Starting up a New Set

I just completed my 1966 set and got a little worn out from the high numbers and SPs. I have already completed 1965 and 1968. I have decided to take an easier route on my next set and am currently deciding between 1964 and 1969.

I already have a few 1964s (about 72) but seem to see 1969 cards a little more frequently available at low prices in higher grade condition.

Are there any factors to consider that may not be readily apparent? I have read reviews that both are generally considered easy to assemble.

I have attached a few pictures of the 1966 for viewing.

[KCRfan1]

Between the 1964 and 1969 sets, I love the 1969 set. Reggie Jackson rookie card and Mantle's last card. Iconic Johnny Bench card. The card is uncluttered with rich colors. One of my favorite sets.

I don't know how old you are, but have you considered a set from the year you were born?

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Between the 1964 and 1969 sets, I love the 1969 set. Reggie Jackson rookie card and Mantle's last card. Iconic Johnny Bench card. The card is uncluttered with rich colors. One of my favorite sets.

I don't know how old you are, but have you considered a set from the year you were born?

Those are definite factors. I was born in 1970 and I still need 1970-1972. However, I intend to buy 1970 to 1972 in completed form. I may chip away at both 1964 and 1969 though I am fearful of working on two sets at a time as it can get quite costly.

[JollyElm]

Here are a couple of random thoughts. Overall, the 1969 set is beautiful and vibrant (an autograph collector's dream), and the lack of problematic high numbers makes completing it a heckuva lot easier than some other years. On the downside, Topps reused so many images from previous years and there is a ridiculously large number of capless or airbrushed cap head shots. 1964 has a 'hidden' problem that a lot of people sort of forget about. Not only do you have to find nice looking fronts, but you also need to pay particular attention to the backs of the cards to avoid picking up ones that have been scratched off, so to speak.

[ALR-bishop]

Shon-- congrats on finishing 1966. The cards you posted are gorgeous... and unencumbered by plastic prisons

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Shon-- congrats on finishing 1966. The cards you posted are gorgeous... and unencumbered by plastic prisons

Yes, always in the binder.

[darkhorse9]

I've completed both 64 and 69 and found 1964 to be one of the most boring sets to put together. I couldn't wait to get done with it. There's nothing that stands out about it.

I adore the 69 set because it was the first one I remembered from my childhood.

The set isn't expensive despite the Jackson and Mantle. There are a bunch of variations that aren't expensive, save for the white letters.

Plus it's the only set that had legitimate Seattle Pilots cards.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

A good friend of mine is about 20 cards from finishing '64 Topps. In looking through it, I have a hard time mustering any real excitement or enthusiasm for it. That set is just very blah to me. Best of luck with whatever you decide. It is your collection and doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. Do what makes you happy. Honestly, I just can't get excited any longer about much of anything from the 1960s Topps sets. There are a few exceptions, but there is just so much good stuff in the 1950s that can be had affordably with patience...

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

A good friend of mine is about 20 cards from finishing '64 Topps. In looking through it, I have a hard time mustering any real excitement or enthusiasm for it. That set is just very blah to me. Best of luck with whatever you decide. It is your collection and doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. Do what makes you happy. Honestly, I just can't get excited any longer about much of anything from the 1960s Topps sets. There are a few exceptions, but there is just so much good stuff in the 1950s that can be had affordably with patience...

I will eventually get them all. 1957 was a consideration as well but I decided that I needed to focus on filling out the 60s and the 3 remaining sets from the 70s.

1957 is on the radar due to Brooks Robinson RC (who is is my all time favorite player). When I start on 1957 it will be my first set from the 50s. I have done some preliminary calculation on what it will cost for me to assemble 1957 in my desired condition and have decided to wait a little while longer. I am leaning towards knocking out 1969 at this time, primarily due to the factors mentioned above. I will probably pick up a few 1964s here and there to provide a foundation in the future.

I decided to go with working on 1969. Will tackle all HOF cards while waiting for the right deal on a commons lot.

I have already acquired 10 of the HOFs and anticipate that this set will fall in far below the total spend of the 1966 and 1965.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by sfh24

I have attached a few pictures of the 1966 for viewing.

Nice sharp corners on those '66s. Very cool. I have never been able to bring myself to pay that much for a Gaylord Perry card, LOL.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Honestly, I just can't get excited any longer about much of anything from the 1960s Topps sets.

Funny. I felt more this way about '60s cards as a kid collecting in the late 80's (I was born in '77). Ironically back then I didn't think that cards especially from the late 60's were "old enough." I was enamored with the 1950's and the Brooklyn Dodgers and stuff like that, so went mostly after lower grade 50's stars. Only recently have I started to realize that sets that are older than I am by a full decade might still have some appeal. So I have decided to go after '67 (yeah, I know...) since it's my favorite set of the decade. Yes, I realize I'll be on here a decade from now complaining that the high numbers are killing me...

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Funny. I felt more this way about '60s cards as a kid collecting in the late 80's (I was born in '77). Ironically back then I didn't think that cards especially from the late 60's were "old enough." I was enamored with the 1950's and the Brooklyn Dodgers and stuff like that, so went mostly after lower grade 50's stars. Only recently have I started to realize that sets that are older than I am by a full decade might still have some appeal. So I have decided to go after '67 (yeah, I know...) since it's my favorite set of the decade. Yes, I realize I'll be on here a decade from now complaining that the high numbers are killing me...

