Need advice on 60's set to start

dchiksu

Gentlemen,

Im sure you've been asked this many times already, but I wanted to hear from the experts. Im looking to start a registered set from the 60's and possibly one from the 70's (does this happen to most collectors when they reach 30?). Im planning to build both sets straight PSA 8 w/o qualifiers. My question is this...which set from the 60's (in particular) do you feel provides the "best bang for the buck". Im looking for a set that combines a nice balance of eye appeal, rookie selection, hof'ers, cost etc. Im currently leaning towards the 1965 set but am very interested what the board thinks. In regards to the 70's..is there much demand for years other than 71,72,or 75? Unfortunately, for hobby purposes, I was born in 1971 so collecting a high grade set from my birth year would be difficult. I would appreciate any advise you could give.

skylaneflyer

It won't surprise many people on the board when I recommend that you consider 1967 Topps. I like the uncluttered design of this year and the autographs.

If you are truly interested in this set and would like to start, please email me for further information.

Thanks,

Sky

mikeschmidt

I would suggest 1963 or 1964. There don't seem to be many "bidding wars" on those sets, they should be fairly readily available in PSA 8 condition.

1965 is also a good choice -- but I am not sure if there aren't a lot more set collectors pursuing that set today than there were a year or so ago.

theBobs

From eBay bidding patterns, I would say 8-12 people are currently building the 1965 set.

PSA 8 commons tend to go from 80-120% of SMR, with more extreme swings on the lower/higher pop cards. The first 2/3 of the set is much easier than the final 1/3. When 2+ set builders who are 60+% complete need the same card, the price reflects the demand.

It seems that 3 or 4 guys are building this set RAPIDLY. While others of us are taking our time.

I believe Jay recently switched to 1965 from another 60s set due to bidding wars and hefty prices above SMR.

From a pure collectibility perspective, 65 is great. 5 HOF rookie cards, with a great cross section of 50s-70s stars.

bosoxphan

I like the 65 set best. Very attractive and I feel the Carlton card is one of the most undervalued in the 60's. The Mantle's pretty pricey though and the set's very popular.

zardoz51

Wise decision to stay away from the 1971 set. Only an idiot would attempt that most frustrating of sets.

dude

I think '65, '67, '68 and '69 are good choices. Each has it's strengths. What I don't like about '65 is that it doesn't have Seaver, Ryan and Bench. The '67 set is the best looking in my opinion and has the Seaver and Carew rookies. The '68 set has Ryan and Bench rookies and the cards in 8 are very affordable and probably easiest to find. The '69 set has the Reggie Jackson rookie and Mantle's last card.

I always recommend that you should collect what you enjoy the most. I wouldn't try to outguess the market and collect something just because you think it's undervalued now and hope that it will outgain other sets in value down the road. If I were you, I'd start looking at scans on eBay of PSA 8 cards from each set and get some feel for what's out there. I'd wait 2 or 3 weeks before committing yourself to a set. Good luck and let us know what you decide when that time comes.

carkim

Looks like we need a 70's rep here.

Like SKY it would not shock anyone for me to recommend the 1974 Topps set. This is a very affordable set and is loaded with HOF's. However, if your looking for the best "best bang for the buck" I would suggest the 1975 set (which I do not collect...yet). This set is also loaded with HOF'ers and has some excellect rookie cards. Furthermore this is the oldest of the (PSA) modern cards. Grading costs on Vintage Bulk is $7.00 per card and Modern Bulk is $6.00.

Just my $.02

Carlos

Wayne8348

I believe that the 65 set is an excellent choice. (I'm fortunate that I was born in 65 and not 71) I personally like the looks of the 63's the best but this is a very nice looking set. If you take your time you can probably get 50% completion and not spend much over $20-$22 for most of the commons. In fact, many of them you can get for around $15. The problem you may run into is getting the low pop. cards. Dumbies like me pay stupid amounts in trying to complete the set. I'm almost 90% so hopefully I"ll be done by the time you get to the low pop. cards. Plus there are lots of cards from this set being graded right now and that is helping availability. I believe that there is only 1 player that does not have a psa 8 with nq's. Plus being a member of the 65 club is very much a status thing!!! The folks who can't qualify for the 65 club typically join the 72 club.

