Has a Set Grown on You Over Time?
 

I know the title of this thread seems to be asking if you've had some sort of cardboard borne malady overcome you, but I digress.

For the longest time, I had always hated the 1960 Topps set. Its crowded, horizontal design was a nightmare, virtually all of the player photos were dreaded headshots, the rookies had the terrible circle design of the 1959 set, and the manager cards didn't fit into it at all. They looked like they were stolen from some other never-produced set and just thrown into the mix...but then something very enlightening happened. When Bobby was organizing one of his PSA group submissions, I started flipping through my 1960 album to see if I had anything worthwhile (ended up getting a PSA 8 Whitey Ford, a PSA 4.5 Yaz RC, a PSA 8 Gene Conley variation and a PSA 5 Mantle), and I kept flipping, and then going back and forth really looking at the players and BOOM!!!!!!! I suddenly realized that I actually loved this set. Headshots always bother me terribly, but these are coupled with the (often weirdly cropped) inset photos, so there's an oddly comforting portrait quality to them. Sort of like your mom getting professional family photos from Sears back in the day. Plus, a huge number of these pictures were taken inside the old, magnificent stadiums. The crowds are very sparse (obviously due to the pics being taken during warm-ups), so you see the structures themselves and not just a muddy sea of blurry faces in the background. Since the sky isn't prominent in too many shots, it really brings the viewer right into the ballpark itself. I find that fascinating. And the color treatments of the cards - the backgrounds of the inset photos paired with the alternating hued letters of the player names - along with the cool logo placement, creates a real dynamic look and feel to the cards. I frickin' love them!!!!

Here's a bunch of random screengrabs from ebay...

Attachment 358733Attachment 358730

Attachment 358731Attachment 358732

Attachment 358729Attachment 358734

Attachment 358735Attachment 358736

Has any set you formerly hated ever grown on you to the point that you really enjoy seeing the cards now? If so, give the initial reasons for the hate, and (not to sound too much like a hippie) the reasons for your newfound love.

I always used to hate the 1954 Bowman set. I don't know why but I think part of it had to do with the fact that I used to only see examples of the cards in mail order catalogs with black and white photos and they always looked terrible. Then one of my OBC buddies sent me my first ever actual 1954 Bowman cards and I fell in love with them right away when I had them in hand. The colors are awesome for some reason. And the images are cool too. I remember one of the first ones I had was Jim Gilliam and I just thought it was an amazing looking card in person. I've been slowly working on the set ever since and always get excited when I pick up a new one.

Most definitely. 1952 Topps. I never really cared for it; I was a 1954 guy. I grew to appreciate it over time. Unfortunately, I came to appreciate it too late in the game to get a Mantle card.

There are probably more sets I've come to dislike over time, like 1975 Topps, which annoys the heck out of me. I mean, they couldn't even make all the players from each time the same colors.

52 Topps definitely.

I've always hated the oversized sets. I'm very CDO, and I don't like the way they look in toploaders. But today I picked up a couple of 56s, and I bought 2 54s earlier this week. So they're starting to grow on me.

I like the sets because they're not as big as something from the late 1950s, early 1960s. I think it'll be a bit easier to build these larger sets. Now if there were only a way to store them in pages. They don't fit in the 9 pockets, and you can't use regular toploaders because you can't use a penny sleeve. So not sure how to store them.

I had to think through this for awhile but ultimately, I still like what I originally liked. Nothing really grew on me. I can see why you hated the 60 set though. :D

For me, '72 Topps. When I first started collecting they were only 14 years old, and I remember thinking they were overdone and gaudy. Of course this was before any sense of nostalgia for the 70's had developed. I remember having the Clemente base card as a kid and thinking that was cool, but moreso for the picture than the design.

Fast forward 30+ years and I think they are incredible. Rarely has a set captured an era so well (honorable mention to '59 Topps...) and the color and variety of these cards now strikes me as beautiful over gaudy. The Yaz, McCovey, Ryan, Carew, and Carlton Traded cards are my favs. I am going after the whole set, but have just started - have maybe close to 75 cards out of the monster 787.

My buying cards years as a child were 64-68.My favorite set was 1965 and least liked was easily 1964.However I have grown to like those 64's a lot.
I have completed in near mint raw the 1965 & 1966 sets. Working on the high number 1967's(tough). I will finish 1964 after the 67's.
I love the look of the 1963 & 1960 sets.

72 Topps, while I agree it captures the 70's era feel, always reminds me of a theater marquee.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/wp-c...3539502679.jpg

They make 8 pocket pages that fit the 1952-56 Topps cards.

