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

[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 55koufax

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......

Points 1,3, and 4 do not apply much outside of your "cherished" grade 8 and above.

2. I don't like the '67 Mantle at all either. Willing to overlook that for the rest of the set

5. Differing subjective opinions.

6. Mid-high grade '64 T Roses definitely command good prices, but "tons of $$$" is quite an exaggeration, and it doesn't nearly make up for the deficiency of anything near cadillac cards for the set . And I imagine that you are highly overstating the relevance of the leader and combo cards to most collectors. If you like them, fantastic. It doesn't make me wrong about how the value breaks down for the set (outside of your world of top 10 registry owners)

7. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse, snide, and overly offended. Obviously anyone would rather have a '64 than a '79, but it was clear from my explanations how some of my preferences were based on the bang for your buck.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

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......

Although I would not pick '64 as my favorite, I do agree that it is very underrated. 1966 is my pick from the decade, although if you say 1965 I'm not hating you. '61 is a personal fave because of my beloved Twins first season that year, but I recognize that the set is an acquired taste. OOPS-- EDITED because I forgot to add a "worst". I don't care for the '62's because of the somewhat muddy pics and the condition sensitivity of those wood backgrounds, but must admit they can look damn sharp when they're crisp and relatively untouched.

From the 50's, I would take '56, mostly because of player selection. I do not like the '54s, for reasons I've stated in other threads. Topps got real lucky landing Aaron, Banks and Kaline among the slim pickings it produced, and the huge number of coaches and managers is very off-putting. There's a recent thread about guys in Topps sets looking ancient to kids back in the day-- now with that in mind peruse a gallery of '54s and tell me you're not horrified. Also you Tribe fans-- like that Indians' player selection? Oh well, it was only your World Series year, no need to have your heroes to look at on cards then. You'll be back playing for the title in a mere what, 40+ years?

As for the 70's, I'm a bit partial to 1974, but there are others in the first half decade that I like too. Also like the '76s, although I agree the backs could be better. I have about three or four full sets of '79s collected by pack too, so obviously didn't mind the looks of them. 1970 and 1973 are blah but arguably innovative in one sense or two, but 1978 is a total throw away IMO, after a year that wasn't much better.

[Phil68]

I am assuming these in properly printed, centered, pack-fresh condition:

Best of the 50's...
1955

Worst of the 50's...
1959

Best of the 60's...
1967

Worst of the 60's...
1968--frankly, IMO, by far the ugliest set ever made.

Best of the 70's...
1977

Worst of the 70's...
1974...although their are an handful of worthy recipients

Overall Best for me...
1955

Overall Worst...
1968

Taking it a step further...
Best of the 80's...
1988

Worst of the 80's...
1989

[BillP]

1950's -
1) 54 Always been partial to the format, wished more stars were included
2) 58 just a personal preference for color background and player selection

1960's - tough choice
1) 67 - Clear photos, clean back with stats, high numbers challenging
2) 63 - I like the color format
3) 66 - 3rd choice but on any day could be #1
4) 62 - different, try to get past the headshots

1970's -
1) 75
2) 78

least favorite:
1950's -
1) 55
2) don't have another

1960's -
1) 61 - just can't collect this year, there's nothing that holds me in on this year
2) 60

1970's-
1) 73
2) 79
3) 72

[55koufax]

Obtuse, snide, and overly offended? HUH?

I am not offended in the least. I prefaced the entire commentary acknowledging you are quite entitled to your own subjective views on 1964 Topps.

I just corrected all the assumptions you erroneously made. It is evident you know very little about the set perhaps other than an expertise in 3's, 4's and 5's.

Does it make you feel good by bashing me and every other collector in 8+ that disagree? I and all the others that are serious collectors that respect and "cherish" the 1964 set will keep on doing what we do - and that is to collect the best possible cards in HIGH GRADE for this wonderful set.

I (we) only wish you were right about how inexpensive it is....

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

Obtuse, snide, and overly offended? HUH?

