The top baseball card set of all time is.... 1965 Topps?!

[carlsonjok]

I like 1965 Topps just fine. It isn't my favorite set, but it is probably in the top third for post-war, pre-junk wax sets. There is something curious about that set, though.

Virtually all of my set needs are filled through local shows and from Greg Morris' EBay auctions. When bidding on EBay, I have firm rules about what I will pay for cards. I apply those rules regardless of the set or whether the card is a common, minor star, or major star. I rarely have a significant number of winnings, but I usually get anywhere from 2 to 8 cards from a specific set break

However, I rarely ever win anything when he is breaking a 1965 set and I am not just missing out by a bit. The cards will often sell far in excess of my comfort level to pay and, if memory serves, even commons will sell for prices above Beckett high book. I've made much better, and steadier, progress on both 1960 and 1968 over the same time frame.

I realize that the plural of anecdote isn't necessarily data, but this isn't a recent phenomenon. This has been my consistent experience since I started the set. It is just weird.

[JCM2009]

Another vote for 1967 Topps

Colavito Topps 67.jpg

[iwantitiwinit]

67 Topps is far and away the best set of the 60s. 53 Topps best of all time.

[Rhotchkiss]

My top 5 in order (does not include cabinets or PCs):

T206
1952 Topps
1933 Goudey
1914 Cracker Jack
1955 Topps

Honorable mention, next 5
1951 Bowman
1948 Leaf
1953 Topps
1957 Topps
E107

Can you tell I don’t prefer “modern”?!

[Yoda]

How about Old Judges? The set that never ends.

[Gorditadogg]

Yes to 65 Topps!

[John1941]

As I'm a member of the Trading Card Database, and have voted on many of these sets, I think I'll chip in with my ratings.

1. 9.5 - 1933 Goudey
2. 9.0 T206
T205
1952 Bowman
1953 Topps
1965 Topps
1967 Topps
8. 8.5 1909-11 Obak
1948 Signal Gasoline Oakland Oaks
1951 Bowman
1952 Topps
1953 Bowman Color
1954 Topps
1956 Topps
1963 Topps


I rated 1971 Topps 8.0 -it would be higher, but the backs are pitiful. I have 1957 Topps at 7.5, and 1993 Upper Deck at 8.0 In my opinion, 1993 UD is the only non-vintage set that deserves consideration for the greatest set of all time.

(card not mine)

[abothebear]

It is difficult (and perhaps even silly) to compare the appearance of sets beyond beyond printing and photography technology barriers. The 1960 Topps cards are a great set because they stand between the type of thing Topps was doing in their first 10 years and the type of thing they did in years after, with a foot in both and a splash of 1960 pizazz. But comparing sets before to those after isn’t a even comparison (50s cards relied on a lot of artistic doctoring for the most part, and when they didn’t, the photos are dull). This graphic and artistic element puts them in a different category in than the post-1960 effort to simply frame a passable photograph. The next demarcation is less clear to me. I think a good argument can be made for 1974. A good argument could be made for 1983. Then I’d say 1993 was another transition year. I’m curious about how others may think of these things.

1960
1964
1967
1965
1971
1968
1972
1963
1966
1973
1970
1961
1962
1969

1980
1976
1975
1974
1979
1981
1978
1977
1982

1985
1991
1987
1983
1984
1992
1993
1989
1988
1990
1986

Adding other brands into the same list (for postwar) is too weird for me to sort out.

[judsonhamlin]

Again, not dispositive about the availability of the set, but right now, Batters Box has 2140 1965’s for sale. Except for 1969 (1576), that is the fewest from the ‘60s. 1961 (8097) and 1966 (6266) lead the way. Scottsdale has 1603, less than all years except 1967 and 1968, and well behind their 4700 1962’s and 4600 1960’s. Do we think the print run was noticeably smaller than the early 60’s sets?

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I like 1965 Topps just fine. It isn't my favorite set, but it is probably in the top third for post-war, pre-junk wax sets. There is something curious about that set, though.

Virtually all of my set needs are filled through local shows and from Greg Morris' EBay auctions. When bidding on EBay, I have firm rules about what I will pay for cards. I apply those rules regardless of the set or whether the card is a common, minor star, or major star. I rarely have a significant number of winnings, but I usually get anywhere from 2 to 8 cards from a specific set break

However, I rarely ever win anything when he is breaking a 1965 set and I am not just missing out by a bit. The cards will often sell far in excess of my comfort level to pay and, if memory serves, even commons will sell for prices above Beckett high book. I've made much better, and steadier, progress on both 1960 and 1968 over the same time frame.

I realize that the plural of anecdote isn't necessarily data, but this isn't a recent phenomenon. This has been my consistent experience since I started the set. It is just weird.

[seanofjapan]

This sort of gives me the same feeling I had when they announced Harold Baines had been inducted to Cooperstown.

The 65 Topps is a really nice set, certainly I could see a decent argument made for it being the best of the 60s. But no 1 all time? No, it just doesn’t belong there.

[egri]

I'm curious about the methodology; does anyone know if the voting was done all at once, or spread out over several rounds? If it was done in one round, then I could see the vote being split several ways and the 65 Topps set sneaking into the top spot.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by egri

I'm curious about the methodology; does anyone know if the voting was done all at once, or spread out over several rounds? If it was done in one round, then I could see the vote being split several ways and the 65 Topps set sneaking into the top spot.

TCDB voting isn't that formal. A member can rank a set at any time, and the ratings are the compilation of all the rankings of the members.