Opinion on 1950's Baseball Sets

[The Nasty Nati]

I'm thinking about building a set from any year from the 1950s. I think the design of that era is great. But I was wondering what year and/or make (Bowman/Topps) would be the most affordable to complete. I'm not too familiar with the sets from this time period but I know each have different sizes, short print runs, hof rookies, etc that could affect the cost.

I want to start a set raw or graded ranging in the GD to VGEX range, which set from the 50's era do you guys think would be the most affordable to complete?

[phikappapsi]

wrong forum... but I'd say a lot of them are fun, but if you want to stay in budget, stay away from 51bowman, 52+54 topps, the 59 topps set has some pricey ones as well (gibson)

[BobbyVCP]

Most of those sets are going to have a lot of HOF players so they will be the higher dollar cards, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Williams, Clemente. Most will be fairly cheap til you get to the key players

[Sean1125]

Most affordable in low grade would be 54-56, believe it or not the other sets add up quickly because they are much larger. You should be able to complete lowgrade 55 and 56 sets for about $1500 each.

[chipperhank44]

I believe 1958 Topps is one of the most affordable options from that era. Maris and Cepeda are the key rookies and are not going to set you back much for GD to VGEX. Good Luck. You may find more help on the Post-War section.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

I'm thinking about building a set from any year from the 1950s. I think the design of that era is great. But I was wondering what year and/or make (Bowman/Topps) would be the most affordable to complete. I'm not too familiar with the sets from this time period but I know each have different sizes, short print runs, hof rookies, etc that could affect the cost.

I want to start a set raw or graded ranging in the GD to VGEX range, which set from the 50's era do you guys think would be the most affordable to complete?

1950s TOPPS/Bowman would certainly be fun to collect. Next time please be careful on where you are posting questions on the board. We have a Post War vintage (Pre-1980) section that is quite active. Welcome aboard too..

[vintagetoppsguy]

I would go with '56 Topps for the following reasons:

• There are no "big" rookies (unlike say the '54 or '55 Topps sets), so that keeps it more affordable.
• You also have some nice second and third year cards of players like Aaron, Koufax, Killebrew, Kaline, Banks and Clemente.
  
• Nice mantle card (maybe the best looking card in the set) after taking a 2 year break from Topps.
  
• Many, many other HOFers from the set such as Mays, T. Williams, J. Robinson, Kaline, Mathews, Spahn, Snider, Berra - probably at least 30 HOFers in the set (just guessing).
  
• Not as many cards to complete the set as in later Topps years.
  
• First year for team cards and checklists.

I could go on and on, but it's certainly my favorite set from that decade.

[drcy]

You could also try one of the smaller odd ball issues, such as 1957 Swift Meats, 51 Topps Red or Blue Backs, Spic & Span Braves, Dormand Postcards, one of the Red Man sets, one of the Amor Coin years. The 1954 Red Heart set might be a good one-- small set, big names including Mantle and Musial and the cards aren't hard to find.

The cards for all of the regular Topps and Bowman regular sets (though not the masters sets) are easily findable, it's just some are unusually expensive (numerous in the 52 Topps set clearly). The 57-59 Topps sets have no toughies, just are huge if you're collecting single card by single card. Though for all the regular sets, you can find good bulk starter lots to give you a good start.

[timzcardz]

Well there are a bunch of different looks to the cards, and since I don't think that it has been asked yet, which sets do you like the look of best?

I'd pick a few that I really liked first, and then look at the affordability of those.

I recently finished my '58 Topps master set, including the mail-in felt emblems, so I am partial to that one. I did that for two reasons: 1) my birth year, and 2) I really liked the look of the set.

So is it that attracts your interest to the 50's, and what set(s) best satisfy that attraction?

[Rich Klein]

I'm still waiting for Leon to take the plunge and go head long into 1950's type cards. He'd be a natural

Rich

[drcy]

Lots of great odd ball and regional issues Post WWII. That includes up to today. Armor Coins, Kelloggs 3D, Hostess, Johnston Braves, team issues, Topps test issues, the list is endless. Manny oddball rookie and pre-rookie cards of HOFers, Hank Aaron to Ryne Sandburg.

[brewing]

As a recent finisher of the 1956 set, I concur with what David stated above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KCRfan1]

Drcy, great idea on the 54 Red Heart. Small set with stars of the day including Mantle and Musial. Between Topps and Bowman, the 1955 Bowman may be the most affordable of the 1950's, however, the set is not very popular with collectors. Personally I would begin with the Red Heart. Red Heart is simple and appealing. The set has a pop of color and great design. I believe there are 33 cards with Mantle and Musial. Depending on the budget you are working with, the 1958 Topps could be a nice set. Cepeda is the rookie card and very affordable. The set is colorful, and reflects the 50's vibe. Cards can be obtained in very nice condition without breaking the bank. Mantle will be the most expensive card in the set, and that will be true with any set in the 50's though. High numbers are attainable and affordable. Let us know the direction you decide to go in and your progress along the way!

[The Nasty Nati]

I appreciate all of the helpful feedback. Apologies for posting this on the wrong forum, is there a way for me to change that now?

In terms of what appeals to me most I would definitely have to go with the ’56 Topps and ’52 Bowman. I love the action shots in the ’56 and the artwork in the ’52 Bowman are something else. I’m guessing price-wise the 1952 Bowman will probably be a little high.