I am not offended in the least. I prefaced the entire commentary acknowledging you are quite entitled to your own subjective views on 1964 Topps.

I just corrected all the assumptions you erroneously made. It is evident you know very little about the set perhaps other than an expertise in 3's, 4's and 5's.

Does it make you feel good by bashing me and every other collector in 8+ that disagree? I and all the others that are serious collectors that respect and "cherish" the 1964 set will keep on doing what we do - and that is to collect the best possible cards in HIGH GRADE for this wonderful set.

I (we) only wish you were right about how inexpensive it is....

Your preface went out the door with your original point 7. If you can't sense your offense taken and snide tone there, then I don't know what to tell you. Now you've run with that even further with the "bashing" claims. I'm not peronsally bashing anyone. It's only about what I think of the set, just like others have already talked about how substandard they think my pride (the '55T is) and the other "worst" descriptions.

And for the record, the only assumption you "corrected" was that top grade '64s may not apply to my point. Everything else was more or less a difference of opinion or your own biases/exaggerations.

Anyway, I have no interest in a prolonged flame war, here or anywhere else. Good luck to you and your collecting

[55koufax]

Good luck to you..

[JollyElm]

I only really collect two 1950's sets, so my love/hate is very limited.

1957, although very murky looking, is my favorite. A huge number of star cards, the Bums are still in Brooklyn, and the tough semi-highs and rookies make it quite an (arguably fun) burden to complete. And ending it with Yogi and the Mick? Nice.

1959, with a knothole thing??? Come on, Topps. They basically blocked out half of the picture for no reason whatsoever.


The 1960's has all sorts of great things.

1969, with it's clean and beautiful look, shoulda/woulda/coulda been my favorite, but so many of the pictures are just reused shots from other years due to the labor climate, so it doesn't count. If you collect autographed cards, this set is perfect for you.

1961 has too many headshots, but the wicked tough high numbers save the day.

1962, with the green tints and other variations, makes it a fun and challenging set to collect, but the woodgrain itself? Yick.

1965 is my favorite. I love the pennant design, and in the years before action shots were introduced, it provides so many beautiful portraits. The lack of tough high numbers is the biggest problem with it.

1968 burlap is the worst. Not a fan.


The 1970's was a roller coaster ride with many cool sets.

1974 was an incredibly great looking set. I have no idea why people throw so much disdain at it. Yowza. Here's a celebratory thread from a hundred years ago...https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=172335

1972 is my favorite set of all time, and I could yammer on about it forever. Because the cards were way overproduced, they are pretty easy to find...but you need to secure 787 different ones. Ouch. And trying to complete a CENTERED set????!!!!!! That is a frustrating journey. Although they feature such a B-list of players, the 'In Action' cards are quite delicious, and then throw in the wide variety of other things (some weird) like awards, boyhood photos, playoffs and WS, it becomes a hugely extensive thing to assemble. The high numbers with the awesome 'Traded' subset is a great way to cap it off. One hundred thumbs up!!!

1971 is a thumbs down only due to the black borders. You just look at them and the corners start turning white with wear. The set itself in theory is beautiful, and I've come to adore it greatly, but that black just negates it all. I mean, just thinking about removing cards from your binder to send them off for grading makes you sweat like a bomb tech trying to cut the right wire and defuse the explosive.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I do not like the '54s, for reasons I've stated in other threads. Topps got real lucky landing Aaron, Banks and Kaline among the slim pickings it produced, and the huge number of coaches and managers is very off-putting. There's a recent thread about guys in Topps sets looking ancient to kids back in the day-- now with that in mind peruse a gallery of '54s and tell me you're not horrified. Also you Tribe fans-- like that Indians' player selection? Oh well, it was only your World Series year, no need to have your heroes to look at on cards then. You'll be back playing for the title in a mere what, 40+ years

I imagine there may have been some disappointment about the coaches as any kid might feel getting any number of cards they might not covet for any reason, from the card not being a favorite player, or one that they had too many of, etc. I haven't seen those threads that you mention. But I suppose kids really may not have wanted the coaches as they may not have wanted league presidents and/or umpires in other sets in later years, I guess. When I was collecting as a kid, it never bothered me to get a Leo Durocher or a Herman Franks, or an Alvin Dark when they were managing. But everyone going to have a different reaction to everything. Obviously, the '54 set wasn't as complete as other sets. If there were more cards to the set, having all those coaches might not have been, or be, seen as a detriment, but just a nice addition.

