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

[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.