NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

View Poll Results: Worst Topps Design 1952-1976
1958 Topps 25 23.15%
1962 Topps 13 12.04%
1965 Topps 6 5.56%
1968 Topps 33 30.56%
1974 Topps 31 28.70%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-29-2019, 07:53 AM
iwantitiwinit's Avatar
iwantitiwinit iwantitiwinit is offline
rob.ert int.rieri
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,537
Default Worst Topps Design 1952-1976

Thought I'd take a quick poll on the worst Topps design/appeal from 1952-1976 a few selections. I voted for 1965, ugh.

Last edited by iwantitiwinit; 03-29-2019 at 07:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-29-2019, 08:06 AM
orioles70's Avatar
orioles70 orioles70 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 131
Default

Topps created the standard size in 1957 and it is a beauty and one of my favorites. I recently completed it after purchasing the literal last card in rhe set...Yankee Power Hitters. But Topps must have used up all that creativity in 1957 and phoned in the 1958 and 1959 designs...take your pick...either 1958 or 1959...both are awful.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-29-2019, 11:45 AM
MarcosCards MarcosCards is offline
Marcos
member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Michigan
Posts: 49
Default Set Design

A lot of this boils down to aesthetics – and personal preference - of course. But I think the nostalgia factor also comes in to play. For me, the 1959‘s were during my collecting wheelhouse time period. They take me back in such an awesome way! Also, I like the rich background colors – except the pink. I voted for the 1974 set design - truly uninspiring.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-29-2019, 11:59 AM
Griffins Griffins is offline
Anthøny N. ex
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,120
Default

so many choices from '58-62. I think '65 is one of the best though.
'57 and '69 have decent designs but horrible photography/reproduction
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:20 PM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,304
Default

Out of those listed I'd pick '74. I think the '58 set is underrated.
__________________
T206, 1972 Topps. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-29-2019, 02:04 PM
Harliduck's Avatar
Harliduck Harliduck is offline
John O
J0hn Ot.to
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Marysville, Wa
Posts: 623
Default

I agree, I LOVE 65...one of my top sets although the high cards are not exciting like other years...

For me it's easy...58 Topps. Can't stand them. I have owned, currently owned, or worked on every set from 54 up EXCEPT the 58's. Lack of rookies, the design, the massive amount of head shots...you name it. I know one day I will have to tackle the set and I am 99% sure I will just buy it complete.

To me there isn't a bad issue in the 60's...69 being my favorite for many reasons...and I grew up on the 70s but would admit the 73 and 75s are blah. I rarely pull out those sets to look through...
__________________
John Otto


1968 - 1990 Complete
1969 Topps 661/664 (Set #3)
1967 Topps 487/609
1966 Topps 587/598
1965 Topps 519/598
1962 Topps 400/598
1961 Topps 483/589
1960 Topps 453/572
1955 Topps 205/210
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-29-2019, 02:51 PM
darkhorse9 darkhorse9 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 558
Default

How could you ignore the horrific 1964 set? It's easily one of the most boring sets ever produced by anyone
__________________
2018 Collecting goals...

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-29-2019, 03:08 PM
7nohitter's Avatar
7nohitter 7nohitter is offline
Member
And.rew Mil.ler
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: MA
Posts: 1,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse9 View Post
How could you ignore the horrific 1964 set? It's easily one of the most boring sets ever produced by anyone
I see your 1964 set and raise you the most boring set ever: 1967
__________________
Working on the 1957 Topps set.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-29-2019, 03:10 PM
Harliduck's Avatar
Harliduck Harliduck is offline
John O
J0hn Ot.to
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Marysville, Wa
Posts: 623
Default

Worst part of the 67 set is the Mantle. Imagine an iconic swinging bat pose instead of the dumb head shot with that ugly green back ground. Card would be worth twice as much with a better picture.
__________________
John Otto


1968 - 1990 Complete
1969 Topps 661/664 (Set #3)
1967 Topps 487/609
1966 Topps 587/598
1965 Topps 519/598
1962 Topps 400/598
1961 Topps 483/589
1960 Topps 453/572
1955 Topps 205/210
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-29-2019, 04:18 PM
Jim65's Avatar
Jim65 Jim65 is offline
Jam.es Braci.liano
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,102
Default

