1950's Topps Power Rankings

[Archive]

Posted By: JohnnyH

What order do you rank the 1950's Topps sets. I imagine 1952 is very high on everyones list but lets find out. Here is mine and why-

1. 1958 - Last to capture the fab 50's, last Ted Williams card, Classic Mick, first All-star cards and 1st time Stan Musial is on a Topps card. My alltime favorite Topps set

2. 1954 - Set starts and ends with Ted Williams , Rc of Hank Aaron, classic design
3. 1956- Greatest card of Mantle ever, last Jackie Robinson, killer design
4. 1955- Clemente and Koufax RC, beautiful cards
5. 1953- Great Looking cards
6. 1952- You already know !!!!!!
7. 1957- 1st issue at current standard size, first combo cards, crisp photos
8. 1951- The year it all started
9. 1959- Never really cared for this set but it has grown on me a little

[Archive]

Posted By: Doug

This is a fun idea. Here's my list:

1. 1952 (it's classic)
2. 1957 (great assortment of players and a simple, yet appealing design)
3. 1956 (great looking backgrounds)
4. 1953 (each card is like a miniature painting)
5. 1955 (simple looking cards with great color)
6. 1954 (some cards are classic, but the lime green background cards don't look too hot)
7. 1959 (mediocre design, some unappealing background colors like the pink ones)
8. 1958 (overall design just looks bland IMO)

[Archive]

Posted By: jim

I would put the king ('52) at the top but lump the 53-56 run as #2. Then the '57 - '59 in order. There is something wonderful about the big issue Topps from the best 5 year run for any sportscard issue. I am missing one card from having complete sets of the 5 year wonder run (#311). The '52 is graded but the other 4 years are placed in binders. No head cases in any of these runs, just good hardnosed ballplayers who worked jobs in the offseason and treated fans/kids with kindness. What it must have been to be a New Yorker living back in those days.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

I agree with Jim -- I would put 1952 first, then 1953, but then I would choose 1956 as the best of the 1954-1956 run. I like the detailed artwork in the backgrounds, the team cards, and the fact that Mickey Mantle is in the set. I think 1957 is a bit drab actually, but it is noteworthy for being the set that established the standard card size that remains to the present day. It's all good!

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

I didn't collect during the '50s (I was pretty much a pre-embryo at the time), so all of the cards from those years were acquired while I was an adult. I'd have to rank them as follows:

1956 - I used to not like this set, but that's before I really took a good look at them. Incredible color and fantastic background pictures are what does it for me.
1957 - Some cards are muddy and washed out, but the ones with good color and crisp images more than make up for the bad ones (i.e., Reds, Phillies, and Yankees [except for Mantle]). Clean, simple design and classic images.
1952 - Some cheesy pictures and bizarre colors, but it's still an incredible set.
1955 - Close to the '56 set, but not enough cards to move it up in the ranking.
1958 - I used to dislike the solid color backgrounds, but it's growing on me. I have a feeling that this one will be in the top three before I'm done (i.e., dead).
1954 - Not my favorite set, but it's not as bad as I used to think. I love the two Williams cards and the big-three rookies.
1959 - Cards look great when centered in high grade, but I've never really liked the circle thing or the solid colored background.
1953 - I kinda don't like it.
1951 - Ditto. I like the Connie Macks and the Major League All-Stars, but not the red or blue backs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

1. 1952 --important historically, classic looking
2. 1956 --probably the best looking, along w/'55s
3. 1955 --would be as nice or better than '56s but for player selection
4. 1957 --photography, while not always consistent, makes this one, along with great stadium backdrops
5. 1953 --neat artwork, probably appreciated more later after kids got spoiled on real photography from '52
6. 1954 --great promise but player selection sorely lacked--they're lucky they hit on those three rookies
7. 1951 --too small in card and set size, like the thicker stock though
8. 1958 --clean but somewhat uninspired design
9. 1959 --design is too busy, not enough space devoted to photos

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

1954 (Banks, Aaron, Kaline RCs hard to beat)
1957 (love the simplicity in design)
1956
1955
1953
1952 (good thing for my wallet that I don't really like these)
1958 (just terrible all the way around, haven't found any I like)
1959 (really hate the design, but a fun collection of multiplayer cards)

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Love 'em all but in order

1.1955
2.1957
3.1956
4.1952
5.1959
6.1954
7.1953
8.1958
9.1951

[Archive]

Posted By: JDRUM

Mine would be:

1. 1952 - clearly the king to me, classic design, important cards, hi #'s
2. 1954 - classic design and important cards
3. 1957
4. 1953
5. 1955
6. 1956
7. 1959
8. 1958 - poor quality paper
9. 1951 - Red/Blue Backs

I would also add that I like the 1959 Bazooka (Topps) set as well as most of the preceeding list.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

1)1952 classic yet crude design
2)1957 washed out look captures the feel of the decade
3)1958 57 photos with color
4)1956
5)1954
6)1955
7)1959
8)1953 too many portraits
9)1951