Good luck with your decision. If you have any questions about 65's email me at wayne840@home.com

Wayne

Wayne8348

I believe that the 65 set is an excellent choice. (I'm fortunate that I was born in 65 and not 71) I personally like the looks of the 63's the best but this is a very nice looking set. If you take your time you can probably get 50% completion and not spend much over $20-$22 for most of the commons. In fact, many of them you can get for around $15. The problem you may run into is getting the low pop. cards. Dumbies like me pay stupid amounts in trying to complete the set. I'm almost 90% so hopefully I"ll be done by the time you get to the low pop. cards. Plus there are lots of cards from this set being graded right now and that is helping availability. I believe that there is only 1 player that does not have a psa 8 with nq's. Plus being a member of the 65 club is very much a status thing!!! The folks who can't qualify for the 65 club typically join the 72 club.

Good luck with your decision. If you have any questions about 65's email me at wayne840@home.com

Wayne

Basilone

Thanks for the help so far guys...it looks like either 1965 or 67....still undecided on the 70's set. Its a tough call that Ive been thinking about for several weeks. Ive also changed my screename, I will be using this handle from now on. Also, Ive been thinking about some strategies in pursuing the set. Knowing what you know now, would you pursue the Stars and RC's first rather than messing around with the commons.

One strategy is that over time there will be more and more PSA 8 commons submitted thus raising the numbers for many of the current LOW POP Commons, this could stabilize the common market in the next 5 years. The Stars and RC's are probably going to see a slower increase in submissions over the next couple of years at PSA 8+....but you never know. Once again, I appreciate any comments or suggestions you might have.

Vargha

For some reason the 1964 set has minimal competition on it. Some people don't like the white fronts, but I think they look fine. There are plenty of stars and HOFers.

thegemmintman

Dchiksu - I think if you go for the 1965 Topp set you will have made a solid choice. It's a gorgeous set, and you'll get a bang for your buck. It's my personal favorite of the large Topps sets of the 60's.

There is one more reason. If you register a vintage set, you will be cool like us.

Todd

Ok, What gives? I am building the 66 set(year I was born). What is the reason no one has even mentioned it, let alone recommended it. Should I hang it up? Is this going to tougher than I think? Would I have been better off being born in 71?

bosoxphan

Both 65 and 67 are great sets. I don't think you'd go wrong with either. Personal preference of which looks better to you. 65 has Yogi Berra and Sandy Koufax, 67 has Tom Seaver and Rod Carew.

bobcat

Are there no football card collectors on this board! I believe football cards from the 60's and 70's are undervalued, especially compared to their baseball counterparts. The sets are much smaller in terms of the number of cards so putting a set together would be easier and less expensive.

BTW I also like the 1966 Topps cards (baseball).

acowa

<I was born in 1971 so collecting a high grade set from my birth year would be difficult.>

Any year that you pick in vintage (PSA8 & above) is going to be difficult...so start with the one you like best. The last 10% is going to take longer than the first 90% of whatever you choose...so you might as well pick a set that particularly appeals to you.

After I finish my 1967 set...I will probably try to complete the 1971 set that I have started.

Regards,


Alan

zardoz51

Time out!

I'm putting a set of 1961 Football together, I agree with you that the cards are certainly undervalued, when quality graded commons pop-up on ebay, the multiples of book exceed those of similar baseball years.

mikeschmidt

I know one person putting together a 1966 Topps set -- with a fairly strong completion already.

69topps8

Vargha - I think one thing that dooms the '64 set is that annoying scratch off area on the back. I don't think PSA deducts for it if it's rubbed off (maybe you can't get a 9 but I've seen 8's that were rubbed off). If you want unmolested 8's or better, it makes it difficult to buy online in that you have to ask for a scan of the back on every card.

