65 or 66 Topps?

ngfred

I am currently composing all the HOFers who started (or played primarily) after WWII. Instead of getting their rookie cards, I decided to get them in the most attractive sets during the 50's, 60's...and whatever era the player belongs.

I had put on my list a few players in the 66 Topps set. Do you think I should consider getting some in 65 Topps, keep in mind what I'm concentrating on is the eye appeal and attractiveness of the cards, since I already have the players picked out.

Does the diagonal team name across the top of the 66 Topps bother you, or do you think that's attractive. What about the flying peannent at the bottom of the 65 Topps? (I'm doing about 44 players in 63 Topps, as that to me was no question one of the best, if not THE best looking design during the 60s)

brucemo

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I'll take '66, because there is a little more picture room, I like the narrow border line with square corners rather than the wider border line with rounded corners, and I like that the non-picture elements aren't all clumped together at the bottom of the card.

Neither of these sets is comparable with '67 though.

bruce

ngfred

Thanks Bruceco. Yea, I planned on getting Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins in 1967.

waitilltheytrytosell

Since you can't narrow it down to any one set, I would pick whichever example of a player's card you like the best. You might not like the Ford portrait from 63, and might prefer a pitching pose like 66 or 67. Each year will have some real neat looking cards and some real dogs. What you consider to be the coolest looking card is a very personal thing. It will take a bit of time and effort to get to see an example of each, but it will be worth the effort. Just do a search on Ebay for each guy and every one of his cards will pop up. You can pick the one you like the best, and then look for it in a PSA holder or raw.

ngfred

Thanks Waittil. You pretty much confirmed that I've been taking the right rout. It didn't take me long to figure out the players, but it took longer to pick out the sets that I felt are acceptable, and the longest in deciding which player goes to which set, and avoid doubles. I must have altered my list at least 10 times by now. I want the number of players in each "set" to be divisible by 4, because I planned to put them in those 4 pocket PSA slabbed page and in a binder, and want some consistency.

Figuring which card looks the best is a very personal thing, but it's cool to get other's input. Because you fellow collectors can offer opinion (about the look of a card design) that I never thought of. Just like the 65 Topps, it didn't catch my attention at first, then I saw posts raving about the color and the pennent at the bottom of the design, and now Bruceco feeling that the bottom of the 65 Topps is too clumped together in his opinion. So now I have to ask myself, what do I think? It certainly helps to get other views on a subjective matter.

theBobs

The 65 Yaz and Aaron are absolutely beautiful cards.

ydsotter

While the 1965 is probably the "better" set... I like 1966 because I enjoy the player portraits better:
check out this: