If you could make the Big 3 into the Big 4, what set are you adding?

[puckpaul]

I would go with N28. Could see the case for N172 but it’s not really collectible as a set. The best thing about the Big 3 is that you can complete these sets, they are available in quantity (with an obvious nod to the rarity of the 4 of the 524 T206 and the Lajoie). N28 covers the earlier era and is collectible though not quite as abundant). No one can come close to finding the OJ set i dont think. T3 would be great but has significant overlap with T206. No other modern set really stands out, certain cards do but not the sets…. Maybe 1989 Upper Deck but it’s too junk waxy. E107 is just too hard to collect. W600 same problem, that one seems attractive too.

[swarmee]

For the modern era, 1993 Topps Finest Refractors would be my vote as #4. Beauty, rarity, star power. Started the chrome revolution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Cracker Jack, either set would be fine.

[Casey2296]

14 Cracker Jack

[hcv123]

Good question!! While all the reasons for OJ make some sense, as mentioned it is not realistically completable. I like Ryan's suggestion of 1914 CJ or 1951 Bowman. 1993 Refractors are interesting to consider as well.

[robw1959]

1956 Topps

[Rich Falvo]

1914 Cracker Jack or 1954/1956 Topps (can't decide which, both are very popular.)

[ValKehl]

N172 absolutely, for the reasons mentioned above and for a reason not yet mentioned - the N172s have real photos of the players, whereas the "Big 3" don't have real photos! (Yes, I'm prejudiced toward card sets with real photos of the players.)

Just as T206 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different ad backs, N172 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different poses and print variations. However, if you deem a complete set to be one card of each player, then both N172 and T206 are completable, albeit with difficulty, if one has deep pockets. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that at least one of the three authors of the fantastic Old Judge tome has or is close to having a complete N172 set (i.e., one card of each player).

[darwinbulldog]

Another vote for N172.

[3-2-count]

Another vote for 1914 Cracker Jack

[Jay Wolt]

Turkey Red T3

[t206fanatic]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Another vote for 1914 Cracker Jack

has my vote as well

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Val,

What a wonderful point. I like to see what players truly looked like, not some cartoonish Bowman depiction. I honestly don't get the love for non-photo Bowmans.

To add to your point, without OJs, we would likely have NEVER seen what some of these players looked like! That's huge if you stop to consider it. Sorry, a woodcut does nothing for me as a truly accurate depiction of these guys. Although usually less cartoonish, it's the 19th century equivalent of a pre-1953 Bowman for my taste.

For those who use "you'll never be able to complete it" as a strike against OJ, I will turn that around and say how awesome a fact it is that there will potentially always be new discoveries with one of the oldest sets out there! Forever new things to learn and cards to keep adding. As Val Pointed out, you can collect just a single pose of each player. When it comes to collecting anything, one of the best aspects is that you get to make the rules. Many lose sight of this and are driven by OCD to let someone else's rules control them. What brings you the most joy overall: the act of collecting or completing? The latter has been bittersweet for many, while the former has a lot more longevity.

Originally Posted by ValKehl

N172 absolutely, for the reasons mentioned above and for a reason not yet mentioned - the N172s have real photos of the players, whereas the "Big 3" don't have real photos! (Yes, I'm prejudiced toward card sets with real photos of the players.)

Just as T206 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different ad backs, N172 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different poses and print variations. However, if you deem a complete set to be one card of each player, then both N172 and T206 are completable, albeit with difficulty, if one has deep pockets. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that at least one of the three authors of the fantastic Old Judge tome has or is close to having a complete N172 set (i.e., one card of each player).

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Also, the initial point made in this thread that it represents an era not already included in the Big 3 is of extreme importance.

Including any 1950s issue is redundant to me because of the 1952 Topps. T3s are remarkable, as are Ramlys and many CJ poses, but same rule applies.

I'm amazed that nobody has thrown Play Balls into the mix. But what I mentioned in the preceding paragraph comes into play for me to a degree, as there are so many players who appeared in one of the two Big 3 sets that bookend the series.

