Which 60's set?

ChrisC

Guys,

I can't decide on what 1960's set to start. I am going to do it in the 7-8 range and wanted some wisdom before I start the set.
I like 61,63,64,66 and 67. Any info on availability, cost, centering etc. would be welcomed. (BASEBALL)

I have decided to start 1 set per decade and hopefully stick to this untill the sets are completed. Currently:

1958 Topps - 3% in 7.0
196? (Topps/Fleer?)
1973 Topps - 12.4% in 8.21
1985 Topps - 16.29% in 9.03

Walter Payton Basic - 33% in 9.0
Joe Montana Basic - 25% in 9.167

I have notice alot of collectors have started dozens of set and have not completed any and I dont want to fall in that trap! I figure I can complete these 6 sets in the next 2-3 years,then move on! Do you guys agree with this thought?

Thanks,

Chris

Kurtman9

Hi Chris. They're all good, but I am especially partial to the 1961 Topps set due to its simple design and all of the cool subsets. Good luck on whichever set you choose to collect.

bobsbbcards

I'm partial to 1967 and 1966, but you really can't go wrong with any of them (except 1964 IMHO). Sorry I don't know beans about which cards are tough in which grade.

ArnyVee

I would put a vote in for the '67 Topps. I mean, beautiful clean design and tough rookies of Seaver and Carew among many HOF cards.

Griffins

I vote for '67 Topps, unless you want a smaller set to give yourself some room to work on the others. In that case I vote for '63 Fleer.

Ripken

Chris,

I agree '67 is nice..looks great slabbed. Cheap enough among lower # commons but can be expensive once you get to the big ticket cards like Ryan & hi #s. '61s seem somewhat prevalent & might be less challenging in the long run. I may have some of each in the monster grouping I've got up on eBay now. I know there are some '61s, '63s and '67s in there.

thesplendidsplinter

Chris, I can help if you want to go the 67 route. I have about 200 in 7's & 8's, 1/3 of the set. Including, HOF, low pops & high numbers. No qualifiers & no doubles. Let me know if you are interested at teddyballgame@cox.net. Or anybody for that matter.

Thanks

fiveniner

67

Stingray

<< <i>Chris,

I agree '67 is nice..looks great slabbed. Cheap enough among lower # commons but can be expensive once you get to the big ticket cards like Ryan & hi #s. '61s seem somewhat prevalent & might be less challenging in the long run. I may have some of each in the monster grouping I've got up on eBay now. I know there are some '61s, '63s and '67s in there. >>




Ryan?? Do agree that 67s are one of the best looking. Some of the hi#s will be hard to located in high grade though.

fsjeter

No question. 1967 Topps.

Scott

RonBurgundy

Here's a breakdown for you:


1961: Go for this set if you want a clean, minimalist look with nice photos. Cool subsets. High numbers are tough.

1963: Go for this set if you enjoy the colorful borders and more of a challenge finding them in high grade due to chipped borders. Love the photography in this set and is one of my favorites.

1964: Go for this set if you are cost-conscious. One of the easiest and cheapest 60's sets to put together, but still nice in high grade. Beware the cards that have the trivia questioned scratched off on the back.

1966: Go for this set if you want a solid, but perhaps not spectacular, set. Not a lot of rookies, but solid cards of many HOF'ers.

1967: Go for this set if you want a challenge and you want beauty. These cards are among the prettiest that Topps ever made. Great rookies, big set, and nice cards.


Stay classy,


Ron

sagard

I'm working on your exact project. Just different years. The '63s are my favorites of the 60s. They are colorful cards with fantastic photos. They have the usual centering/print snow issues as most sets, but they can be found relatively inexpensively. Key rookies are Rose, Stargell, Oliva. The best part of the set may be the combo cards. "PRIDE OF THE N.L" features Mays and Musial. "Bomber's Best" has Mantle, Tresh and Richardson. Dodgers Big Three has Drysdale, Koufax and Podres. "Power Plus" has Aaron and Banks.

theczar

i am almost 2/3 with the 1966 set in psa 9 or better. i chose that because it was the first year i collected. 1967 is a great set and so is 1965.

i grew up in st. louis. due to distribution issues by topps the 6th series missed us completely so there were cards i never saw like mccarver until adulthood. on the other hand we got double the 7th series. i had seaver, carew rookies plus brooks robinson, red sox team coming out of my ears. while i still have them you can only imagine the shape they are. i did pick up a decent raw group (probably psa 5/6) a few years back of highs and minor stars from that year that i get around to grading one day.

can anyone tell me what a 1967 high # common psa 5 or 6 sells for a normal basis. i don't want to lose money getting them slabbed?

thanks

bxb

Chris, as you can see below, I am partial to the 1967 set as well. This is just a fabulous set, one of the best ever created by Topps. It is not easy to complete in 8 or better, but it depends how much you want to put into it. 9s can be pricey, but the prices are less than a year ago for most 9 commons due to supply outgaining demand.

Czar - I would not slab any high number commons unless they are 8 or better. But tell me more about all those Seavers and Carews coming out your ears.......

ChrisC

Guys,

Thanks for the info, I think its going to be 64 or 67! Leaning toward 64 because as a kid "my best card" was the 64 Pete Rose card (in 1985). I will never forget how I had it sandwiched between 2 inches of plexiglas!

Chris

theczar

bxb,
i should have qualified the seaver/carew with HAD. i sold them on ebay throughout the past few years after getting them graded. i got out the 1967 raw box and here is what i have

5 whitey fords
2 kalines
1 drysdale
1 banks
1 nl victory leaders with koufax, marichal. gibson and perry (not a bad rotation)
1 nl hr leaders
8 billy williams
3 gaylord perry
2 ueckers
6 jenkins
5 joe morgans
1 yaz
2 catfish
1 wilhelm
2 fence buster mays-mccovey
1 pete rose
1 sutton
and about 70 high numbers commons with 2 tommy johns

not the greatest but wondering if getting PSA 5's is financially sound.

goose3

out of the cards I've been selling for my old man....I'd have to say that besides the '59's, I find the 1960 set nearly as aesthetically pleasing as well.

gaspipe26

No one mentioned one of the most collected besides 68 and that is 1969.

theczar

gaspipe,
the pops on the 9's and 10's on those sets are astronomical comparmed to the years right before it.
granted the 68 has ryan and 69 has jackson rookie, but the difficulty is just not there as far the 1965-67.

VMFA115

Chris,

Glad to see your leaning toward the 64's. I just hit 9.0 on that set yesterdsy (Cryer64) and I have really enjoyed collecting it. PM me if you wish, I do have many duplicates.

Dave C.

1960toppsguy

I think I would start the one in which I could find the nicest chunk of in high grade condition in one lot. That gets you excited right from the get go in my opinion.

thesplendidsplinter

<< <i>I think I would start the one in which I could find the nicest chunk of in high grade condition in one lot. That gets you excited right from the get go in my opinion. >>



Great idea! I've got 128 7's & 60 8's from 1967 baseball that need a new home! That's 30% of the set! No dupes & no qualifiers. Including 30 high numbers! Cards like Red Sox team, Wills, Bunning, John, Pinson.
PM me if anyone is interested.

TB

theczar

Glad to see your leaning toward the 64's. I just hit 9.0 on that set yesterdsy (Cryer64) and I have really enjoyed collecting it. PM me if you wish, I do have many duplicates.

dave congrats on the 9.0 at 100% that is an outstanding achievement--WELL DONE.

but why did you have to come after my 1966's?
there is already WAY too much competition for me in that year!


fjm