Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   1972 Topps (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=170015)

brewing 06-05-2013 02:55 PM

1972 Topps
 
I don't get it. I've seen this set listed as a favorite of some, I consider it the most over rated set of the 1970's.

Pro:
Cool design template.

Cons:
Grainy photographs throughout the set.
In Action cards of second stringers, I can't imagine how many kids were disappointed when they pulled a Tom Haller in action card.
Boyhood photos.
Cards that have pictures of trophy's.



Agree or Disagree?

67_Palmer 06-05-2013 03:09 PM

Agreed about the poor photo quality, but the design is so cool I tend to overlook it. The Nolan Ryan card is one of my favorite of his. I also really like the Clemente and F. Robinson cards.

JollyElm 06-05-2013 03:16 PM

I love that set and especially the 'in action' cards. You gotta remember that kids are into their own favorite team, so as a Mets fan I loved getting the Koosman, Foli, Kranepool, Frisella, Harrelson and the other 'in action' cards. It nearly doubled the size of my Mets pile, so that was a huge plus. It wasn't all about the stars, you know?

brewing 06-05-2013 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 1141817)
I love that set and especially the 'in action' cards. You gotta remember that kids are into their own favorite team, so as a Mets fan I loved getting the Koosman, Foli, Kranepool, Frisella, Harrelson and the other 'in action' cards. It nearly doubled the size of my Mets pile, so that was a huge plus. It wasn't all about the stars, you know?

As a Tiger fan, it stinks having Tom Haller and Billy Martin in action cards. I didn't collect in 72, but I did collect during the in action release of 82. No Tigers, but I still enjoyed getting a 2nd card of the stars.

chris6net 06-05-2013 07:45 PM

What was strange about the In Action Cards were that teams like the Mets,Yanks,A,s and Giants all had at least 10 cards while the Orioles with the Robinsons,Powell,Palmer,Mcnally etc. and the Cardinals with Brock,Gibson, Torre(MVP) had none. I could see the 72 Indians having none but the Padres had about half a dozen. This never made sense to me even as a kid in 1972.

ALR-bishop 06-06-2013 03:37 PM

1972
 
Great and colorful set with many cool variations...or if Daren is listening...print defects :)

67_Palmer 06-06-2013 03:43 PM

The interesting thing is how tastes change. There was a time when I had zero interest in the 58' set. Didn't like it at all. Somewhere along the way my taste changed and I now love that set.

Zach Wheat 06-06-2013 06:40 PM

'72 Topps
 
Personally I have always liked the set. I just thought they looked cool.

Z Wheat

hangman62 06-07-2013 04:13 PM

72 T set
 
I agree it was quite 70s " hip mod" style when they came out..as a kid..I thought they were pretty cool.. that was around the time when some players like Joe Pepitone started wearing a toupee during the games

RCMcKenzie 06-07-2013 05:10 PM

72 Topps
 
2 Attachment(s)
Attachment 102040Attachment 102041

JollyElm 06-07-2013 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie (Post 1143044)

No fewer than 5 HOF'ers on that card.

RCMcKenzie 06-07-2013 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hangman62 (Post 1143009)
I agree it was quite 70s " hip mod" style when they came out..as a kid..I thought they were pretty cool.. that was around the time when some players like Joe Pepitone started wearing a toupee during the games

The Cubs' team card includes 5 Hofers and Joe Pepitone. Unbeatable.

Cardboard Junkie 06-08-2013 12:00 PM

Size Matters!:D

Cardboard Junkie 06-08-2013 12:03 PM

I absolutely LOVE 72Topps. Design and gargantuousness!! (wrd?). Of all the Topps sets it is my third fav. 52 then 60 then 72. (And a whole 72 set can be had for about a grand!) And there a TON of variations in the 72s! Dave:)

mintacular 06-08-2013 09:58 PM

Love Hate
 
Part of me hates it, part of me likes it. Way too many subsets (boyhood photos, etc.). Some nice action shots. Design a little cheesy but retro. Good acid trip.

David W 06-10-2013 09:16 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by chris6net (Post 1141977)
What was strange about the In Action Cards were that teams like the Mets,Yanks,A,s and Giants all had at least 10 cards while the Orioles with the Robinsons,Powell,Palmer,Mcnally etc. and the Cardinals with Brock,Gibson, Torre(MVP) had none. I could see the 72 Indians having none but the Padres had about half a dozen. This never made sense to me even as a kid in 1972.