Ultra Pro makes makes vintage toploaders/sleeves for 52-56 Topps if you want to go that route.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Very interesting. Topps’ main office was still in Brooklyn then I think - I wonder if any theater or theateres nearby inspired that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

55 Bowman
 

For me it is 1955 Bowman. I used to think it was horribly kitschy and ugly. The whole TV-set motif was just did not do it for me. However, over the years this set has really grown on me. I think it comes from an appreciation for the "period piece" nature of the set. I like that Bowman used the combination of the national past time and newest technology as a last ditch effort to fend of Topps. I have grown to appreciate the umpire cards and it is cool to see all those players in Shibe Park.

Thanks for the heads up. I will have to check them out. Do they go horizontal (I'm assuming so) vs. vertical? I really like the vertical pages. I asked my LCS about these pages on Saturday, and they didn't know what I was talking about.


I will check these out too. Will they still fit into a 2-row shoebox? That is how I have my vintage stored at this point, and it's separated by year. As long as they still fit into that 2-row, I might give them a try.

I agree with the 52 Topps. i hated them when they first came out so ignored them. Started on the 53's and 54's then life got in the way and when I returned my mother had tossed all my cards out. Restarted again in 76 but still didn't like the 52's and passed on all except my Cubs. Monday morning quarterbacking is great but if I had only got all those 52's when I had the chance and all the others I passed on because I was a "Cub" collector.

For me, I’ve had it go both ways. I used to not like the 1965 or 1966, but they have grown on me over time. Still not my favorites, but I like them a lot more now. OTOH, the 1961s and 1967s I’ve really cooled on over the years. In the former, I don’t like the photography as much as I used to, and the latter just looks like a low-effort ripoff of the 1957 design. And the facsimile signatures look bad on autographed cards.

My preferences have always been away from horizontal cards. So those years remain in the background. For this question it's 1964 all the way for me. I really ignored this year as I was partial to 62 63 66 67. But lately I really come around to it. I like cards with a not of colors in the scheme. Although the format is somewhat plain, I like the shots in this set more than some others. For me in collecting this set was the price of the clemente card. Why so high? Seems like this particular year is more popular than most. Although not a rose fan, I do like this year of him 2nd to the 65. The mantle is decent but tougher to find focused. 2nd would be 58, and I know theres a lot of talk about blandness headshots of this set, but I came back around to it lately as well. At least most cards are headshots and there consistant. Saying all this though. My top 5 continue to be: 67 66 63 54 62 In that order.

cheers, billp

Topps
 

When I was young there were two years in particular that I didn’t really like the look and that was ‘62 and the ‘68 set. I wasn’t fond of brown nor did I enjoy burlap (or whatever that is). I know a lot of you are set collector’s and I liked collecting all the cards back in the day, but focused mainly on the Oriole players. While I have some cards still I focus on Brooks Robinson cards pretty much exclusively nowadays. I now like the look of all the vintage Topps sets including the ‘62 and ‘68. Probably my favorite ‘62 is the Brooksie AS card and I can’t pick a favorite ‘68 since the regular issue Topps card is cool, but then you have the Milton Bradley and the Venz as well.

To me it’s so strange that some of the sets you guys don’t like I love the look. Can’t see how someone couldn’t enjoy the looks of the ‘72 and ‘75; some of my favs.

sets
 

used to think 63 Fleer set was - lame,boring,dull...but kind of look at it different now..not too much different..but a little better

63 fleer
 

Like many Topps sets ('69, '74. '77. '78, etc) simplicity rules!

72's are groovy! I always assumed the boys who created the '72 set were Deadheads at heart.

For me, I hated the '71 set. Black, ugly, with only one year's stats on the back. And, honestly, I still hate 'em overall, but if they're centered and the corners aren't worn, some of 'em are ok. The Ryan and Munson cards aren't bad.

Attachment 359557Attachment 359556

This is an old thread, but I see a lot of renewed discussions of Topps sets from the 70's, so maybe it's time to revive it...

Has a set grown on you over time?

1962 Topps, at first wasn't sure about the "woodies", but now I really dig em :-) 1973 Topps, some really nice action shots that I didn't appreciate at first.

Baseball-wise, so many have grown...others have fizzled...
The '62 Topps, '55 Bowman, '55 Topps, '60 Topps have grown on me quite a bit over the years.
Among the fizzlers would be '53 Topps. I built this set twice, so it may just be over loved? I used to be nuts for late 70's stuff...that kinda fizzled, too.
The rest of the sets I've always disliked remain disliked :D

In the 70s I had maybe about 200 each of the 64 and 65 sets. The 64 set was ho-hum while the 65 set seemed more dynamic with its pennant. After collecting the Heritage version of each my opinion has changed, I enjoy the simplicity of the 64 design. I find that the image stands out more boldly than that of the 65 design. I'm not knocking the 65 design, it's nice, but I've grown to like the 64 version more.

