Why the seeming lack of interest in 1964 Topps Giants, 1971 Topps Super?

[the 'stache]

I know the two sets I listed as examples don't fit the 2.5" x 3.5" standard that became the norm with the 1957 Topps set. In fact, they're quite a bit larger. But when looking at some of the cards, they're really nice, and they cost only a fraction of the regularly issued sets.

Why aren't these sets more in demand? Is it that the cards are lacking diversity in the photography? Is it a matter of sheer size that turns collectors off? There are some nice cards-the '64 set has Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, etc. The 1971 Topps Super set is nice, too, with a good assortment of the top stars from the period.

One would think these would make nice starter sets for people who want to explore two different years, while not spending a small fortune.

Some insight would be greatly appreciated, guys. Thank you!

[Zach Wheat]

I collect the 1971 Topps Supers. I think the set is kind of neat, even if it is an oddball set.

The fact the card edges "chip" and dent have always kept me from seriously collecting them Given their oddball size...makes it really hard to keep in a Mn condition. I have yet to find a good holder for them as well.

Nice set though with a good selection of super stars. And what about the 1980 Topps Superstars? You forgot to mention that oversize "set".....and its only 60 cards.


Z Wheat

[toppcat]

I think the Giants suffer from being overproduced in '64. You could buy them in bricks of 1000 for a song back in the 70's as one dealer bought almost all of the returns. They are a great set though. The '70 and '71 Supers are also nice, especially the ones with the Yankee Stadium backdrops but I think they are just too thick and finding ones that are centered is a bear.

[Exhibitman]

I think most collectors have issues with the size and thickness...sounds like my wife.

Thanks, you've been a great crowd. Enjoy Slade.

[cprice72]

Don't know the production numbers but here is an article that explains why the '64 giants are reasonably priced even 50 years later.

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...ant-stars-set/

[ALR-bishop]

I have both sets . They both have great photos. They are only disappointing if you collect them to make money

[bobc88]

I love the Topps oversized sets!

[glynparson]

1964 topps giants actually sell rather quickly in my experience. They just do not sell for a ton of money. A couple bring decent bucks in higher grades.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by glynparson

1964 topps giants actually sell rather quickly in my experience. They just do not sell for a ton of money. A couple bring decent bucks in higher grades.

Let me guess, the Mickey Mantle is one of those that sell for decent bucks in higher grades..

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

I collect the 1971 Topps Supers. I think the set is kind of neat, even if it is an oddball set.

The fact the card edges "chip" and dent have always kept me from seriously collecting them Given their oddball size...makes it really hard to keep in a Mn condition. I have yet to find a good holder for them as well.

Nice set though with a good selection of super stars. And what about the 1980 Topps Superstars? You forgot to mention that oversize "set".....and its only 60 cards.


Z Wheat

It seems like all the 1971 cards Topps made easily chipped. No worries, I have the patience to find the nice ones.

I didn't mention the 1980 set because this board is specifically pre 1980 cards. So, they didn't cross my mind. But they would certainly fall in the same category.

Thanks for the input, guys. I'll have to look at adding some of these.

[39special]

I'm currently putting together the '64 Giants set.I'm a lower budget collector with no patience
to put the regular topps sets together,so the subsets are a great alternative for me.I have finished the '68 Topps game set,Topps poster sets,and the Deckle edge set.After I finish the Giants,I'm hoping to start on the '70 or '71 Supers.Lots of HOFers and stars and I like the look of them.

[glynparson]

Actually mantle is rather easy. I get more for Koufax and Skowrons brings good money along with Jim Fregosi. I'm talking psa 8. Obviously a 10 on any of the cards brings a hefty sum.

[Shoebox]

I wasn't around during the time period of these sets but as a youngster collecting any cards that didn't fit into the pockets of my nine pocket pages in my binder were a hassle to keep stored so Mom wouldn't toss them because they weren't 'put away' so I tended to avoid any of the non-standard size issues.

Even now that I no longer live in fear of parts of my collection being thrown away I still make storage considerations when I buy things. I am not normally a set builder so when buying things of an odd size it is a consideration. Do I have a top loader the right size? If it's something I didn't think I had to have I have passed on things I might have bought otherwise just because I didn't want to buy toploaders or pages when I was only considering buying one odd sized card.

[1963Topps Set]

I have a complete 1964 Topps Giant set that I bought for a few dollars back in the 1970s. They could not give them away then.

Today, the best way to get the 1968 Topps game cards is to just buy the whole set complete. It is much cheaper that way.

[ALR-bishop]

Unless it is an unopened boxed set

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I think most collectors have issues with the size and thickness...sounds like my wife.

Thanks, you've been a great crowd. Enjoy Slade.

WOW, a Slade reference.

Gudbuy T'Jane!