Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Favorite 1950's Topps Baseball Set

Favorite 1950's Topps Baseball Set

Sign in to vote!
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.

Comments

  • mintonlyplsmintonlypls Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 9, 2023 9:14PM
    1957

    If Bowman sets were included…it would be a no brainer for me——>1953 Bowman Color. Beautiful, all-color photography w/o graphic design, player nameplate or facsimile signature to draw attention away from the first all-color photography cards!

    mint_only_pls
  • Kid4hof03Kid4hof03 Posts: 1,818 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1956

    Hands down it's 1956 for me.

    Collecting anything and everything relating to Roger Staubach
  • BBBrkrrBBBrkrr Posts: 891 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1957

    What criteria? Design? Photography? Value? Rookies?

    So many different ways to judge….

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,190 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 6, 2023 4:54PM
    1956

    I go back and forth between > @BBBrkrr said:

    What criteria? Design? Photography? Value? Rookies?

    So many different ways to judge….

    @mintonlypls said:
    If Bowman sets were included…it would be a no brained for me——1953 Bowman Color. Beautiful, all-color photography w/o graphic design, player nameplate or facsimile signature to draw attention away from the first all-color photography cards!

    I was going to include Bowman but figured I'd ask about Topps only.

    There are a few tragedies with both company sets such as the 53 Bowman Color not having a Mays or Robinson.

    54 and 55 Topps without a Mantle is rough

    Obviously the value is over the top with the 52 Topps set

    I'm creeping back into Baseball after a 15 year lay off and was curious what everyone is thinking these days

  • BLUEJAYWAYBLUEJAYWAY Posts: 7,802 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1953

    53 set for me. Based on the Mantle. My favorite Mantle card.

    Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
  • baseballfanbaseballfan Posts: 5,446 ✭✭✭
    1956

    I went 56 but I really like the 55 also.

    Fred

    collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.

    looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started

  • DBesse27DBesse27 Posts: 2,976 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1956

    How is 1957 second in the poll right now?? Plain/boring design and dark/grainy photos. Can’t even hide behind the fact that it was Topps’ first issue with photos, since other companies had produced far better looking photo cards years earlier.

    Yaz Master Set
    #1 Gino Cappelletti master set
    #1 John Hannah master set

    Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox, 1968 Venz Sox

  • BBBrkrrBBBrkrr Posts: 891 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1957

    @DBesse27 said:
    How is 1957 second in the poll right now?? Plain/boring design and dark/grainy photos. Can’t even hide behind the fact that it was Topps’ first issue with photos, since other companies had produced far better looking photo cards years earlier.

    I have one of those votes. For me it's about the best looking set of the decade. I love everything about the way it looks.

    It's minimal, full photos, simple and elegant. LOVE it.

  • mintonlyplsmintonlypls Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2023 2:46PM
    1957

    Don’t clutter photos with stupid graphic designs! Love the 57s!!!!!

    mint_only_pls
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,190 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1956

    I respect the 57 Topps guys, the less than sharp photography definitely gives it that vintage look which I can appreciate but for me the bright and colorful large painting cards from 53-56 are more enjoyable

    Love all votes and opinions, thanks to all

  • TiborTibor Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1957

    I voted '57 as well. Very close race with the '56 and '58. Built and finished those
    three sets back in the early '80's. Dealers from St.louis and Atlanta very helpful.

  • AhmanfanAhmanfan Posts: 4,335 ✭✭✭✭

    I like 54 Topps. Huge RC crop and no mantle not an issue for me. Surprised to not see it as a choice of others.

    Collecting
    HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,662 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Unable to select a favorite- each year has some positive qualities. I suppose it turns back to a question of personal taste or preference in designs//images//color and rookie years for various players. I can honestly say rookie cards would simply not be deciding factor for me.- Great Question

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,662 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Funny- I have the same Kluszewski and Williams card- doubtful mine would grade at 7 but I still like it for what it is... 52, 54 followed by 58 are my weakest sets

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • brad31brad31 Posts: 2,477 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1953

    I prefer ‘54 to ‘55 and ‘56 because it is the first year of the three straight lazy identical head-shot pics Topps used. With 3 years the same image I imagine being disappointed opening packs in ‘56 and seeing the same image of Aaron, Mays, Williams, etc. that I had the last two years.

    ‘53 is my favorite but surprised by all the ‘56 love in comparison.

    Of course I love them all and have bought that same image and do enjoy the differences between the three sets.

  • Mickey71Mickey71 Posts: 4,224 ✭✭✭✭
    1956

    1956; but i also really like the 1953 Topps. Lots of beautiful sets in the 50's.

  • BBBrkrrBBBrkrr Posts: 891 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1957

    @Mickey71 said:
    1956; but i also really like the 1953 Topps. Lots of beautiful sets in the 50's.

    No doubt. I think the entire 50s run is better than just about any specific year from the 60s, and it got really bland toward the end of the 60s.

