Has a Set Grown on You Over Time?

[Exhibitman]

Most definitely. 1952 Topps. I never really cared for it; I was a 1954 guy. I grew to appreciate it over time. Unfortunately, I came to appreciate it too late in the game to get a Mantle card.

There are probably more sets I've come to dislike over time, like 1975 Topps, which annoys the heck out of me. I mean, they couldn't even make all the players from each time the same colors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

52 Topps definitely.

[wdwfan]

I've always hated the oversized sets. I'm very CDO, and I don't like the way they look in toploaders. But today I picked up a couple of 56s, and I bought 2 54s earlier this week. So they're starting to grow on me.

I like the sets because they're not as big as something from the late 1950s, early 1960s. I think it'll be a bit easier to build these larger sets. Now if there were only a way to store them in pages. They don't fit in the 9 pockets, and you can't use regular toploaders because you can't use a penny sleeve. So not sure how to store them.

[PolarBear]

I had to think through this for awhile but ultimately, I still like what I originally liked. Nothing really grew on me. I can see why you hated the 60 set though.

[jchcollins]

For me, '72 Topps. When I first started collecting they were only 14 years old, and I remember thinking they were overdone and gaudy. Of course this was before any sense of nostalgia for the 70's had developed. I remember having the Clemente base card as a kid and thinking that was cool, but moreso for the picture than the design.

Fast forward 30+ years and I think they are incredible. Rarely has a set captured an era so well (honorable mention to '59 Topps...) and the color and variety of these cards now strikes me as beautiful over gaudy. The Yaz, McCovey, Ryan, Carew, and Carlton Traded cards are my favs. I am going after the whole set, but have just started - have maybe close to 75 cards out of the monster 787.

[bb66]

My buying cards years as a child were 64-68.My favorite set was 1965 and least liked was easily 1964.However I have grown to like those 64's a lot.
I have completed in near mint raw the 1965 & 1966 sets. Working on the high number 1967's(tough). I will finish 1964 after the 67's.
I love the look of the 1963 & 1960 sets.

[PolarBear]

72 Topps, while I agree it captures the 70's era feel, always reminds me of a theater marquee.

[Tere1071]

Originally Posted by bb66

My buying cards years as a child were 64-68.My favorite set was 1965 and least liked was easily 1964.However I have grown to like those 64's a lot.
I have completed in near mint raw the 1965 & 1966 sets. Working on the high number 1967's(tough). I will finish 1964 after the 67's.
I love the look of the 1963 & 1960 sets.

In the 70s I had maybe about 200 each of the 64 and 65 sets. The 64 set was ho-hum while the 65 set seemed more dynamic with its pennant. After collecting the Heritage version of each my opinion has changed, I enjoy the simplicity of the 64 design. I find that the image stands out more boldly than that of the 65 design. I'm not knocking the 65 design, it's nice, but I've grown to like the 64 version more.

One set that I did like as a kid was the 72 Topps, I bought the cards from the packs, but I was never able to complete it. It still has its appeal, but I no longer would need to have that design as part of my collection. Likewise the glossy version of cards that became popular in the 80s, Topps Tiffany sets come to mind now appear gaudy to me. I got rid of them in the early 90s, so the rise in price doesn't affect me, but I wouldn't purchase them again at their original price point.

[Tere1071]

Originally Posted by bb66

My buying cards years as a child were 64-68.My favorite set was 1965 and least liked was easily 1964.However I have grown to like those 64's a lot.
I have completed in near mint raw the 1965 & 1966 sets. Working on the high number 1967's(tough). I will finish 1964 after the 67's.
I love the look of the 1963 & 1960 sets.

I was indifferent towards the 64 set for years, but when I started collecting its Heritage version (2013) I found that I really liked the simplicity of the design, the color registration, and the way that the images pop out. On the other hand, I began to dislike the 65s whereas I used to think they were a great design. They are, but the set has lost its appeal.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

I've always hated the oversized sets. I'm very CDO, and I don't like the way they look in toploaders. But today I picked up a couple of 56s, and I bought 2 54s earlier this week. So they're starting to grow on me.

I like the sets because they're not as big as something from the late 1950s, early 1960s. I think it'll be a bit easier to build these larger sets. Now if there were only a way to store them in pages. They don't fit in the 9 pockets, and you can't use regular toploaders because you can't use a penny sleeve. So not sure how to store them.

They make 8 pocket pages that fit the 1952-56 Topps cards.

[Vintagevault13]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

I've always hated the oversized sets. I'm very CDO, and I don't like the way they look in toploaders. But today I picked up a couple of 56s, and I bought 2 54s earlier this week. So they're starting to grow on me.



I like the sets because they're not as big as something from the late 1950s, early 1960s. I think it'll be a bit easier to build these larger sets. Now if there were only a way to store them in pages. They don't fit in the 9 pockets, and you can't use regular toploaders because you can't use a penny sleeve. So not sure how to store them.

Ultra Pro makes makes vintage toploaders/sleeves for 52-56 Topps if you want to go that route.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wdwfan]

Thanks for the heads up. I will have to check them out. Do they go horizontal (I'm assuming so) vs. vertical? I really like the vertical pages. I asked my LCS about these pages on Saturday, and they didn't know what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Jim65

They make 8 pocket pages that fit the 1952-56 Topps cards.

I will check these out too. Will they still fit into a 2-row shoebox? That is how I have my vintage stored at this point, and it's separated by year. As long as they still fit into that 2-row, I might give them a try.

Originally Posted by Vintagevault13

Ultra Pro makes makes vintage toploaders/sleeves for 52-56 Topps if you want to go that route.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cubman1941]

I agree with the 52 Topps. i hated them when they first came out so ignored them. Started on the 53's and 54's then life got in the way and when I returned my mother had tossed all my cards out. Restarted again in 76 but still didn't like the 52's and passed on all except my Cubs. Monday morning quarterbacking is great but if I had only got all those 52's when I had the chance and all the others I passed on because I was a "Cub" collector.

[egri]

For me, I’ve had it go both ways. I used to not like the 1965 or 1966, but they have grown on me over time. Still not my favorites, but I like them a lot more now. OTOH, the 1961s and 1967s I’ve really cooled on over the years. In the former, I don’t like the photography as much as I used to, and the latter just looks like a low-effort ripoff of the 1957 design. And the facsimile signatures look bad on autographed cards.

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

There are probably more sets I've come to dislike over time, like 1975 Topps, which annoys the heck out of me. I mean, they couldn't even make all the players from each time the same colors.

Agree about 1975. I like them because I'm nostalgic (one of first cards I collected as a kid), but who took those pictures?! The shadows across the faces of prominent cards... I know little or nothing about photography, but I know enough not to position the subject with the sun behind him. Jim Palmer, Tom Seaver & Reggie Jackson are ruined as well as Don Baylor, Rusty Staub, Felix Millan (etc. etc.). Also, the picture they used for the most prominent player in the set at the time - new HR champ Hank Aaron - was bizarre. They couldn't find a better photo than THAT to airbrush?