All-Star banners

Blahs:

1958 - solid backgrounds? really? The A.S. cards are the only saving grace
1969 - is there a card that is not airbrushed?
1974 - what's to like? A couple of good action shots framed with the 3rd grade art class winner for the Topps design contest in 1974.

[55koufax]

Worst: '64 Topps. Where do I begin. Basic design, and yep I know the '67 has that too. But that's where the similarities end. No rookie card punch, awful breakup value, basically no high # bonus value, and even a Mantle that isn't very prized. Yet you'll still pay $1500-$2500 for a grade 3-5 set. If I complete my '52 to '85 run, this is my bite the bullet one. It will be tough to pay more than pocket lint for it

So of course you can dislike '64 - that is your personal choice. That said, your facts are incorrect. As a holder of this set in high grade who has been collecting it and upgrading, buying, selling 8's and above for over ten years here is what I feel.

1) There is definitely high # bonus value - way way more than '65 and other sets.

2) The Mantle may not be "prized" but it is hands down a thousand times nicer of Mantle than the '67. His righty pose with a bat cocked hands down beats the facial close up of a hung over Mickey in the dugout.

3) Maybe if you are looking for 587 cards in grade 3 to 5 it isn't competitively collected, however, right now, the top ten on the registry could not be more competitive with these '64s. Come June, Mr. Nuber's unbelievable #1 and 9.6 set up for auction. Just wait and see what those prices bring.

4) Pricing on 8.5, 9 and 10's have been insane for the past 6 to 12 months on the '64s. Prior to that, very affordable and somewhat easy to pick them up. No longer the case.

5) What is wrong with a "basic" design? As you stated, the '67 you and the world cherishes is extremely similar. I believe "basic" in the design world can be a very good thing.

6) The first 11 leader cards in the '64 set have the greatest star power on them of just about any leader cards ever. The combo cards are as good as it gets with AL Bombers, Tops in NL, Giant Gunners, Sox Sockers, etc. The second year Rose card is incredibly sweet and it commands a ton of $$$, and quite frankly is a thousand times handsomer than the lame head job on the '63 RC. The star cards are all there and look really great. The Koufax WS card is one of the greatest Koufax cards of all time. What an image! I could go on and on and on.

7) I suggest you save your "lint" for the '79 set. That one is just "killer". Much rather have it than a '64......

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Favorites: 1965 - pennants, what more can you say? And the photos are so bright and clear, along with a decent RC class

I was very close to picking the '65 too for that decade, and for the exact reasons you mentioned. Star rookie card power barely won out with my '67 choice.

Loved the '81 Topps set as a little kid because of the hats. And those '65 pennants are about as good!