Actually I had an opportunity to buy a mostly NM/MT '64 set a few years back for about $3k and passed it up. I'm still kicking myself for that one!

JH

I don't consider the '64 set to be doomed. I do think that it doesn't seem to generate the demand that the later 60's sets do. The style is something that people either like or hate, particularly the huge team name across the top of the cards. The competition for them has been reasonable so far, but seems to be growing. I see 4 or 5 regular bidders on them. There are still a few commons that have yet to be graded, and several cards that have fairly low pops in 8 and 9. I chose the 1964 set because it the the set that my brothers and I collected in my youth. Finding our old cards when I helped my parents move out of their house was what got me back into this hobby, and those 64's that we opened as kids will remain with me forever. They aren't the highest in quality but they hold great memories.

theBobs

dchiksu,

Have you made a decision yet? Just curious, as I have enjoyed this thread...

FB

I'd have to go with either the 67 (the sweetest looking) or the 64 (the most understated) sets from the 60's. Although, it looks like you'll have a big support group (or violent competitors) if you should choose the 65 set. These were all just a touch before my collecting time but are favorites none the less.

As far as strategy goes - don't pay too much to start. Start your online bidding small even if you get beat for a while. Look at how much people have paid in past auctions for commons and stars from your year and figure out how much you should realistically pay. You'd hate to jump right in and then find out late that you paid top dollar for the first month or so. If you're independently wealthy, forget what I said...

TheCARDKid

If you go after any set, don't spend big bucks upfront on the "rare" commons. The price of those will go down in the coming years as more and more get submitted. I remember last year, out of a bunch of '65 Topps raw commons I had, low and behold I had one of the "rare" ones, in Ron Piche. I think the population was around 2 in PSA 8 and no 9's. Mine came back an 8. I sold it for $35. No bad considering other commons went for around $18-20. I was going for a Mint 9, but oh well.

Eventually none of these will be "rare", it's just a matter of time.

mikeschmidt

Some commons will always be rare in high-grade. Sheet placements, types of cuts, etc. wil make some exceedingly difficult to find in high grade.

There are some 1933 Goudey commons that to this day only have one example graded PSA 8 and higher.

There are NUMEROUS 1950s cards where the PSA 8 and higher population is a number much, much lower than five.

There are also numerous 1960s cards where the PSA 8 and higher population is very hard. With many of the late 1960s sets, though, PSA 8s should generally be available, but PSA 9's of certain cards may NEVER surface. PSA 8s probably always will be plentiful in mid-to-late 1960s. Some will be tougher than others, but if you raise the bar to PSA 9, it may never happen. (Said for the benefit of the numerous collectors who are striving for PSA 9's or better in their 1967, 1968, 1969 and later sets...)

skylaneflyer

Schmidt,

I resemble that remark!

Sky

Basilone

There are some real pros and cons in regards to player selection. Who do you think wins the war...65 has Koufax, Berra (Mets), Morgan (R), Tiant (R), Carlton (R), Perez (R), Catfish (R). With the 67 you lose Berra, Koufax, Spahn...but pick up Palmer, Jenkins, Sutton, Niekro (R), Carew (R) and the Seaver (R). I may be missing some guys but thats off the top of my head. Morgan, Perez, and Carlton are pretty stiff competition for Seaver and Carew.

qualitycards

If you can't decide on '65 or '67 try both. At least for awhile til your preference chages to one or the other. You can always re-eBay the cards you no longer collect or you can trade them or you can hold on to your 2nd choice and perhaps work on that set at a later date. There are pros and cons regarding each set, but both sets are collectible and you can't lose which ever one you decide...Good Luck! jay

skylaneflyer

It is very slow going to upgrade a complete set. It's one 9 at a time and you can go for weeks and months trying to locate the higher grades. Many do not exist. So I am finding myself in the same position - I am ready to embark on a new set.

Any suggestions on a good set to start?

Sky

NickM

With skylanebucks, the '62s should be a piece of cake.

Nick