Poll: Which is the greatest Topps set of the 1970s?

[robw1959]

Which one gets your vote?

[Leon]

This should really go in the other forum but so many of us grew up in the 70s, let's see the results.

I voted best looking and that was '72 for me.

[Brent G.]

‘72

[refz]

I voted for 1971 as my favorite. 1972 is second best imo. The rest truly don’t do anything for me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

1975 because of RCs and it isn't even close. Plus the mini version.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

1975 because of RCs and it isn't even close. Plus the mini version.

+1.

Plus, 1975s can be tough with the color borders.

[Smanzari]

I'm Partial to '73s as those were the first "Vintage" Cards I Ever got; that being said, IMO '71 is up there with Topps' best (in design, size and difficulty) so that's my pick!

[UKCardGuy]

For me it's 1975 but 1971 and 1972 are close runners up.

The look of the cards, the series within the set like the MVP cards, the quality of the photos and the number of RCs all lead me to vote 1975

[Gorditadogg]

72 is nice and has some great stars, but my favorite is 76. The boxes remind me of 61, which I always thought was a well-designed set.

The 76s are tough to collect centered, but because of their rectangular composition they look really good when you can find nicely centered ones.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

While neither of these two won my top vote, I've long felt that '74 and '78 don't get enough love. Each has a simple, straightforward and aesthetically pleasing design. There are great portrait and action shots to be found in each. The RC selection may be weak, but that's not the be all and end all for me. Actually, the '78s have a pretty decent bunch of rookies! Sure, not Brett/Yount etc. caliber, but Tram, Molitor, Murray, Whitaker and Morris aren't to be easily dismissed!

I really love the idea of incorporating the facsimile autographs on the back with the '74 set. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they only ever did that with the '53s as well, right (at least up to that point)? I wasn't a fan of how they tried it in 1953; the signatures behind the text were too busy and distracting. With the '74s, a separate area was devoted to the autograph, allowing for a cleaner look. Also, as someone who is an autograph person and not a card person, having the facsimiles on the back makes for much nicer presentation when it comes to hand signed cards.

It's nice to see the '71s and '75s getting a lot more love than I realized. I liked them a lot more in the past and now favor different sets, but they're still appealing. Again, they may be less popular among autograph collectors and that's who I almost exclusively talk to about such matters. I can completely understand the love for the '75s due to sheer rookie power but I suppose the 71s are a little more of a mystery. There's not much going on for RCs and the black borders are definitely a pain if you are a high grade collector! I do think the choice of the black borders was a bold innovation and they really do make certain images stand out all the more.

My least favorites would likely be 1970 with those ho-hum grey borders (although some great photography at times) and especially 1976. Just nothing going on. It's as if the art department decided to take an early 5 martini lunch and not even try.

My "positive change of heart" award goes to the 1972s. This is a set design that I used to abhor as a kid. Too busy and silly to my childhood eyes. I have really come to appreciate its School House Rock aesthetic! This set has grown on me so much.

My "negative change of heart" award goes to the 1977s. Used to love them a lot more, but their thin stock makes their corners flake right off if you look at them with anything but coddling reverence.

My ultimate vote went to the polarizing 1973 set. It doesn't hurt that Dwight Evans was my favorite player growing up. You have mutton chop Yaz, mutton chop Charlie Spikes, mutton chop everything! A simple design. Yes, some really poor photography at times, but this is hardly exclusive to 1973. As we discussed in another thread earlier this year, some people find the awful images charming; count me among that camp. The triple player RCs are just gorgeous, too.

[Section103]

Im glad this stayed on the main board.

71-70-75-72-78-79-74 in that order for me.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Hard to chose between '72 and '75

[luciobar1980]

I like 73 and 75

[butchie_t]

Only one vote????? Jeeze, I freaking did most of my collecting in the 70s. So all of them….equally.

But I picked 75 and even that was a struggle…

[jchcollins]

For me either 1971 or ‘72.

‘71 with the black borders and killer photography is just unique. And ‘72 is a colorful set that to me just best represents the feel of the decade with the gothic, dripping team names.