Lol, John. I am sure I will come back around. I bounce all over the place. Right now I am getting back to baseball after buying a fair amount of 1960s football over the last several months. Then there was a prewar baseball phase...ouch! However, before all of that, it was 1950s baseball for me. I need a couple of cards to finish off a '54 Topps set and will upgrade a bit. I have a couple of more HOF rookies I want from the 50s, and some of the 52 and 53 Bowmans are calling my name!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Then there was a prewar baseball phase...ouch!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I've stayed away from pre-war for the most part (with a very brief foray into T212 Obaks) because on the whole, I know I was born too late to get any of those cards at any type of deals. And while I'm ok with VG for 1950's Topps sets, I doubt I would get much satisifaction putting together a set of F-P tobacco cards. Maybe if I had been a decade older and started collecting cards and going to shows in 1976 instead of '86, but alas...by the time I found out what vintage cards even were (and immediately started drooling, hooked for life) the secret was out and stuff was already starting to be worth big money. Today my interests stay mostly around when my father was a kid in the 1950's and 60's. Maybe the Silver Age of baseball - if we consider the Ruthian era of the 20's and 30's the Golden Era...but at any rate, before cards and collectors were self-aware, and anything was particularly thought of as "valuable." If anyone finds that Delorian time machine...please let me know.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I've stayed away from pre-war for the most part (with a very brief foray into T212 Obaks) because on the whole, I know I was born too late to get any of those cards at any type of deals. And while I'm ok with VG for 1950's Topps sets, I doubt I would get much satisifaction putting together a set of F-P tobacco cards. Maybe if I had been a decade older and started collecting cards and going to shows in 1976 instead of '86, but alas...by the time I found out what vintage cards even were (and immediately started drooling, hooked for life) the secret was out and stuff was already starting to be worth big money. Today my interests stay mostly around when my father was a kid in the 1950's and 60's. Maybe the Silver Age of baseball - if we consider the Ruthian era of the 20's and 30's the Golden Era...but at any rate, before cards and collectors were self-aware, and anything was particularly thought of as "valuable." If anyone finds that Delorian time machine...please let me know.

That's funny because my pre-war phase was all about Obaks, too. Like you, I wish I had discovered some of that stuff a little sooner. I was born in 1973, and by the time I figured things out, it was a little too late. I accumulated about 60 of those T 212s before I sold them off and got back to the 1950s where things make sense. After all, when you are born in the 1970s, the 1950s appear to be pretty ancient anyway.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

After all, when you are born in the 1970s, the 1950s appear to be pretty ancient anyway.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

That was definitely my theory. I found an antique store in my hometown that was selling 1954 Topps, 1955 Bowman, and some other 60's cards in about 1987. At the time I hadn't seen a card in person that was older than 1985, so I jumped in pretty hard. The cards being sold by the way, belonged to former Milwaukee Braves 2nd or 3rd string catcher Paul Burris - who was a local. He also had some cards "for display" in that shop but not for sale - some Goudey's and other things - which I remember pretty vividly.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Nice sharp corners on those '66s. Very cool. I have never been able to bring myself to pay that much for a Gaylord Perry card, LOL.

I actually got the Galylord Perry as a BVG 7 and popped the slab. I think I got it for about $72 which I feel was a very good price (especially being graded). I initially expected to spend >$100 for the Perry. Several of the cards in the set are former graded cards popped from their slabs.

Paying for the Perry was much easier than coughing up the price for cards such as "Choo Choo Coleman, Horace Clarke, Tigers/Twins team card, and Grant Jackson".

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by sfh24

I actually got the Galylord Perry as a BVG 7 and popped the slab. I think I got it for about $72 which I feel was a very good price (especially being graded). I initially expected to spend >$100 for the Perry. Several of the cards in the set are former graded cards popped from their slabs.

Nice. I haven't officially decided to "do" the set yet, but since I am a Cubs fan I did spring for the '66 SP Billy Williams earlier this summer in a PSA 6.5. Sticker price was $75, but I used some ebay coupons to shave a good deal more off of that.

Would agree with you that is a good price for Gaylord. Those who have PSA 7's and above at BIN prices on eBay want way more than that.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Funny. I felt more this way about '60s cards as a kid collecting in the late 80's (I was born in '77). Ironically back then I didn't think that cards especially from the late 60's were "old enough." I was enamored with the 1950's and the Brooklyn Dodgers and stuff like that, so went mostly after lower grade 50's stars. Only recently have I started to realize that sets that are older than I am by a full decade might still have some appeal. So I have decided to go after '67 (yeah, I know...) since it's my favorite set of the decade. Yes, I realize I'll be on here a decade from now complaining that the high numbers are killing me...

After my experience with 1966, I was scared away from 1967. The thought of having all of the high number pain from 1966 with Tom Seaver and Rod Carew on top was more than I could bare.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by sfh24

The thought of having all of the high number pain from 1966 with Tom Seaver and Rod Carew on top was more than I could bare.

Yeah, I'm trying not to think about it. I think with Christmas and birthday money this coming year, I'm going to start a fund to eventually get the Seaver. The Carew won't be that bad, but even beat-up Seavers have pretty hefty price tags. Getting a PSA 5 (what the rest of my set will likely average) for less than 5 or 6 bills is going to be a chore. Oh well, plenty to go with the low numbers before I get into that territory...

[quitcrab]

I like the 64 set and I am currently working on it. I love the photography and the Basic simple layout of the cards. I like how the players head breaks the top border and I love that baby blue and green ink used on the team names. The set has some cool cards with two players on them and Beautiful team cards. The Mantle is great ! His arms look huge.
1969 is a great set too. There isn't much from the 60s that I dont' like.
I have about 50 nice commons if your interested. I would be interested in your 64s too !!

Scott

[frankbmd]

White letters