Why do the odd-years in the 60's....
toppsgun
Posts: 787 ✭
...look better than the even-numbered years for Topps Baseball?
I was reading another thread about what sets people are working on. I collect almost all baseball sets from 1959-1968, but have focused on grading the odd-numbered years. I just think Topps disappointed a lot of kids in 1960, 1962, 1964 and 1966. Also 1968. I hate to bring up that 1968 Burlap issue, since so many collect it, but geez, that's one butt-ugly year.
I like the '59's and '63's because of the variation in use of bright colors, but not psychedelic like '60 and '72.
I like '65's because of the clear photos and waving-in-the-wind pennants, but find both '64 and '66 to be too rigid and block-like, not to mention the orange ('64) and pink ('66) backs vs. the blue backs on '65. Uggghhhh!
I think '61 just looks vintage, without being too boring. But compared to '60 and '62, it's at least a ground-rule-double. While '67 may be the best looking card design of all, with those photos and autos.
Why is it that Topps went yard in the odd-years but took big swings and came up "Dave Kingman" in the even years?
I was reading another thread about what sets people are working on. I collect almost all baseball sets from 1959-1968, but have focused on grading the odd-numbered years. I just think Topps disappointed a lot of kids in 1960, 1962, 1964 and 1966. Also 1968. I hate to bring up that 1968 Burlap issue, since so many collect it, but geez, that's one butt-ugly year.
I like the '59's and '63's because of the variation in use of bright colors, but not psychedelic like '60 and '72.
I like '65's because of the clear photos and waving-in-the-wind pennants, but find both '64 and '66 to be too rigid and block-like, not to mention the orange ('64) and pink ('66) backs vs. the blue backs on '65. Uggghhhh!
I think '61 just looks vintage, without being too boring. But compared to '60 and '62, it's at least a ground-rule-double. While '67 may be the best looking card design of all, with those photos and autos.
Why is it that Topps went yard in the odd-years but took big swings and came up "Dave Kingman" in the even years?
0
Comments
What do other people think?
eBay auctions
1956 Fantastic pictures on background of portraits. Clemente, Ford, Mays & Mantle cards absolutely stunning
1967 Beautiful photographs with autographs, cannot be beat
1975 Wacky colors surrounding great photos
1984 Donruss Right up there with 67's pictures & design, simple yet beautiful
Be good my brothers.
From the 1960's, my favorite three designs are 1964, 1966 and 1969. My least favorite are 1962, 1963 and 1965.
From the 1950's, I like 1952 Bowman, 1954 Bowman and 1959 Topps. My least favorite are 1951 Bowman, 1953 Topps and 1956 Topps.
Skycap
My favorites from the 60's are 63, 65, and 68.
I recently saw a mazeroski... it has pink lemonade colors... that's a sharp looking issue.
I like 1965 and 1967 best from the 1960's...
What kind of photo do people like? I have always liked the portraits best... 66 aaron, the regal 65 mays, 71 banks, 66 koufax~
-G
Click here to view my Knickstars collection and wantlist
JEB.
Setbuilders Sports Cards
Ebay: set-builders & set-builders2
<< <i>my least favorite Topps issue it would have to be 1970 with that awful, ugly battleship grey.... >>
How can you hate that lovely shade of grey? I guess it helps that I am color blind. I love the set. The All Stars are what make that set for me. Those were my first "vintage" cards as well, and great team cards here too.
I wish Topps would bring back the "Team cards!"
54 Red Hearts
and now 64 Stand ups
1957 Topps - as mentioned by others, great photos and simple, understated design. The only people who wouldn't like this set are the ones who like their cards "over the top".
1964 Topps - I gravitate towards simplistic but these do have a slight amount of flair. I like how the photo doesn't simply crop off at the top. They actually crop just the background and let the player's cap extend upward. Gives it almost a 3-D look to it and draws focus away from the background.
My least favorites are probably the '62s and '69s. The woodgrain of '62 is distracting to me and those big circles stuck to most everyone's forehead ('69) don't look that great to me.
Just one man's opinion.
Im my humble opinion the 67 and the 65 sets are classic - clean and good simple eye candy....
My least favorite is the 1968 (sorry, EJ) and the 60/61 equally.
sjjs28@comcast.net
Collector of 1964 Topps Stand Ups, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game and 1969 Topps Decals
Registered Sets: 1964 Stand Ups, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game, 1969 Topps Decals
Oh well, I like them and that's all that counts!
JEB.
I guess that my favorite really makes me an oddball.I think that the 55 Bowman has to be my favorite along with the 56 set.The 55 Bowman with their cool tv design seems to bring create a nostalgic feeling for me when things must have been more simplier.Baseball was a nationally followed game(seems that we have forgotten that it is a game)that the simple man and his family could almost be a part of.I am only 45 so I haven't lived in that era,but it sure seems that times, and baseball,were so much more relaxed and less complicated.
Just a thought
Vic
I do like the fact that of the '68s, the weave varies from series to series. Also, I love to read the back of the Red Sox cards, analyzing how much they contributed to the previous season. If I had the funds to collect another set from the decade, (besides '65) it would be '62.
I can't get over how many shots were taken at Yankee stadium. It's almost like Topps either got shots in March or waited until teams came to NY. Really wished all parks were included more equally. There must be a few expert collectors out there who can identify all ML parks from each year.
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
I agree with you on 1955 Bowman -- plus you have the cool umpire cards to boot!
Bill H.
JEB.
I dont mind....any talk about vintage PSA sounds good to me. My favorite is 1965 Topps....I keep coming back to them...again...and again.
John