As far as not valuing having coaches in the 1954 the set now, I say we were lucky they included them. What great lore and history to have on a baseball card of that year the great Earle Combs (whose birth date on the back is 1899!), as well as other great players and baseball men such as Heinie Manush, Augie Galan, and Johnny Hopp.

As far as not having enough Indians in the set, you can't fault Topps for not having a crystal ball to not only a) not be able to predict who was going to win the A.L. pennant that year, but also b) not be able to predict the memorabilia industry, nor what would be deemed important or desirable by future collectors!

Apart from all this, one thing I feel the 1954 Topps set has that makes it special and different, is the very alive quality it has about it. There is a rawness and a boldness about the set. They are big cards, and the close-up photos of the players just jump off the cards.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I imagine there may have been some disappointment about the coaches as any kid might feel getting any number of cards they might not covet for any reason, from the card not being a favorite player, or one that they had too many of, etc. I haven't seen those threads that you mention. But I suppose kids really may not have wanted the coaches as they may not have wanted league presidents and/or umpires in other sets in later years, I guess. When I was collecting as a kid, it never bothered me to get a Leo Durocher or a Herman Franks, or an Alvin Dark when they were managing. But everyone going to have a different reaction to everything. Obviously, the '54 set wasn't as complete as other sets. If there were more cards to the set, having all those coaches might not have been, or be, seen as a detriment, but just a nice addition.

As far as not valuing having coaches in the 1954 the set now, I say we were lucky they included them. What great lore and history to have on a baseball card of that year the great Earle Combs (whose birth date on the back is 1899!), as well as other great players and baseball men such as Heinie Manush, Augie Galan, and Johnny Hopp.

As far as not having enough Indians in the set, you can't fault Topps for not having a crystal ball to not only a) not be able to predict who was going to win the A.L. pennant that year, but also b) not be able to predict the memorabilia industry, nor what would be deemed important or desirable by future collectors!

Apart from all this, one thing I feel the 1954 Topps set has that makes it special and different, is the very alive quality it has about it. There is a rawness and a boldness about the set. They are big cards, and the close-up photos of the players just jump off the cards.

I'll grant you the design from Topps 1954 set is beautiful. But when more than one out of ten cards in a set is a coach or a manager, I have to believe the youngsters were unhappy. Can you imagine 60-80 managers and coaches in the Topps sets from the 1960's and 1970's? Even then, you'd still have 500+ other cards to enjoy, rather than the 224 that Topps issued in 1954.

As for the Tribe, maybe no one could predict 111 wins and a pennant, but how do you not include any of their four future HOF pitchers--Feller, Wynn, Lemon and Newhouser? Kids are opening Topps packs during that baseball season in anticipation (no checklists) and the sole Cleveland pitcher they see is Dave Hoskins? Yes, that Dave Hoskins. Not Dave Hollins or Clem Haskins, but Dave Hoskins. No offense to Mr. Hoskins, but yuck. Great design or not, as a kid I want to see and read the cardbacks of the guys making the newspapers and radio every day, not a bunch of grandpas and sometimes players.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I'll grant you the design from Topps 1954 set is beautiful. But when more than one out of ten cards in a set is a coach or a manager, I have to believe the youngsters were unhappy. Can you imagine 60-80 managers and coaches in the Topps sets from the 1960's and 1970's? Even then, you'd still have 500+ other cards to enjoy, rather than the 224 that Topps issued in 1954.

