Help Me Pick my Next Set

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by skelly423

Thanks for the suggestions. I think the 1953 Bowmans are great cards. It bothers me that the big stars (Williams, Mays, Robinson) aren't included, but that's unavoidable with 1950s baseball (I keep a '49 Bowman Paige and Musial with my 1950 set just so it feels more complete).

I had circled the 1956 Topps as a possibility, I think I'll give it a closer look.

Given your notes I would agree with the 1956 Topps set. 340 cards, good representation of the stars and semi stars...no expensive rookie cards (Aparicio is oddly undervalued right now) and the cards look awesome. Also no real "high number" issues. Throw in the last year of that size and the set is pretty special. I have done the 54's (btw, 250 cards) and the 55 Topps twice now and I do love those sets...a lot...their downfall to me is the "have and have nots"...tons of commons and a few high dollar cards. Super easy to do 95% of the set, gotta pay for the rest. 54 Bowman as well. 55 Bowman I would never do again, haha. All the SP and high dollar hard to find boring a$$ umpire cards are just no fun.

Edit to add that I am almost done with the 56's and have really enjoyed the adventure. Only big card left for me is the Clemente, and it's not that bad. I am like you, sets have to be as uniform as possible and my set would grade 3-4 (have a few of the HOFers in SGC 4).

[nwobhm]

It's after 1960 but fits all your other criteria. 1964 Topps Giants in high grade. 64 card set....counting the cropping variations..... 2 Mantles, 2 Kaline, 2 Killebrew and 2 Hunt. Loaded with big stars and regional stars. The single printed Mantle is expensive in higher grades.

[mintacular]

1957, high numbers (actually third series) pretty easy, loaded with stars and hofers. Standard size 2.5 x 3.5. Challenging but not possible, most cards available . Variations, checklists,.contest cards, lucky penny, Bakep error. 406 cards large but not unmanageable