Topps Coins

[ALR-bishop]

This topic could go in post 1980 as well. Anyone else collect any of these ? I have the following sets
1956
1964
1967 & 68 Discs---do they qualify
1971
1980...Test Issue
1987
1989
1988
1990

The 1956 set may not qualify as a coin set, and is usually referred to as a Pin set. I quit collecting all the Topps issues listed in SCD after 1994, so not sure if and how many coin issues there were after that.

I really liked the 64 issue, which had a few good variations. It was also cool that the 71 set had it's checklist included in the regular Topps set as card # 161

[Bestdj777]

I have a handful of the 64s. The test discs do not count! (I am going to repeat that as much as possible until someone gifts me a set of them or I start to actually believe it). The coins are cool pieces but a bit of a pain to store.

[brob28]

I have about 20 or so of the '71 coins Al. Have been tempted on a few occassions to buy large lots of '71's and '64s to start the journey at local auctions. But there has always been something else that has spoken for my collecting money! My interest/curiosity disappears after the '71's.

[Gr8Beldini]

71 Topps were the first cards I collected (7 years old at the time) and particularly loved the coins that came with the packs. The ones I still have from my childhood are of course scuffed and dented. A few years back I decided to put a clean set together. I am one coin away from completion. I still need the toughest coin in the set. People will tell you that Bobby Murcer is the toughest. He isn't close. By far the toughest coin to find is Leo Cardenas. The interesting thing I've learned by putting this set together is that the yellow rimmed coins are, in no uncertain terms, much tougher than the other colors. Beautiful set to look at in the pages when they are centered and free of the rim wear.

[ALR-bishop]

Any idea why that one is tougher than the others ?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1971-TOPPS-C...item35d5e61425

Here is the last page of my 71 set which has the Cardenes. The last two on the page are print defects I added

[Exhibitman]

I'm glad you bought these up. People forget that Topps issued some great metal inserts over the years. I picked up some Argentinean metal issues and was surprised at how people thought they were so strange when Topps had a history of metal 'coin' issues that predated the Argentinean items by a decade.

The 1964s are before my era so I am not interested in a set. I picked up the players in 1964 I collect [Koufax and Aaron] plus a handful of others that were in miscellaneous lots over the years.

The 1971s are a first major pack ripping memory for me too, so I have a sentimental friendliness towards the issue. I have a near set but am in no great hurry to fill it, being as I have my idol Hammering Hank already. I've been getting them at the national every year out of 'junk' boxes very cheaply, so I am content to work the set gradually in the hope that I will end up 'into' it for very little money. Got a nice Cardenas somehow...didn't know it was a toughie.

The other set I'd mention in conjunction with the Topps coins is the 1965 Old London issue. They were made by Space Magic Ltd., the company that did the 1964 and 1971 Topps coins, so they are the same basic design and manufacturing quality, but quite a bit tougher than the Topps counterparts. There are only 40 coins [2 per team except 3 for the Cards and 1 Met] and there are many superstars, but no Koufax. They used Tommy Davis and Ron Fairly as the Dodgers players...weird considering Koufax, Wills and Drysdale were the big stars. Contract issues perhaps? At least there are Aaron, Mantle and Mays coins. They all have blue rims and backgrounds [my favorite color] so I like them as much or more than the comparable Topps coins.



FWIW, the 15 pocket pages from Ultra Pro fit the coins perfectly without any coin holders. For my superstar collection I like the self-adhesive coin holders so there are no unsightly staples visible.

Not a test issue they never made it to production for test market. Here is the Presentation Board the only one so far, if I remember correctly there are only 12 coins known to exist

[nolemmings]

Thanks for showing those Old London's Adam. I always thought those were great looking, and I prefer the uniform, one-color background for all. Just a shame they did not make a larger set-- I've always been kind of biased against small sets that lack a good representation of the common player.

[Mark70Z]

Personally I really like the coins. I don't really collect them as a set, but I do collect the coins w/Brooks pictured. I believe I have them all, but have relatively recently started to try to upgrade since most of the one's I had when I was young and aren't in the greatest shape.

I really like the look of the Old London coins, which Adam posted, the best. I just think they have a clean look about them.

[Collectorsince62]

I love the '64 Topps coins. I spent quite a bit of time a few years ago putting together a NM set. To me they are like the '71 Topps cards - you see so many that are rough, and when a really nice one shows up, it just stands out by comparison. Same way with the '64 coins. So many are tarnished or otherwise worn, but when a great one comes along it really shines.

I don't have the same passion for the '71 Topps coins so they're just resting comfortably in a box, not in holders. The comment about the Cardenas being tough made me curious. Out of about 200 coins I had three of Cardenas. One was really off center but the other two were OK. One man's rarity is another man's common.