One set that I did like as a kid was the 72 Topps, I bought the cards from the packs, but I was never able to complete it. It still has its appeal, but I no longer would need to have that design as part of my collection. Likewise the glossy version of cards that became popular in the 80s, Topps Tiffany sets come to mind now appear gaudy to me. I got rid of them in the early 90s, so the rise in price doesn't affect me, but I wouldn't purchase them again at their original price point.

Agree about 1975. I like them because I'm nostalgic (one of first cards I collected as a kid), but who took those pictures?! The shadows across the faces of prominent cards... I know little or nothing about photography, but I know enough not to position the subject with the sun behind him. Jim Palmer, Tom Seaver & Reggie Jackson are ruined as well as Don Baylor, Rusty Staub, Felix Millan (etc. etc.). Also, the picture they used for the most prominent player in the set at the time - new HR champ Hank Aaron - was bizarre. They couldn't find a better photo than THAT to airbrush?

Hey, that looks like the restaurant Mr. Magoo went into thinking it was the theater.

Mike

I am in the minority, but I never particularly cared for 1953 Bowman. Then I managed to get my hands on a few that were really nice, that had clear photos and no fuzz. Then I realized what I didn't like was poor conditioned 1953's. I love them now. I guess I could say the same about 1961 Topps. A Vg/Vg-Ex 1961 Topps is plain old ugly. But a sharp one with all of the original gloss is a thing of beauty.

I'm right there with you.

I just sold off a number of my Topps Heritage master sets and SSP cards to assemble a 53 Bowman color set in vg/ex condition. I am still trying to upgrade some of the cards to ex/ex plus, but I ran out of money for the moment. As for the 61s if the All-Star cards at the end of the set look crummy unless they're ex-mint or better.

I read the title of this thread....well, let's just say I thought it was about something else.

Classic.

Right next to Stewie Griffin's skin conditioning products... "StewieGriffinFacials.com"

:D

[emoji23][emoji23]

I would say '62 Topps. I always hated it, but not so much now. I am relaxing my condition OCD, and I think the green tints are awesome!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Good thing there are almost no female collectors here...I guess.:mad:

1949 Bowman has grown on me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1949 Leaf. I thought it was so ugly that it was the one post-war set that I didn't collect. As time has gone by I have added some of them to my collection and have grown to appriciate them.

If any set has "grown" on me, it might be this set. Although it's really more a product of me having ignored the set at first, then discovering it later. However, the whole name/no-name format annoys my OCD.

77 Topps which to me has always been a near perfect set in terms of simplicity and ease of collecting. And several good Rookie Cards to boot.

I'm with you on the 1960 set. I used to think it was cheap looking but now I love it. Number one for me is probably the 34-36 Diamond Star set. I dismissed them as too simple and ugly for a long time but when I started paying more attention to the portraits and especially the backgrounds it really grew on me.

I'll throw in a pre war answer
 

working on a lot of Pirate team sets pre and post war. Initially had no intention of working on T207 - then had it highlighted by a board member who I bought some T206's from - At first glance didn't like it, then it definitely grew on me and has been added to the list.

Sort of a pointless bump, but I ran across a post showing a bunch of 1960 cards, and I FREAKING LOVE THEM!!!!!!!!!!! The stadiums, like ancient cathedrals, in the background? Gorgeous!!!

Anyone else have stories of sets that grew on you over time?

I've always liked the 60 set. It was the 2nd vintage set I built (built 69 as I had the Reggie RC and Mantle's final card already). I do think that the alternating color of players names is too much in some color schemes. When I got Brooks Robinson, I first saw R O S and thought I bought a misprinted card...

But I digress. The 64 set has grown on me. It was the last Topps 60's set I built--and since I wasn't into it, I got a lot of beaters which actually look ok as compared to the 71 or 62 sets.

I've since upgraded the HoF's (to mid grade or better) and some of the pictures are really good: Stengel, Yogi, Clemente to name few are among my favorite card's of that player ever. Mantle batting righty is unique. The subsets (league leaders) and multi-player cards are nicely done. Tops in NL w/ Aaron and Mays makes you think that Topps should have thought about that years ago...

For me it was 1955 Topps Double Headers. To my 9-year-old eyes they were just weird.

None of my friends liked them either and our neighborhood grocer, Mr. Green, couldn't sell any to save his life. At one point he offered to sell me his entire stock for $1.00 a box, but I was too smart for that.

Later I grew to appreciate them, especially after I discovered T201s. Mr. Green, if you're reading this, I've changed my mind.

