Vote!! Worst Topps produced set of the 1960's

[almostdone]

In keeping up with the running tab of worst main issued Toops baseball set we will now move on to the 60's. Same rules apply as did for the 50's. Any discussion and comments are welcome. Two front runners appeared fairly quickly in the 50's thread. Let's see if any others are overwhelmingly or perhaps underwhelmingly top runners here.

There is a few more days left to vote in the 50's thread if you haven't voted already. I'll keep this one a bit shorter as the other thread died down after three or four days.

So what year will it be to be the worst or ugliest or least desired set in the 60's. Let's get the voting started and find out.

Drew

[Vintagevault13]

I voted for 1964. Bland design and terrible backs.

[39special]

I never liked the '68's.

[7nohitter]

The '67's are SO boring to me...I hate the Mantle card....bland....

[Orioles1954]

The 1960s are incredibly bland. Small photos and awkward horizontal design. With exception to Yaz, the rookie class is very weak.

[egri]

I went with 1962. The wood grain borders just seem incredibly tacky to me, even for the sixties. The 1965 and 1966 sets were right on its heels, though. Those two designs just seemed very bland and uninspired.

[Mountaineer1999]

1960 or 1968! I went with 60, just dont like the little B&W photo or the multi colored name lettering. '68 was saved by the backs as I like the full stats.

[pclpads]

1968. Just butt-ugly.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

The '67's are SO boring to me...I hate the Mantle card....bland....

+1 - Entirely boring set. Mantle's worst card.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by pclpads

1968. Just butt-ugly.

The Burlap is kinda ugly, but there are still worse sets than that one. And the double player cards with Ryan and Bench's rookie cards are kind of cool.

[Econteachert205]

I'm in the minority, I love the 68s. It's the only 60s cards i have in any real numbers and I have the whole set. A family friend gave me a handful when I was 7-8 and I was mesmerized. I don't like the 1960 horizontals.

[hcv123]

For me it was between 1961 and 1968. Interestingly The 1968's remind me of 1987 Topps - Overproduced - not particularly attractive. So I voted for 1968.

[Rich Klein]

65's are my personal choice. 68 is sentimental for me as the 1st set I collected as a kid so can't go there. Perhaps 69, although I completed it as a kid is the real choice.

[Beatles Guy]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999

1960 or 1968! I went with 60, just dont like the little B&W photo or the multi colored name lettering. '68 was saved by the backs as I like the full stats.

Funny, the multi-colored name lettering is one feature that really draws me to this set

[ALR-bishop]

Jason---then the 1960 Antonelli with the uneven colored letters must sing to you

[MCoxon]

Originally Posted by Beatles Guy

Funny, the multi-colored name lettering is one feature that really draws me to this set

I agree - I love the multi-color lettering on the 60s (I also love the 57s that have the colorful blue/red letters for name/team). At the same time, I agree that the 60 horizontal two-picture format can be distracting, and the number of players without caps bothers me (e.g., Maris, Koufax)

To me though every set has some clunkers and some winners, which is why no matter which set through the 50s-70s, there are always cards I love in each

[Griffins]

'61's for me. Muddy photography, boring design. Same with '57 and '69 Topps, muddy photography

Rich, '65's are your least favorite? After '53 Bowman and '67 Topps, that is my favorite design post war.

While '68 is leading, no one set seems to stand out as the absolute worst. Wonder if you took out sentimental favorites ('68 and '70 iare not designs liked by most, but they are my sentimental favorites) what the vote would be?

[JTysver]

1968, because nothing says baseball like burlap!

[JollyElm]

The cramped style of 1960 with its two picture, horizontal format does it for me. Yuck times a million!! They were trying to put ten pounds of gum into a five pound bag.

[bbcard1]

A vote for1966 here

[Beatles Guy]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Jason---then the 1960 Antonelli with the uneven colored letters must sing to you

If you drink enough, they look straight

[Beatles Guy]

For what it's worth, I think the 1960 Topps Mantle and Clemente are the two most attractive cards of those stars that Topps ever produced.

[brewing]

I went with the 1968 set, the burlap is too much for me.

1962 would probably be the next on my list, dark back, wood grain, and the lack of any card in the set to "wow" me.

[pokerplyr80]

I see the 68 set is the runaway winner in this vote but I voted for 67. As a kid I was a huge Nolan Ryan fan and always wanted his RC. That alone would keep me from viewing it as the worst, but I don't really mind the look either.