Not on the list but I always thought 73 Topps was uglier than Rosie O'Donnell
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-29-2019, 04:28 PM
7nohitter's Avatar
7nohitter 7nohitter is offline
Member
And.rew Mil.ler
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: MA
Posts: 1,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harliduck View Post
Worst part of the 67 set is the Mantle. Imagine an iconic swinging bat pose instead of the dumb head shot with that ugly green back ground. Card would be worth twice as much with a better picture.
Exactly!!! I mean it's hard to hate a Mantle card....but its my least favorite!
__________________
Working on the 1957 Topps set.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-29-2019, 04:30 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,999
Default

73
__________________
Stuff trumps all. Even tainted stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-29-2019, 09:22 PM
BearBailey BearBailey is offline
Brandon Bailey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 298
Default

1962, but having 1965 on the list is baffling, personal preferences I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-29-2019, 09:53 PM
Bigdaddy's Avatar
Bigdaddy Bigdaddy is offline
+0m J()rd@N
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BearBailey View Post
1962, but having 1965 on the list is baffling, personal preferences I guess.
Agree. I'm finishing up a '65 set and the colors just pop and the photos are so clear and in focus. Topps must have paid a premium to the printer that year.

My vote is for 1958 or 1974 for the worst design and execution.
__________________
Working Sets:
Baseball-
T206 SLers, Virginia League; 1957 Topps; 1964 Topps Giants auto'd; 1965 Topps; 1971 Topps; 1972 Topps
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-30-2019, 07:16 AM
clydepepper's Avatar
clydepepper clydepepper is offline
Raymond 'Robbie' Culpepper
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 5,221
Default

I love the '65 design!

I'd vote for the 1960 for worst.

Not a fan of either 1966 or 1972, though the later had the distinction of being original.
__________________
.
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on others lives" - Jackie Robinson


MY BIG CONCERNS ABOUT AMERICA:

Internally- We spend too much time assuring our rights without learning the responsibilities that should accompany them.
Externally - No matter how much we claim to take the higher moral ground, we have neither respected nor attempted to understand other cultures.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-30-2019, 07:47 AM
smrtn240 smrtn240 is offline
Shawn M
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim65 View Post
Not on the list but I always thought 73 Topps was uglier than Rosie O'Donnell
https://images.app.goo.gl/WyfxHDMAhJbh2ZfE9



Ouch!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-30-2019, 11:15 AM
hcv123 hcv123 is offline
Howard Chasser
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 1,471
Default interesting

How varied personal taste is. So before looking at your list. I envisioned cards from each year and came up with a list of contenders in my head. My list was 1961, 1966, 1968 and 1974. Of those, only 1968 and 1974 were on your list (which I likely would have narrowed down to anyway). It's close to me - I have memories of buying, flipping, etc. 1974's that puts them a bit higher for me - although admittedly the design leaves much to be desired (saving grace - some of the action poses). Thinking of the monotonous borders and overproduction of the 68's finally led my vote there - I see a bit more than 1/3 of voters are agreed - that's a pretty good consensus for net 54!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-30-2019, 11:30 AM
rhettyeakley's Avatar
rhettyeakley rhettyeakley is offline
Rhett Yeakley
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,165
Default

I voted 1968, a close second was 1974 (bad production quality that year as well).

I am shocked that 1965 is even in consideration and am also pretty surprised 1958 is up there as well. I mainly collect the Topps issues autographed and I don’t think they could have made a better set for that than the 1958 set. The color background makes the autograph really pop! As far as autographs go the 1975 set is my least favorite towards that end, but it is a pretty neat set in and of itself.
__________________
Check out my website www.StarsOfTheDiamond.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-30-2019, 12:33 PM
KendallCat KendallCat is offline
Ke.ith Conr@d
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 61
Default

1963 and 1967. 63 is boring and the rookie cards with the floating heads is strange imo.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-30-2019, 01:32 PM
Hxcmilkshake's Avatar
Hxcmilkshake Hxcmilkshake is offline
St@n Go.len
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 253
Default

This is like asking me to pick the kid I love the least.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-30-2019, 04:37 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhettyeakley View Post
I voted 1968, a close second was 1974 (bad production quality that year as well).

I am shocked that 1965 is even in consideration and am also pretty surprised 1958 is up there as well. I mainly collect the Topps issues autographed and I don’t think they could have made a better set for that than the 1958 set. The color background makes the autograph really pop! As far as autographs go the 1975 set is my least favorite towards that end, but it is a pretty neat set in and of itself.
I'd vote for any set that has so many diamond cuts. To me that's 69.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-30-2019, 04:41 PM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harliduck View Post
I agree, I LOVE 65...one of my top sets although the high cards are not exciting like other years...