Never really cared for the "55" Bowman set until recently. It`s a tough set to like but the whole T V screen approach, especially when centered, has grown on me. Rabbit ears anyone ?

I always thought '52 Topps was amateurish looking and wildly overrated...until recently. It was not until I actually held these cards in my hands that I finally got it. I had been to card shows and shops and seen them for decades, and thumbed my nose. But now, having 9 of them, I have done a complete 180 degree turn! They are fantastic! Up close, the front artwork and detailed info on the back is really second to none.

For me it would be the 1964 Topps baseball set. I like it's simplicity of design, the softer focus of the images and how they stand out. It's a set that one day I would like to own, having ignored it previously.

Recently I received a bunch of 1971 Topps cards in really nice shape that I bought. In opening the package, sweat was pouring profusely off of my forehead, and I felt nervous as hell, like Indiana Jones trying to figure out how to remove that golden idol from the ancient tomb. I'm sure every collector has the exact same feeling whenever they are attempting to remove a 1971 card from a top-loader or album.

But this made me think. Because of how widespread the collecting of graded cards has become, I’ve recently begun to see the 1971 Topps set in a brand new, entirely different light. If there was ever a set created to be housed in fortified plastic bunkers, it is undoubtedly the black bordered cards of 1971.

Outside of holders, let’s face it, the cards are god-awful. That is only because they cannot survive in the real world outside of a protective bubble. Putting them in shoe boxes was akin to placing them in a blender. If you excitedly came home from the stationery store with a prized pile of Topps packs, the worst thing you could possibly do was open them!! Simply looking at a 1971 card the wrong way would make the corners start turning white right before your very eyes. If a car horn sounded outside, the vibrations would make the sides of the cards chip. If someone was watching an episode of ‘Gunsmoke’ too loudly in the next room, the corners of your cards would start deteriorating. If a Cassowary in Indonesia flapped its useless wings, the air currents would eventually make their way across the globe and erode all four sides of your 1971 cards, turning them into something akin to muddied snow. To save time, Topps should have used a belt sander on the cards before inserting them into packs.

Not to further belabor the point, but giving a child black bordered baseball cards was tantamount to blindfolding him and forcing him to juggle a bunch of large crystal balls and not expecting the ground to be littered with shards of broken glass. And further compounding the problem was the fact that many of the ‘regular’ cards now featured in-game action shots for the first time ever. That was like sounding the alarm to get every kid rampaging through stacks of cards, seeking out those outstandingly wondrous new beauties. And the damage a rubber band would do? Do I even need to go down that road?

But being housed in plastic slabs is like a rebirth for this set. Now you can handle them as much as you want without any sort of consequences. Hell, laugh away the day throwing your slabs at the wall. No problem. Even for people who consider centering to be the most important aspect of a card must’ve shifted their focus to now look upon the strength of the corners and edges to be the most important features. What’s the sense of having a well-centered card if it resembles a black and white cookie?

Sure, the set has the usual multitude of ugly headshots, trite ‘fielding’ and ‘batting’ poses, but the black borders sort of guide your eyes into the colorful pictures, which was a huge improvement over the borefest of the 1970 grey bordered cards...

Attachment 444680

Although so many of the action photos were taken from afar, they are real (more sharply focused) action shots. You almost have to wear a carpenter's mask when looking them over, because the clouds of dust and dirt are flying all over the place...

Attachment 444679

...and some of them were very cool horizontal shots...

Attachment 444678

On the downside, though, the airbrushing was apparently done by the residents of a Duryea, PA, glaucoma treatment facility during ‘arts & crafts’ hour...

Attachment 444677

And finally, the dark, nearly illegible backs are terrible (here’s where someone is going to chime in about how great the OPC backs were that year) whether they are in or out of slabs, but they are generally easy to ignore. If you want to check on a player’s hometown, see a cool cartoon, or examine some stats, you had piles of cards from other years to scan through.

I think I'm going to start trying to pick up more and more of these guys, centering be damned!!

Technical note: everything pictured here save #651 Robertson are random screenshots and not my personal cards.

Oh, i dunno, I think they're pretty great looking cards

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...971%20Ryan.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20Clemente.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...1%20Munson.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ps%20Aaron.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...Copy%20_3_.jpg

[see what I did there :D ]

But yeah the OPC backs rock

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...Ryan%20_2_.jpg

I would have to say most of the Bowman cards. I think now they seem so nostalgic that they appeal to me. I always thought the 1954's were especially ugly. But I picked up some that were offered on B/S/T and really started to like them.

I agree with 54 Bowman; 54 Topps just tends to suck all the O2 out of the room for that year, but there are some beautiful cards in that set.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...n%20Minoso.jpg