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

[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

[uniship]

1914 Cracker Jack is my vote. Greatest set ever produced. Checks all the boxes.

[swabie2424]

Originally Posted by uniship

1914 Cracker Jack is my vote. Greatest set ever produced. Checks all the boxes.

Agreed. 1914 CJ gets my vote. Love them!

[Beercan collector]

Is it safe to say the Big 5 is fairly clear ?

[Beercan collector]

With the addition of the 19th century set And something that’s not Gum or tobacco makes for a tidy group 🙂

[orator1]

19th Century baseball is overlooked but should be represented.
1886-1890 N172 gets my vote.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

First of all, I completely understand the popularity for CJs. Their beauty and player power speak for themselves. If that's all you care about, then they are a clear front runner.

I side with whoever first proposed the idea that it would be nice to have a different era represented, however. CJs are too close in issue to T206s, so there's far too much player overlap.

Several of you take issue to including a set that can never be completed (yet each of the Big 3 share this problem for most people's budgets). So, where do we go from here? Have E120s been suggested? A decent-sized set which is shoehorned in between T206 and 1933 Goudey. A great HOF selection and it offers many wonderful obscurities if you like that sort of thing. Aestheically pleasing, and the design is certainly representative of its era. Here we have a bunch of Roaring 20's players who straddled the Deadball and later eras. As with the Goudeys, you can even collect their Canadian counterpart should you wish. If you're into even more parallels, you'll be kept busy! There's a lot to like with this set.

I heartily disagree with any post-1950's suggestions due to their "youth" and overabundance. Give it time; perhaps it will make sense later on. I definitely don't want to hear the word "refractor" in this discussion at all! But your picks are your own. Everybody has the right answer (for themselves).