[1963Topps Set]

No, 1969 is clearly the worst! There are NO team cards in the set. All of the team names are in the same color (yellow) because of the expansion, there are many cap less player photos. The front design of the card is plain. The only good of it is that Mickey shows up for the final time and Reggie has his own rookie card. It is an easy set to complete, no high number problems at all.

Why doesn't the 1968 Topps set get more love? I love this set, enjoyed putting it together. This set holds a mystic to me for some reason. The backs are easy to read and they are horizontal, the last set to do this until 1973! Plus they give complete stats.

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by JTysver

1968, because nothing says baseball like burlap!

think of it as hemp!

[PowderedH2O]

To me, it was a toss up between 1962, 1968, and 1969. 62's are notoriously difficult to find in great shape, but when you find them, they are gorgeous. There are at least 100 cards in the 1969 set (or more) that are just wretched. But, many of the cards are quite attractive. So, this leaves 1968. Nothing awful, but just bland. Burlap equals boring.

[Bigdaddy]

I already voted ('68 for me), but all the comments got me thinking. What is your criteria for voting? For me, in order it is:

1. Design (layout, font, borders, ...)
2. Photography (all head shots, in action shots, crispness, ...)
3. Player inclusion (who are the rookies, last cards, ...)
4. Backs (readability, years of stats, ...)
5. Relevance to me ('77 was my first year collecting, I was born in '66, ...)

[PowderedH2O]

To me it was design, photography, and backs. I can't go with player inclusion, otherwise sets like the 1955 Topps set would be hammered because of all the stars missing. I actually don't hate the 1968's. If I compared them to some of the sets of the 80's, I'd take the 68's in a heartbeat. But, compared to the cards from 63-67 and the 60's, it was a no brainer for me.

[campyfan39]

Please send all the ugly cards to me

[ALR-bishop]

Chris is a contrarian collector

[Mark70Z]

Once again...I like them all! There are cards in every set that are somewhat ugly, but I really like all of the designs, even the burlap is COOL.

[almostdone]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Once again...I like them all! There are cards in every set that are somewhat ugly, but I really like all of the designs, even the burlap is COOL.

So which one appears in italics to you?
Drew

[SMPEP]

I didn't vote - because they all sucked wasn't an option. Hard to pick the worst one amongst so many dreadful offerings (1960, 1962, and 1968 stand out a bit; but any other year could be described as dreadful and I'll buy off). The 1950s were Topps golden age. The 1970s were okay. The 1960s was a conmplete miss.

[ALR-bishop]

I feel like I just wasted 10 years of my like collecting those sets

[brian1961]

Each set has its high points, with many of them having very cherished associations and memories from our childhood. All those sets have their share of disappointments, which somehow grow in number and irritation as the years go on.

Remember, at the beginning of the 60s, Topps was still refining its ability to produce color baseball cards without the need to adjust the photo.

Then again, when they did their airbrush work in the mid-70s to edit or adjust a team change, sometimes it was some of the worst stuff they ever did. Plus, the attention to centering went to pot. Hmm, maybe too many of the print dept. guys were spaced out on pot. Think of it,

--Brian Powell

[1963Topps Set]

I can honestly say I have not seen a Topps design from the 1950s and 1960s that I truly hate. Even the 1969 cards have some charm. Today, no company has been able to capture the charm, creativity and originality of those early designs.

[egri]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

I can honestly say I have not seen a Topps design from the 1950s and 1960s that I truly hate. Even the 1969 cards have some charm. Today, no company has been able to capture the charm, creativity and originality of those early designs.

I think one thing we can all agree on is even the sets we don't like from back then are still better designed than the stuff Topps is churning out today.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by almostdone

So which one appears in italics to you?
Drew

Drew,

You had a "week" to make light of my somewhat brilliant, although possibly misguided, observation.

[1963Topps Set]

Originally Posted by egri

I think one thing we can all agree on is even the sets we don't like from back then are still better designed than the stuff Topps is churning out today.

Boy! Is that hitting the nail right on the head!

[ALR-bishop]

Does anyone have any idea (or seen any numbers) as to how the Topps Heritage sets have fared against sales of their base set counterparts over recent years ?

I have all the Topps sets 48 to 2015, including all the Heritage sets, and I like my older sets best myself, but think if I was a kid again ( born 1950) and opening some of the new stuff back in the 60s, I would have been awed and thrilled.