For me it's easy...58 Topps. Can't stand them. I have owned, currently owned, or worked on every set from 54 up EXCEPT the 58's. Lack of rookies, the design, the massive amount of head shots...you name it. I know one day I will have to tackle the set and I am 99% sure I will just buy it complete.

To me there isn't a bad issue in the 60's...69 being my favorite for many reasons...and I grew up on the 70s but would admit the 73 and 75s are blah. I rarely pull out those sets to look through...
I for one have warmed up to 58. To hard to collect, like the colors, have gotten over the headshots. For me outside the diamond cut 69 set, it's 61. I have all the sets around it but I think it's drab and can't motivate myself to collect it. same with 61 fb.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-30-2019, 07:42 PM
1963Topps Set 1963Topps Set is offline
Tom
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: America
Posts: 906
Default

1969 - all of the team name are the same color - yellow. No team cards. Many capless photos due to expansion. Bland overall design.

1953 - Topps only venture into art work, YUK! The Bowman art work of 1950 - 1952 puts this to shame. I have not even attempted a 1953 Topps set because I find it so unappealing.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-30-2019, 08:52 PM
VintageVinnie VintageVinnie is offline
M.ichael Yaz.back
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 115
Default

'68 for me is just pure yuk...something about that burlap color/design..ugh!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-31-2019, 07:07 AM
Mark70Z's Avatar
Mark70Z Mark70Z is offline
M@rk Comer
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,334
Default

I just couldn’t take part in the poll since I enjoy all the designs. If I had to choose it would be ‘58 and even though I like the design I’m not much of a fan of the picture selected for the Brooksie card that year.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-31-2019, 03:29 PM
Harliduck's Avatar
Harliduck Harliduck is offline
John O
J0hn Ot.to
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Marysville, Wa
Posts: 623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark70Z View Post
I just couldn’t take part in the poll since I enjoy all the designs. If I had to choose it would be ‘58 and even though I like the design I’m not much of a fan of the picture selected for the Brooksie card that year.
I totally get that mentality on Brooksie...61 Topps takes a dent with me because the Killebrew card is so poor. I do like the set though, and am currently rebuilding...but that dang Killer card just sucks! The 58 Killer card isn't one of my favorites, but it's a decent card.
__________________
John Otto


1968 - 1990 Complete
1969 Topps 661/664 (Set #3)
1967 Topps 487/609
1966 Topps 587/598
1965 Topps 519/598
1962 Topps 400/598
1961 Topps 483/589
1960 Topps 453/572
1955 Topps 205/210
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-01-2019, 07:32 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set View Post
1969 - all of the team name are the same color - yellow. No team cards. Many capless photos due to expansion. Bland overall design.

1953 - Topps only venture into art work, YUK! The Bowman art work of 1950 - 1952 puts this to shame. I have not even attempted a 1953 Topps set because I find it so unappealing.
Agree on 1953 Topps. All the head shots are just boring. I would add 1954 Topps. It is a worse version of the 1958 set. I absolutely hate the 1952-54 Topps sets, they are the ugliest sets Topps made. Luckily they upped their game with the 1955 and 1956 Topps designs, two of the best ever, and the rest is history.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:02 AM
Fuddjcal Fuddjcal is offline
Chuck Tapia
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
Agree on 1953 Topps. All the head shots are just boring. I would add 1954 Topps. It is a worse version of the 1958 set. I absolutely hate the 1952-54 Topps sets, they are the ugliest sets Topps made. Luckily they upped their game with the 1955 and 1956 Topps designs, two of the best ever, and the rest is history.
Yeah, I especially hate the 53 Mays, 53 Mantle and 53 Robinson. About 7K worth of cards that are ugly head shots, but I sure enjoy their ugliness.

I especially hate the 54 Aaron, the 2 -54 Ted Williams and the 54 Robinson too. Very boring.. I also hate the 52 Mantle, The 52 Mays and 52 Jackie Robinson. Very ugly.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-01-2019, 12:07 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuddjcal View Post
Yeah, I especially hate the 53 Mays, 53 Mantle and 53 Robinson. About 7K worth of cards that are ugly head shots, but I sure enjoy their ugliness.