Based off some of the feedback, it looks like 1956 Topps may be the best bet, although I never considered collecting outside of Bowman and Topps but the ’54 Red Hearts that were mentioned are pretty nice looking.

I’ve been collecting T206s for about a year now, and will continue to collect from that set, but I like the idea of collecting from an era that my Dad grow up collecting as a kid. Unfortunately, like most, his mom threw out all of his 50s baseball cards. I grew up collecting cards in the 90s and unlike my Dad I actually wished my mom had thrown those out.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Having nearly finished a VG to VG-EX 52 Bowman set(missing just the Mantle), cost wise for me it has been very similar to a VG to VG-EX 56 Topps set, even though there are approximately 90 cards less in the 52 Bowman set.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I'm still waiting for Leon to take the plunge and go head long into 1950's type cards. He'd be a natural

Rich

Unless you are paying for them I don't see me doing it . If I had a bunch more discretionary income I might consider it, but the way it is I can't afford what I am already doing!!

And to the OP, don't worry about the thread being here....generally we want them to be in the correct section but it's not the end of the world having one or a few here. Thanks for your understanding too.

[tedzan]

For sheer beauty why not try for a 1953 Bowman color set. It's the shortest set of the 1950's with only 160 cards.

The Mantle and Snider are the "big $$" cards in it......and, they can be acquired for reasonable prices. I would say
the Yogi Berra card is the toughest one in this set.

You cannot beat the photographic quality of these cards....it's certainly my favorite set in the post-1950's era.


TED Z

[williamcohon]

Yeah - what Ted Z. said!!!

In the '53 Bowman set, the quality of the photography is uniformly high.

The backgrounds are fun, too. The American Leaguers were shot in Yankee Stadium; the National Leaguers were mostly shot in the Polo Grounds, with a few taken in Ebbets' Field.

When you finish building the set, and you lay the cards all out on your dining room table, you feel like you pretty well know the look of those ballparks.

I also recommend the '53 Topps set. The paintings of the players are vivid, direct, and carry a hopeful innocence. Plus you get a great Robinson, and an equally great Paige!

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by williamcohon

Yeah - what Ted Z. said!!!

In the '53 Bowman set, the quality of the photography is uniformly high.

The backgrounds are fun, too. The American Leaguers were shot in Yankee Stadium; the National Leaguers were mostly shot in the Polo Grounds, with a few taken in Ebbets' Field.

When you finish building the set, and you lay the cards all out on your dining room table, you feel like you pretty well know the look of those ballparks.

I also recommend the '53 Topps set. The paintings of the players are vivid, direct, and carry a hopeful innocence. Plus you get a great Robinson, and an equally great Paige!

In my opinion the 1953 Topps set is one of the most gorgeous ever produced.

[jasonc]

This is the one I am working on, actually I know there are some big name players in here and in the 1955 sets, but price wise if building card by card it is fairly affordable, if you are like me and don't mind some of the cards in F-VG condition.
I decided on the 1956 set as like David said some really nice 2nd, 3rd year cards here.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I would go with '56 Topps for the following reasons:

• There are no "big" rookies (unlike say the '54 or '55 Topps sets), so that keeps it more affordable.
• You also have some nice second and third year cards of players like Aaron, Koufax, Killebrew, Kaline, Banks and Clemente.
  
• Nice mantle card (maybe the best looking card in the set) after taking a 2 year break from Topps.
  
• Many, many other HOFers from the set such as Mays, T. Williams, J. Robinson, Kaline, Mathews, Spahn, Snider, Berra - probably at least 30 HOFers in the set (just guessing).
  
• Not as many cards to complete the set as in later Topps years.
  
• First year for team cards and checklists.

I could go on and on, but it's certainly my favorite set from that decade.

[toledo_mudhen]

55 Topps -

Beautiful Horizontal Design
No Mantle card to contend with
Only 206 Cards in the set
The only year that the Brooklyn Dodgers won the series
Tons of History
Take a look

[The Nasty Nati]

If the 1956 Topps is estimated to be around $1,500 to complete in Good to VGEX, what in your guys opinion would be the cost to complete a 1952 Bowman set? I really like the colors in that set, although I'm sure cards like the Mantle and Mays really ups the price of the set. I'm just curious because I hear that it's a smaller size set and it's not very popular with collectors so maybe the overall price isn't crazy (at least for a early 50's set).

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

If the 1956 Topps is estimated to be around $1,500 to complete in Good to VGEX, what in your guys opinion would be the cost to complete a 1952 Bowman set? I really like the colors in that set, although I'm sure cards like the Mantle and Mays really ups the price of the set. I'm just curious because I hear that it's a smaller size set and it's not very popular with collectors so maybe the overall price isn't crazy (at least for a early 50's set).

I had the 52 B set about 75% complete and then I recently purchased the entire set minus the Mantle for $1250....once I find a lower grade Mantle, my cost for the 52 B set will be about $1500-1600 in midgrade shape. My cost would have been the about the same if I had continued to finish the last 25% of the 52 B set via buying small lots and singles. The $1500 for a GD-VGEX 56 set is spot on as that is what it cost me to originally build my 56 T set in that shape. Over the years I have upgraded my 56 set significantly.

[GoudeyGum]

I vote 1950 Bowman, unless you can swing the 51 Bowman Mantle, if you can go with 51 bowman. 49Bowman is another option, but the 50 set is more aesthetic in my opinion, and 51 even more so.