  • mintonlyplsmintonlypls Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2023 11:31AM
    1957

    1963 and 1967 Topps baseball sets appeal to me from that decade…but that is for another poll.

    mint_only_pls
  • nam812nam812 Posts: 10,526 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1952

    It's 1952 for me, the one that set Topps off and running,

    Great thread Paul.

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,190 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1956

    @nam812 said:
    It's 1952 for me, the one that set Topps off and running,

    Great thread Paul.

    Thanks Nick!

    As always great to see you chiming in, I will be posting some stuff soon since I'm back into cards again after a very long time 🍻

  • detroitfan2detroitfan2 Posts: 3,308 ✭✭✭✭

    @nam812 said:
    It's 1952 for me, the one that set Topps off and running,

    Great thread Paul.

    Plus you probably have fond memories of riding your bike to the store and buying packs of 52s as a 10 year old Nick.

  • mintonlyplsmintonlypls Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2023 9:23PM
    1957

    I do not understand the appeal of the 1956 set. It is monotonous: every card is a portrait shot + an illustration which might not even be the player himself. For example…Willie Mays dashing for home plate for Hammering Hank. And I am sure there are not action photos to draw an illustration for every common player. Call on Say Hey, again?

    I will admit the 1956 Mantle is one beautiful, cool card!

    mint_only_pls
  • daltexdaltex Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @clarke442 said:

    @coinkat said:
    Unable to select a favorite- each year has some positive qualities. I suppose it turns back to a question of personal taste or preference in designs//images//color and rookie years for various players. I can honestly say rookie cards would simply not be deciding factor for me.- Great Question

    I probably have a card or two from each year, mostly for the specific card.
    One for the 1958 set.

    Off topic: Am I the only one who the Immaculate Grid game has caused to look up "lesser known" players depicted here? Klusewski played for the ANGELS???

  • mintonlyplsmintonlypls Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2023 9:25PM
    1957

    Klu played for the Reds. Deltoid muscles look super juiced!

    mint_only_pls
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,190 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 9, 2023 3:48AM
    1956

    @mintonlypls said:
    I do not understand the appeal of the 1956 set. It is monotonous: every card is a portrait shot + an illustration which might not even be the player himself. For example…Willie Mays dashing for home plate for Hammering Hank. And I am sure there are not action photos to draw an illustration for every common player. Call on Say Hey, again?

    I will admit the 1956 Mantle is one beautiful, cool card!

    Your not wrong with your points but it's definitely odd to say you cannot understand the appeal of the set? I'm not sure many can argue tht the artwork isn't great even if it's not a very accurate depiction of every player.

    But Ofcourse I respect your opinion 🍻

    Speaking.of the Mantle card, as much as I do love the card I always point out the zombie soldiers in the stands, they are standing at attention in military fashion while everyone else is jumpin for a ball lol

  • clarke442clarke442 Posts: 598 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @mintonlypls said:
    Klu played for the Reds. Deltoid muscles look super juiced!

    One reason to vote for the 1957 set.

  • daltexdaltex Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not Topps or '50s for that matter, but a freebie for the Immaculate Grid folks.

    Stock photo.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,662 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I suppose I would not classify Ted Kluszewski as lesser known... but here are a few lesser known facts- He played on the 1945 Indiana football team that won a rare Big Ten Championship. He hit the longest HR's on the Bloomington campus in the 1944-45 time frame- one was estimated at 590 ft.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • smallstockssmallstocks Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭
    1955

    You are all nuts! 1955 hands down! Gorgeous set with some huge rookies and tougher high numbers.


    Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
  • mintonlyplsmintonlypls Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 10, 2023 11:41AM
    1957

    I am surprised too that the 1955 set does not have more eye appeal…

    mint_only_pls
  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,205 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just to be different, I always liked the look of the ‘59 set. Vivid colors, innovative and unique design and not too many bank breaking cards aside from the Gibson rookie and the Mick:

    (Thread needed a pic! 😂)

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • 19591959 Posts: 596 ✭✭✭
    1959

    My first cards were this year so I love the 59's. Plus they are the first cards to have all the stats. plus the team emblem. And not most of players just head shots. (58).

  • mintonlyplsmintonlypls Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 12, 2023 7:56AM
    1957

    1957s were the first cards w/career stats…and 1952s had team logos.

    mint_only_pls
  • 19591959 Posts: 596 ✭✭✭
    1959

    I meant both in the same year. 52's did not have yearly stats. and no logos on 57"s

  • EstilEstil Posts: 6,842 ✭✭✭✭
    1958

    Not exactly a popular choice here but I love colorful designs and it looks the most "50s", I think.

    WISHLIST
    Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P+S, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
    Quarters: 61D, 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
    74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
    1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
    1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
  • 59Horsehide59Horsehide Posts: 427 ✭✭✭
    1956

    Ted Kluszewski also spent time playing for the White Sox and almost always wore the cut off sleeves.

Sign In or Register to comment.