I especially hate the 54 Aaron, the 2 -54 Ted Williams and the 54 Robinson too. Very boring.. I also hate the 52 Mantle, The 52 Mays and 52 Jackie Robinson. Very ugly.
The 1952 Topps Mantle is the ugliest baseball card ever made. Who uses a yellow painted bat? When Bowman was putting out great looking sets, Topps was putting out garbage. I owned those sets and sold them because they were ugly. Collect what you like and I will do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-01-2019, 12:38 PM
Aquarian Sports Cards Aquarian Sports Cards is offline
Scott Russell
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,280
Default

1970 is the most boring set design in history
__________________
Great experience buying from edjs and mybuddyinc. Check out my ebay store, weird, eclectic, accurate, and reasonable! http://stores.ebay.com/Aquarian-Sports-Cards Also check out http://www.birminghamauctioneers.com
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-01-2019, 04:42 PM
VintageVinnie VintageVinnie is offline
M.ichael Yaz.back
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 115
Default

I don't get how you think 52-54 are ugly cards???? BUT, rats 60 says it best...the freedom to collect what you like. That's the beauty of our hobby. Everybody has different tastes, opinions, and points of view. Here, here!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-02-2019, 07:54 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VintageVinnie View Post
I don't get how you think 52-54 are ugly cards???? BUT, rats 60 says it best...the freedom to collect what you like. That's the beauty of our hobby. Everybody has different tastes, opinions, and points of view. Here, here!
The 1954 cards use black and white background photos. After the beautiful 1953 Bowman cards, the design looks ugly, cheap and lazy on Topps part. The 1953 set uses bad paintings that look like failed high school art projects and vastly inferior to the 1950-52 Bowman designs as 1963Topps Set pointed out. All just my opinion, but Topps pre 1955 was putting out inferior designs to Bowman. If you prefer these to the full color designs of 1955 and 1956 Topps that is your opinion, but mine is the 1955-56 Topps and 1950-53 Bowman blow them away.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:05 PM
Chris Counts's Avatar
Chris Counts Chris Counts is offline
Chris Counts
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 1,133
Default

I agree with those who say 1953 was the worst of all Topps sets. The design actually isn't bad, but a lack of action poses, bad artwork and borders that bleed color and chip easily make this set a clunker.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:17 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,079
Default

1973
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 40 years."
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-09-2019, 05:56 PM
55koufax 55koufax is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 12
Default Love '73 & '74

Simplicity rules!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-09-2019, 05:58 PM
55koufax 55koufax is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 12
Default 100% agreed

'67 Mantle is without a doubt the single worst Mantle card ever. I used to practically throw them in the garbage as a kid.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:54 PM
LeftHandedDane LeftHandedDane is offline
Ed Jensen
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 74
Default 1960 for Me

The only standard size card that was produced horizontally, the pictures are small and boring, the ugly black and white second cut-out photo, the ugly gold color on the back, the lack of full career statistics, coaches cards (really?) - there is just really not much to like about 1960 to me.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-04-2019, 07:00 PM
PolarBear's Avatar
PolarBear PolarBear is offline
Don
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 631
Default

58 shouldn't even be part of the discussion. It's a great set, with a "Cracker Jack" feel to it. There are better sets for sure but the 58 is no where near the worst set.

Now, the 68 burlap sack border cards, yeah, that's bad. Or the 1970 recycled newspaper borders, also pretty bad.

Someone mentioned the 73 set. It's so bad it's good. Check out Luis Alvarado playing a pick up game on a grade school field.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-04-2019, 07:22 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,999
Default

Best: 65, 57, 54, 53
Worst: 73, 68, 60
__________________
Stuff trumps all. Even tainted stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-04-2019, 08:38 PM
darwinbulldog's Avatar
darwinbulldog darwinbulldog is offline
Glenn
Glen.n Sch.ey-d
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,085
Default

'68 is bad, but '55 Bowman is worse.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:19 PM
vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is offline
D@v!d J@m3s
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Richmond, TX
Posts: 5,239
Default

Of the sets listed, '68 has to be the worst. Why did Topps change the design in the later series?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:21 PM
seanofjapan's Avatar
seanofjapan seanofjapan is offline
Sean McGinty
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Japan
Posts: 216
Default

I think design needs to be set apart from photography. The sets from the 1960s are universally bad from a photography standpoint regardless of the design. Personally I like the design of the 1962 and 1965 sets, but just get so bored looking at the posed spring training pictures that I can't get too excited about the sets.

