1955 set advice needed

[Vintagevault13]

I have read the great advice given on a couple of recent threads in which someone is trying to decide between two sets from different years. I am looking forwarding to getting similar advice, but my dilemma is a little different. Let me explain. My goal is to have a complete set from each decade (50's - present). I am not doing this with investment in mind. Rather, I want sets that truly represent the decade. I have decided to collect the "5" years (1955, 1965, 1975 and so on due to my ever-worsening OCD, lol). In addition, the 10-year intervals seem to show the transition of stars, uniforms, etc. I have 1975 - current and about 1/2 of the 1965 set. I love the 65 and 75 sets because, besides being great sets, they have a look that embodies their respective decades IMO. This brings me to 1955. I am looking to start the set and always planned on collecting Topps. Now that I am at this point, however, I am not so sure. The Bowman "color TV" set screams 1950's to me. In addition, the inclusion of the Mantle card makes it attractive. I know the set is not generally well-regarded and should be less expensive than the Topps. I also love the 55 Topps and feel as if they are the best-looking Topps set of the 50's. Please share your thoughts and keep in mind that the 1955 set I collect will consist of mid-grade, raw cards.

Thanks in advance for sharing your opinions and knowledge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brewing]

If not for the cards of Koufax, Clemente, & Killebrew the Bowman set could compete with its Topps counterpart. Topps has the rookies and more stars.
Outside of the Mantle and being unique I rank the Bowman as clearly inferior.

[ALR-bishop]

For me it would be the Topps set, but I am a Topps collector. The only Bowman set I did was the 53 Color. But if you do a goggle search for "SCD 1955 Bowman set" it will turn a a fairly recent SCD article on that set which is very favorable for many of the reasons you mentioned. I can post a link to it when I have access to my regular computer

http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co...of-1955-bowman

And here is a link to an earlier SCD article on the Topps set

http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co...psBaseball.pdf

[MikeGarcia]

...if money is an issue , then the Bowman set is the pick.......if you're rolling in the deep , get both....if you absolutely have to stay raw cards in mid-grade then you'll probably get a lot of bargains cracking out 5's and 6's..... keep us posted , eh ?

[chris6net]

I prefer the Bowman set
CN

[buchner]

Originally Posted by chris6net

I prefer the Bowman set
CN

+1

[Econteachert205]

To me the Clemente is just too important to ignore. Bowman not having ted williams and topps not having mantle cancel each other out for me. Plus Koufax, Killebrew... I don't need to buy a lot of umpires either. Give me topps.

[NateMack]

I vote for the Topps set, off teh top of my head Jackie Robinson, along with the above stated koufax, Clemente, and Killebrew RC. Also I think Ted Williams was a Topps only guy in 55.

So do the 55 Topps set and get a 56 Mantle or a 53 Mantle to fill in the no Mantle gap.

Of course you could fight off the OCD fix and do the 56 Topps set which has all the stars!

[buchner]

I have always loved the 55 Bowmans, you can't beat the photography. Too many cards to list, but how can anyone not like the cards of Aaron, Mays, Reese, etc. The 55 topps more or less look the same.

[almostdone]

Originally Posted by NateMack

Of course you could fight off the OCD fix and do the 56 Topps set which has all the stars!

Except Musial.
Drew

[MikeGarcia]

.... Bob L. could make you one without even breaking a sweat.....by this time tomorrow.

[ALR-bishop]

I think there already may be a fantasy 56 Musial . Maybe from one of the Nationals

[ValKehl]

I say collect both sets since you say, "Rather, I want sets that truly represent the decade," and neither set fully represents the decade. Or, as an alternative, pick one of the sets to complete, and then pick up the cards of players from the other set that don't appear in the set you choose to complete.

IMHO, the 1955 Topps set is nowhere near the best looking Topps set of the 1950's. And, I do like the 1955 Bowmans better than 1955 Topps as far as looks are concerned. Furthermore, my 2 favorite Senators when I was a kid, Pete Runnels & Mickey Vernon, are in the Bowman set, but not the Topps set.
Val

[1963Topps Set]

I say go with the 1955 Topps set. The Killebrew rookie is quite affordable, one of the most underrated rookies. Clemente will cost you, but if you are patient and are willing to ferret out the proper deals, you can find one. The '55 Topps set is big, bold, colorful and a wonderful compliment to the Rockin' '50s!

[Griffins]

yeah, I'd be a bit flexible and go for '56.
'45 will be a problem as well, suspect you'll end up with '41 Playball.

[1963Topps Set]

The 1956 Topps set is my all time favorite set from any time frame of any company. This was the first set to feature checklist cards and team cards.

[hcv123]

if it was just choose one - Topps all the way (of course the fact that I am a HUGE Clemente collector influences that choice). Imo the topps set is a btter visual representation of the 1950's. Some options:

1) Collect the Topps set and get the 55 Bowman Mantle
2) Collect the Boman set and get the Topps Clemente, Koufax and Killebrew rookies.
3) As previously suggested - do the 1956 Topps set - It is at least as good (imo) visual representation of the 50's and has a better player representation.

Happy collecting!

[PowderedH2O]

Since you are trying to represent eras as best you can, here's how I would look at it: If you collect the 1965 Topps set, you will have a Clemente, Koufax, and Clemente in your collection. But, you will not have a Campanella, Lemon, Rizzuto, Reese, or Feller if you avoid the Bowman, and you'll not get the Williams or Robinson if you avoid the Topps. You can collect them both (which I would recommend). Or, you could deviate and go up one year to 1956 and you can have it all.

[almostdone]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

Or, you could deviate and go up one year to 1956 and you can have it all.

Except Musial