There are many, many others - but some quick favorites that come to mind would be the ‘71 Reggie Jackson and Nolan Ryan, and the ‘72 Willie McCovey and Carl Yastrzemski…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

The ‘71 action shots to me make for some of the most aesthetically pleasing cards of all time.

How’s this for incredible? Alpo dog food sign on the wall in Connie Mack Stadium, dog between Chris’s legs, and Pete Rose on the basepaths!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

That doesn't look like Rose to me. I also might be seeing #12 (Chaney) as opposed to 14 on his jersey.

[nolemmings]

1971 had the best visual appearance for me in terms of card design of the “favorites” discussed. Photo selection could have been better on some of the top players though– not anywhere near my favorite Aaron, Banks or Mays, and Gibson was hard to see (although kudos on the attempt). Second photo on back was neat surprise, but sacrificed the season stat lines for space savings and that was an irritant for me, who loved to study those.

1972 was an outstanding set, mostly due to creativity IMO. A little bold in design maybe, but I loved pretty much everything about it. I was a baseball geek who even liked the cards of the award plaques and also the Boyhood Photos of the Stars, which showed these guys at my age. Liked the traded cards too– a lot. Maybe they didn’t need to double up on both regular and “in action” cards of so many players but it was the start of a new era so I can understand why they jumped in. My only complaint was that somebody should have put the brakes on the air-brushers. I don’t mind the occasional blotted out cap, but most if not all of the efforts to paint a cap logo or uniform change were awful. I can’t understand how they could take or find so many new and interesting action photos to include but in combing their extensive catalog of shots they could not keep current on the regular photos.

1975: excellent player selection and photography, no doubt. The design was just the opposite–almost hideous. I sorted my cards by team, and Topps used mostly consistent banners, circles and team names that color coordinated each team from 1964-69 and 1971, 72, 74, 76+, so those displayed nicely. 1975 was fugly. A Tony Oliva orange over brown looked awful near a Rod Carew yellow over red, Blyleven red over blue and Larry Hisle yellow over green, for example. And then of course the team name could be yet a different color for each. No thanks.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

1971 had the best visual appearance for me in terms of card design of the “favorites” discussed. Photo selection could have been better on some of the top players though– not anywhere near my favorite Aaron, Banks or Mays, and Gibson was hard to see (although kudos on the attempt). Second photo on back was neat surprise, but sacrificed the season stat lines for space savings and that was an irritant for me, who loved to study those.

1972 was an outstanding set, mostly due to creativity IMO. A little bold in design maybe, but I loved pretty much everything about it. I was a baseball geek who even liked the cards of the award plaques and also the Boyhood Photos of the Stars, which showed these guys at my age. Liked the traded cards too– a lot. Maybe they didn’t need to double up on both regular and “in action” cards of so many players but it was the start of a new era so I can understand why they jumped in. My only complaint was that somebody should have put the brakes on the air-brushers. I don’t mind the occasional blotted out cap, but most if not all of the efforts to paint a cap logo or uniform change were awful. I can’t understand how they could take or find so many new and interesting action photos to include but in combing their extensive catalog of shots they could not keep current on the regular photos.

1975: excellent player selection and photography, no doubt. The design was just the opposite–almost hideous. I sorted my cards by team, and Topps used mostly consistent banners, circles and team names that color coordinated each team from 1964-69 and 1971, 72, 74, 76+, so those displayed nicely. 1975 was fugly. A Tony Oliva orange over brown looked awful near a Rod Carew yellow over red, Blyleven red over blue and Larry Hisle yellow over green, for example. And then of course the team name could be yet a different color for each. No thanks.

The 1971s were a bit before my time and just completely damaged when we got our hands on any, but the 1972 (I have also always had an odd appreciation for the trophy cards) and 1975 sets?? YOU NAILED IT!!!!

[campyfan39]

75 for the colors (brooks/brett/killebrew/gibson/yount/aaron, etc.)
73 for the action shots
71 for the black border
72 because it encapsulates that era

[mariners69]

79 is my favorite set of the 70:s

79cello2.jpg