While the sets of the early 70s you at least had the benefit of a few cards with decent in-game action photos (though most cards still had that posed spring training photo problem). So I don't mind the 1974 set that much, some cards in it have some quite striking pictures that you don't see on sets from the 60s.
__________________
My blog about collecting cards in Japan: https://baseballcardsinjapan.blogspot.jp/
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-05-2019, 12:13 AM
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 346
Default

! like the run from 1961-1967, plus 1956 and 1957 best. Worst is 1959 - way too much border. I always thought it was like looking through a periscope.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-05-2019, 01:23 AM
mintonlyplz mintonlyplz is offline
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
! like the run from 1961-1967, plus 1956 and 1957 best. Worst is 1959 - way too much border. I always thought it was like looking through a periscope.
Or 1959 is like looking through a peep hole!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:32 AM
jerrys's Avatar
jerrys jerrys is offline
Je.rry Spillm@n
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 932
Default

1959 worse - 1971 best
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:14 AM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,304
Default

I'll be unpopular and own up to liking '61 Topps. Yeah the design is anything but cutting-edge, and the capless photos are boring, but for trying to collect a set from that era I think it's one of the more reasonable ones, and it's loaded with Hall of Famers. If the base cards are standard at best, Topps outdid themselves with the All Star cards in the high series, which IMO is one of the coolest designs ever.
__________________
T206, 1972 Topps. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:39 AM
BillP BillP is offline
Bill par.sons
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 103
Default

Interesting reading on peoples preferences.

For me:

Best in no particular order: 67 63 66 54 58

warming up to: 64 62 57 65 59

Not in the mix: 61, 60, 73,74, 72

I have 57-68 sets except 61. Just can't get excited about it and I've tried.

bill
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:50 AM
mouschi's Avatar
mouschi mouschi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 570
Default

I know this poll is over, but 1974 and it isn't even close
__________________
Tanner Jones - Author, Confessions of a Baseball Card Addict - Available on Amazon
www.TanManBaseballFan.com
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:56 AM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,304
Default

It's also interesting to me how my tastes have changed. When I first discovered old cards as a kid, I hated 1972 Topps. Of course at the time they were only about 14-15 years old, and any sense of nostalgia that we have now about the 1970's had not yet developed. Today I think the '72s are awesome and it's one of my favorite sets of all-time.
__________________
T206, 1972 Topps. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-06-2019, 02:47 PM
kailes2872's Avatar
kailes2872 kailes2872 is offline
Kev1n @1les
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pittsburgh Area
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darwinbulldog View Post
'68 is bad, but '55 Bowman is worse.
I know that the 55 Bowman has its flaws, but I think that having color TV sets for cards in the 50's is pretty cool. Color TV was a new phenomenon and it was very cutting edge. It would be like a manufacturer doing an Iphone card in 2009.

I have told the kids that when I go, they can do with them what they would like. My 13 year old daughter usually just seems my collection as something that gets in the way of her building her wardrobe or shoe collection. However, I asked her which ones were her favorites and what she would want. She did not hesitate when she said '55 Bowman (or as she calls it, the TV cards), and 62 Topps.

I don't much care for '70, '73, '74, '64, '66, '68, and '69.

I am meh on '67, '61, '60, 58, 59, '52, and '53

I like '62, '71, '72 (birth year, holds a special place), and '57 (because the
pictures all look so dark).

I love '54 (I like the background colors), '55, 63, and '65

My favorite of all time will always be '56. It had the best player selection, the action shots (Mantle, Clemente) were awesome. 34 HOFers out of 340 cards. It was as if Topps was at their creative apex after battling Bowman for the past 5 years. The rookies are light, but that helps keep the cost down. If it had Musial, it might be perfect.

I need to start on 52 Topps soon as it is the last one left for me and I am having trouble getting excited. I don't like them all that much and they are expensive which is a bad combination.
__________________
2019 Collecting Goals:

1949 Bowman Baseball

1972/73 and 1971/72 Topps Basketball

1970-1977 Topps Football
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
T205 design vs T80 design question ? tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 27 08-19-2018 07:21 PM
Worst Topps card 1952-1979 jason.1969 Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 37 11-09-2015 09:16 PM
1968 Topps Baseball Design onlyvintage62 Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 42 03-21-2013 11:25 AM
Question about the design of 1958 Topps Gary Dunaier Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 2 03-12-2011 04:06 PM
My vote for worst slab design Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 9 12-20-2005 11:39 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08 AM.


ebay GSB