Why are the prices of 1955 Topps stronger than 1956 Topps? Which is a better set?

NeilDowney

Here's a question for the true collectors out there that can shed some light on this subject. Why are the prices of 1955 Topps stronger than 1956 Topps? I currently collect the 1956 Topps set as my primary set. I also have 30% of the 1955 Topps set along with 10% of the 1953 Topps set. The prices of the 1956 Topps cards are pretty strong with the low pops going for a bit more and stars get nice play too. Over time I have noticed that the 1955 Topps set gets stronger prices across the board - even for the really common commons. I know that some may be taken by the smaller size of the 1955 set compared to the 1956 set. However, isn't this all about having "MORE" quality cards in the set instead of less?

In the beginning I made a massive effort to compare the two sets - player for player. Pros versus cons (as I saw them). The two sets have 100s of the same players and the primary player picture is even the same on almost all of the cards. The 1955 set has a few minor stars that the 1956 set doesn't have. But the 1956 set has many that the 1955 doesn't have including a Mantle. To me, a 1950s set without a Mantle isn't a complete set at all.

I like the simple bright colors of the background on the 1955s. They give the cards a clean, sleak look. On the other hand, the background of the 1956s are in my opinion - AWESOME! I like the standard white backs of the 1955s but the cartoon has nothing to do with the player on the front of the card. The backs of the 1956s can get a little dark on some of the gray ones (most of the set can be had with white backs for a lot more green backs. Also the 1956s have not one but three cartoons and all of them have to do with the player on the front of the card.

Perhaps I am being too hard on the 1955s? I think that they are a beautiful looking card. Anyone including myself would be proud to own a set of these historic cards. I just think that the 1956s are better in too many ways that matter to me. What do some of you think? I'd really like to know. Neil

SDSportsFan

Personally, I've always prefered the '55s to the '56s. I like the bright, simple backgrounds. To me, the '56s are a little "drab and dull" looking. The smaller set size also appealed to me since it was theoretically easier to complete. Back in the early '80s, the '55 set was the first set I completed from prior to 1971. I chose it over the '54 and '56 sets for the above reasons.

One reason you didn't mention that the '55s may be more popular is that the '55 set includes the rookie cards of Clemente, Koufax and Killebrew. The '56 set only includes the rookie cards of Aparicio, and also Don Larsen. Also, the '55 set has a tough high number series, whereas the '56 set doesn't really have a "tougher" series. So it does provide somewhat of a challenge to complete.

I agree that the '55 set isn't really "complete" without The Mick, but hey, neither set had Musial

Steve

Bearsnum34

the 56 set has obvious pluses that outweigh some of the other sets in the 50's, however, for me its the koufax and clemente rookie cards that carry the most weight...I like the look of the 55's over the 56's because of the players...sure I wish the mick was in there however, the 55's are just awesome looking cards. having collected 75% of the set (psa 7-8) I am getting closer to finishing my set, I noticed that the number of new set collectors has grown in the last few months. This has def added to the price increases you see.

Mantlefan

I suspect the price difference boils down to the population numbers:

1955 set 210 cards... 9267 PSA 8's = 44 average per card. 419 PSA 9's = 2 average per card

1956 set 340 cards... 24,200 PSA 8's = 71 average per card 1368 PSA 9's = 4 average per card.

56's are twice as numerous in PSA 8 and 9....the old law of supply and demand.

NeilDowney

The 1955 set isn't just missing "The Mick", it's also missing the following players : BOBBY THOMSON, EARLY WYNN, ENOS SLAUGHTER, GEORGE KELL, HOYT WILHELM, MINNIE MINOSO, RED SCHOENDIENST, ROGER CRAIG, WALTER ALSTON, BILLY MARTIN, DON LARSEN, ELSTON HOWARD, LARRY DOBY, NELLIE FOX, ROBIN ROBERTS, BOB FELLER, LUIS APARICIO, PEE WEE REESE, ROY CAMPANELLA and WHITEY FORD. It also doesn't include many minor stars and doesn't have any team cards or checklists. That's a lot of great players to lose just to get 3 rookie cards of players that are in this set also. The Pop report numbers don't lie. So far that is the best info that I have seen to indicate why the set's cards cost more. However, it doesn't explain the reasons why so many people like the 1955 set over the 1956 set. Player content has to count for something - right? Neil

The53Kid

I agree with MantleFan, I think supply and demand is the driving force. The 56's have always been more plentiful. Thus I think it's easier for a collector to stick with their price point, because they know another will come up for auction soon. As the supply decreases people are less willing to pass on an item for fear they won't see it again for another year.

jaybyrd

I think the 56 cards are superior to the 55's just from an astetic point. The background of the 55's are all so similar, but the 56's background action shots offer much more variety. Check out the green grass on # 160 Billy Pierce. (I would post, but my scanner is acting up). Doesn't the 56 set have more HOF'ers than any other set? I think the 55 set is great, but I prefer the 56's.

RayBShotz

I also think that Mantlefan has hit this one right. There does seem to be a larger available circulation of good quality 56's out there.
RayBShotz

CON40

Mantlefan hit the nail on the head... 56s are just more readily availbale in PSA 8 and better. It was the first year Topps had the market to the themselves and they let the presses run like dogs. I'm sure that if 56s were available in the same quantities as 55s, then the demand (and prices) would actually be higher than 55s. The 55 RCs are great, but they don't compare to the player selection in the 56s. I am working on the 56 set in PSA 8, and I'd rather have cards of Feller, Ashburn, Ford, Campanella, Mantle, Pee Wee, Fox, Aparicio, Doby and Wilhelm over on RC of Clemente... plus they're are pretty nice cards of Koufax, Clemente, and Killebrew in the 56 set too.

perkdog

Hey for all of us 1956 fans lets be happy that they are less $$$. Personally, my opinion is that there is no comparison. How can you beat those action photo's, check out # 41 Sauer at the wall, # 170 Bill Virdon tracking a deep fly ball or a guy named Jim Rivera # 70 jumping into the stands. Just some of the best action shots. Hey I am not knocking the 55 set, it is a very attractive set with those nice colors but in my opinion, much better work went into the 56 cards.

scottsusor

Those that have suggested its the population difference between 1955 and 1956 are absolutely right. And the reason for that difference is pretty simple. I don't know if any of you remember it but way back when (I don't remember exactly when) there was a "major find" of stored 1956 Topps cards still in their original cases -- 10's of thousands of them. That's likely where most of the huge amount of high grade PSA 8's and 9's came from. There's never been such a "major find" of any other vintage card set/year that I know of.

Scott

jaxxr

Both are great sets, as almost any from the 50's are. Some diehard collectors consider the 56s to be the last true "vintage" set bacause it's the last non-standard sized card set, of any major issue.

The 55s may seem a bit pale or drab compared to the 56s, and of course the set size and players, not counting rookie status as a major factor, are both superior in the 56s. If one considers the typical variations found in the 56s, not even the back color variations which would double the variation count, the set is much more complex.

The 56s like the 57s have a tough mid-range series. It is incorrect to think only the last or higher number series can be the tough one.

As a poster mentioned the action shots are really interesting, check Minnie Minoso sliding with Ty Cobb-like spikes into Phil Rizzuto, And my favorite, Wiilie Mays sliding in..it's an error because its the front action picture, but is on Hank Aaron's card.

To add to the pop. figures stated prior, it may be possible kids from that era, who knew nothing about RCs or probably even card value in general, felt both sets were quite similar because of the horizontal format, so why not keep the newer of the two, the one which had Mickey, and the one with action backgrounds on the card fronts ? So as a possible answer to the original question, more kids saved the 56s and thus they are more available.