As for the Tribe, maybe no one could predict 111 wins and a pennant, but how do you not include any of their four future HOF pitchers--Feller, Wynn, Lemon and Newhouser? Kids are opening Topps packs during that baseball season in anticipation (no checklists) and the sole Cleveland pitcher they see is Dave Hoskins? Yes, that Dave Hoskins. Not Dave Hollins or Clem Haskins, but Dave Hoskins. No offense to Mr. Hoskins, but yuck. Great design or not, as a kid I want to see and read the cardbacks of the guys making the newspapers and radio every day, not a bunch of grandpas and sometimes players.

This "what would kids have felt at the time" is such an interesting view. 1954 and 1955 Topps would have felt fairly empty to many of them. As mentioned earlier, no one would've cared about Aaron, Banks, Kaline, Koufax, and Clemente at the time. It would've been mostly about no Mick and plenty of other guys.

Then came 1956, which solved most of that while adding great background shots again, as well as the team cards and checklists. Gotta think that collecting would've been so much more enjoyable for the average kid that year than the prior two.

Just think if it turned out that something combined a 1956 type with the rookie cards of '54 and '55? Even better that it didn't work out that way, though. Would rather have a mix over the years than just one perfect superset

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

This "what would kids have felt at the time" is such an interesting view. 1954 and 1955 Topps would have felt fairly empty to many of them. As mentioned earlier, no one would've cared about Aaron, Banks, Kaline, Koufax, and Clemente at the time. It would've been mostly about no Mick and plenty of other guys.

Then came 1956, which solved most of that while adding great background shots again, as well as the team cards and checklists. Gotta think that collecting would've been so much more enjoyable for the average kid that year than the prior two.

Just think if it turned out that something combined a 1956 type with the rookie cards of '54 and '55? Even better that it didn't work out that way, though. Would rather have a mix over the years than just one perfect superset

I really don’t think that Mantle would have been that big until 1956. Berra won his 2nd & 3rd mvps in 1954 & 1955. Mays was MVP in 1954. Williams and Jackie were recent MVPs. Only Campy was exclusive with Bowman from the big name award winners. Bowman losing Teddy Ballgame to Topps would have been bigger than Mantle missing from Topps in my opinion.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I'll grant you the design from Topps 1954 set is beautiful. But when more than one out of ten cards in a set is a coach or a manager, I have to believe the youngsters were unhappy. Can you imagine 60-80 managers and coaches in the Topps sets from the 1960's and 1970's? Even then, you'd still have 500+ other cards to enjoy, rather than the 224 that Topps issued in 1954.

As for the Tribe, maybe no one could predict 111 wins and a pennant, but how do you not include any of their four future HOF pitchers--Feller, Wynn, Lemon and Newhouser? Kids are opening Topps packs during that baseball season in anticipation (no checklists) and the sole Cleveland pitcher they see is Dave Hoskins? Yes, that Dave Hoskins. Not Dave Hollins or Clem Haskins, but Dave Hoskins. No offense to Mr. Hoskins, but yuck. Great design or not, as a kid I want to see and read the cardbacks of the guys making the newspapers and radio every day, not a bunch of grandpas and sometimes players.

Yeah, good point about there not being a lot of the star players from the Indians that year, not to mention stars from other teams. Maybe the info is out there, but I wonder what went into who was signed and included on certain sets. I'm only beginning to look into these kind of things.

And yeah, I think I made the same point about the coaches perhaps being more "acceptable" to the kids of the day if there had been more cards in the set. And certainly if negative receptions did exist regarding the high number of coach cards, the dearth of some of the obvious stars I imagine would also have had to have been a part of that.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Yeah, good point about there not being a lot of the star players from the Indians that year, not to mention stars from other teams. Maybe the info is out there, but I wonder what went into who was signed and included on certain sets. I'm only beginning to look into these kind of things.

And yeah, I think I made the same point about the coaches perhaps being more "acceptable" to the kids of the day if there had been more cards in the set. And certainly if negative receptions did exist regarding the high number of coach cards, the dearth of some of the obvious stars I imagine would also have had to have been a part of that.

I said it earlier, but still hard to believe that Topps won the war. The cards looked great but the player selection was meh.