[MuncieNolePAZ]

1914 Cracker Jack for me.

Chad

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Val,

What a wonderful point. I like to see what players truly looked like, not some cartoonish Bowman depiction. I honestly don't get the love for non-photo Bowmans.

To add to your point, without OJs, we would likely have NEVER seen what some of these players looked like! That's huge if you stop to consider it. Sorry, a woodcut does nothing for me as a truly accurate depiction of these guys. Although usually less cartoonish, it's the 19th century equivalent of a pre-1953 Bowman for my taste.

Off topic - I’m one of the few that actually prefer a 1940 play ball to
1941 - not crazy for the pastels and softened images , 1941 Ted Williams looks like a China doll and Jimmie Foxx looks like a hockey mask wearing murderer .
On topic - 1914 Cracker Jack (despite the drawings)

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'm in the 1940 camp as well. Names on fronts, photos, random inclusion of some older legends.

[vintagerookies51]

I'd put Cracker Jack at #4, then N172 then 1941 Play Ball

[JimC]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

N172 absolutely, for the reasons mentioned above and for a reason not yet mentioned - the N172s have real photos of the players, whereas the "Big 3" don't have real photos! (Yes, I'm prejudiced toward card sets with real photos of the players.)

Just as T206 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different ad backs, N172 is virtually impossible to complete in terms of cards of all of the players with all of the different poses and print variations. However, if you deem a complete set to be one card of each player, then both N172 and T206 are completable, albeit with difficulty, if one has deep pockets. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that at least one of the three authors of the fantastic Old Judge tome has or is close to having a complete N172 set (i.e., one card of each player).

Val, piggybacking onto your points I'd personally consider the M101s and related sets. Ruth rookie is as good a headliner as you could want. Also real photos. Also virtually impossible due to all the back variations but doable if you just want a card of every player. (Maybe excuse a set that's missing the Babe.) Plus, I would rather collect the 1900s/10s/20s era guys than the 1870s and 80s players. More what we consider baseball today and more players recognizable to the average fan. Nothing against N172s. They're incredible. However, the common cards are a lot more expensive so it's probably not as accessible to most collectors.

And we haven't even mentioned the greatest set of all - - D304.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by JimC

Val, piggybacking onto your points I'd personally consider the M101s and related sets. Ruth rookie is as good a headliner as you could want. Also real photos. Also virtually impossible due to all the back variations but doable if you just want a card of every player. (Maybe excuse a set that's missing the Babe.) Plus, I would rather collect the 1900s/10s/20s era guys than the 1870s and 80s players. More what we consider baseball today and more players recognizable to the average fan. Nothing against N172s. They're incredible. However, the common cards are a lot more expensive so it's probably not as accessible to most collectors.

And we haven't even mentioned the greatest set of all - - D304.

Jim, I'm with you in that M101-4/5 is one of my "Big 4 sets" (even though I'm not a set collector). IIRC, the only major star of that time period that is missing from this set is Matty.

The following are my personal choices for the"Big 4 sets":
- N172 - Surely, Goodwin & Co.'s success with the first very large baseball set would have influenced the ATC to issue its very large T206 set.
- M101-4/5 - Real photos of the players. All the major stars of the era are included, except Matty. Lots of different ad backs, some quite scarce, which enhances collector interest, just like the T206 set.
- E121-80/W575-1 and all the related issues with all the different ad backs. Same reasons for inclusion as for M101-4/5.
- 1957 Topps - First set (IIRC) to be issued in the now-standard 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" size. First Topps set to have real color photos of the players.

Jim, if I were to list my "Top 25 sets," I might be able to bring myself to include the D304 set.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I don't know. I'd consider E90-1 for the 4th spot. It has the Joe Jackson, two Wagners, Cobb, Young, the iconic Oakes which is usually on any discussion of the best-looking prewar card.

And I just feel like a nice caramel set should be represented. And I am excluding the Cracker Jacks as caramels, I'm only taking about the smaller sized caramels that are the size of T206s. It's completable and difficult to complete.

Just my thoughts guys.



.

[yanksfan09]

Cracker Jack both years