I agree on the in action cards. Very odd distribution. Dick Dietz, Bob Barton, George Mitterwald, in action, but not Bob Gibson or F Robby? And Hank Aaron in action is the worst of the lot.

Cardboard Junkie 06-10-2013 09:41 AM

One really needs to be experienced with powerful hallucinagenics in order to fully appreciate the 72's.:) Dave.

GasHouseGang 06-10-2013 10:27 AM

I always liked the 1972 design. It was nice to get back to white edges after the 1971's. But the "action" photo's were mostly lackluster at best. The Aaron action card was particularly bad. Instead of a follow through blasting a homerun, you get a card that looks like he can barely make it around the bases. They had to have better choices available than that!

brob28 06-10-2013 03:31 PM

I like the set but have to admit, it did get old shelling out the bucks for those high # commons.:) I wish I had a scan of it but the Bill Melton IA card looks to me like he's putting a terrible swing on the ball, nice choice Topps. The Clemente IA card is the best of the bunch.

Scans in the following post.

brob28 06-10-2013 03:35 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Scans for previous post. Neither of thse cards are from my set.

nolemmings 06-10-2013 03:42 PM

I never liked the subsets when I was a kid, especially of course the plain checklists, so adding all of these extra cards to take the set to nearly 800 didn't thrill me. I didn't like the In Action shots for that reason, but never really paid attention to the player selection on those. I did like the Aaron, Mays, Bench, Rose and Clemente poses though, among others. A home run trot from Hank is priceless. That candid "Ah c'mon, are you kidding me?" look from Clemente is gold. One thing I remember is a kid in my class didn't care if he had the IA or regular card of any particular player, so I made out well in trades with him (he had the same attitude with '69 Deckles and decals vs. regular card--that was almost stealing).

brewing 06-10-2013 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brob28 (Post 1144458)
The Clemente IA card is the best of the bunch.

Seeing Clemente take a 3rd strike, isn't what I would call the best card.



The Munson and Seaver in action cards are similar to the Aaron.

Gr8Beldini 06-11-2013 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris6net (Post 1141977)
What was strange about the In Action Cards were that teams like the Mets,Yanks,A,s and Giants all had at least 10 cards while the Orioles with the Robinsons,Powell,Palmer,Mcnally etc. and the Cardinals with Brock,Gibson, Torre(MVP) had none. I could see the 72 Indians having none but the Padres had about half a dozen. This never made sense to me even as a kid in 1972.

Interesting. I never noticed that.

Gr8Beldini 06-11-2013 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewing (Post 1144471)
Seeing Clemente take a 3rd strike, isn't what I would call the best card.



The Munson and Seaver in action cards are similar to the Aaron.

I'm not sure that's what's happening in Roberto's Action card. I remember him doing neck stretches as he stepped into the batters box. I wonder if the photog snapped him in the middle of his routine.

... but does anyone want to explain to me what Seaver is doing in his "action" shot? Looks like he's trying to force out a doody.

Gr8Beldini 06-11-2013 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewing (Post 1141803)
I don't get it. I've seen this set listed as a favorite of some, I consider it the most over rated set of the 1970's.

Pro:
Cool design template.

Cons:
Grainy photographs throughout the set.
In Action cards of second stringers, I can't imagine how many kids were disappointed when they pulled a Tom Haller in action card.
Boyhood photos.
Cards that have pictures of trophy's.

Agree or Disagree?

About the grainy photographs. Agree on the earlier series, but the high number shots are vivid and very colorful. Same thing with the semi-high numbers, though they have a reddish pink tint to them.

brob28 06-11-2013 09:34 AM

[QUOTE=brewing;1144471]Seeing Clemente take a 3rd strike, isn't what I would call the best card.


The candid moment that was captured in that card is priceless to me. Could be any moment in the count, I just love what I assume to be the "you gotta be kidding" me expression & body language. I think many of these "action" cards leave a lot to be desired but I still bought each and every one of 'em for my set. ;)

chris6net 06-11-2013 11:54 AM

I love the IA cards. I just wonder how they picked the players. It seems like half of the players were Superstars and the other half total stiffs. A lot of lousy catchers,Bob Barton,Pat Corrales,Curt Blefary,George Mitterwald,Tom Haller and we can,t forget Ed Kirkpatrick. Out of 72 IA cards the Mets had 11 and the Giants 10 while Baltimore,Cleveland,Texas,St.Louis,Milwaukee and Houston got shut out.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:37 AM.