Which Topps Base Sets don't get the "love" they deserve?

ThoseBackPages · February 17, 2011 4:25AM

Seeing the dislike of the '73 Topps set in another thread here made me wonder which sets you guys think don't get the love they deserve, either for poor quality/pics and/or lack of rookies or star power.

Would like to get a discussion going about it.

GB5HOF · February 17, 2011 4:28AM

and in that same thought...maybe the most overrated set? Cool topic...

theczar · February 17, 2011 5:06AM

Mickey71 · February 17, 2011 5:57AM

55 Bowman

leadoff4 · February 17, 2011 7:04AM

'66 Topps baseball

cowboydirk · February 17, 2011 7:11AM

1977 Topps Mexican Football !!!

They're unknown, they're ugly with the perforated tabs, gum stains, print defects etc... But I love them!!!

WalterSobchak · February 17, 2011 9:32AM

I think '70 Topps baseball is a fantastic set, and I am having a blast putting it together. I very rarely hear anyone mentioning '70 Topps among their favorite sets, however.

So I guess that's my pick!

cards651 · February 17, 2011 10:27AM

I was thinking '70 Topps baseball as I opened the thread and there was Walter's post. Agreed. Still very affordable for the most part given its age.

Boopotts · February 17, 2011 10:30AM

'72 Topps hockey. The Orr in PSA 10 only sells for $150 or so, which gives you an idea about how indifferent most people are to this set.

fkw · February 17, 2011 12:42PM

Supply
All Topps "Base" sets are overerrated..

They are all extremely common, no such thing as a rare (ie hard to find) Topps card.
So in that sense they are all overrated, But Topps to many (newbies) are the only baseball cards they know of, so Demand will always be there for many.

But if I had to choose, Id say 1956 is undervalued compared to similar year/style cards.

WeekendHacker · February 17, 2011 2:32PM

<< I think '70 Topps baseball is a fantastic set, and I am having a blast putting it together. I very rarely hear anyone mentioning '70 Topps among their favorite sets, however.

So I guess that's my pick! >>

I couldn't have said it better myself. See the link below.

WeekendHacker · February 17, 2011 2:33PM

<< I was thinking '70 Topps baseball as I opened the thread and there was Walter's post. Agreed. Still very affordable for the most part given its age. >>

Thank you again for your purchases from the link below.

cards651 · February 18, 2011 3:28AM

Thanks, Mike. I have bought some very nice '70 Topps Baseball from Mike's liquidation sale and there are still many left at very reasonable prices. Hope I have not sent the thread off in a different direction. I agree with Boopotts on '72 Topps Hockey which I also collect. These have been very reasonably priced lately with lots of availability. Also agree with fkw on the '56 Topps. Still very reasonably priced. - Kevin

bking · February 18, 2011 5:19AM

<< I think '70 Topps baseball is a fantastic set, and I am having a blast putting it together. I very rarely hear anyone mentioning '70 Topps among their favorite sets, however.

So I guess that's my pick! >>

Mine too. It's the first year I really spent allowance regularly on cards as a kid, so it's my first priority for a graded set.

Hallco · February 18, 2011 5:26AM

Nobody seems to like 1990!

Dialj · February 18, 2011 6:15AM

1967 doesn't seem to get any love.

celesterussell · February 18, 2011 10:32PM

1970 for sure. The backs are clean, easy to read. The photos are not minimized by overbearing boarders and are sharper when compared to other years. Also, the semi highs and highs have stars in them.
FYI, dont kid yourself, due to this sometimes being know "as the off center year" many cards are tough in high grade.

alnavman · February 18, 2011 10:37PM

I personally liked the two word grained sets Topps produced. I know they are the set the you either loved because of the wood grain or hate but I personally liked both of them. Someone also mentioned the 90's and I think that the 1992 design was nice and yes I don't think any of the 90's get love....\al.

Rushhead2112 · February 18, 2011 11:36PM

I'm partial to the 1989 Topps set myself... trademark white borders, squeaky clean yet colorful design, great subsets with Future Stars, All Star Rookies, #1 Draft Picks, Turn Back The Clocks, All Stars, with Randy Johnson, Roberto Alomar, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Mark Grace & David Wells first issues in a base set. The design itself was the most "throwback" of the mass produced set era of the late 80's and early 90's. Once they got away from traditional cardboard stock in 1992 and no more stale gum (and stains) I think they became too commercial. It was the set I collected several times over at the age of 11, which most will agree is the time the baseball card bug bites. There are only a few seriously putting the set together on the registry right now and only myself and one other collector with more than 15 or 20% I'll always love the 89 Topps Set and hoping as graded cards gain popularity, the post Generation X-ers will become a little nostalgic and love will be rekindled. And if PSA ever wants help with a write up on this awesome set (yeah, right) I'm your man!

fiveniner · February 19, 2011 12:07AM

1954 Bowman

ThoseBackPages · February 19, 2011 3:19AM

<< I'm partial to the 1989 Topps set myself... trademark white borders, squeaky clean yet colorful design, great subsets with Future Stars, All Star Rookies, #1 Draft Picks, Turn Back The Clocks, All Stars, with Randy Johnson, Roberto Alomar, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Tom Glavine, Mark Grace & David Wells first issues in a base set. The design itself was the most "throwback" of the mass produced set era of the late 80's and early 90's. Once they got away from traditional cardboard stock in 1992 and no more stale gum (and stains) I think they became too commercial. It was the set I collected several times over at the age of 11, which most will agree is the time the baseball card bug bites. There are only a few seriously putting the set together on the registry right now and only myself and one other collector with more than 15 or 20% I'll always love the 89 Topps Set and hoping as graded cards gain popularity, the post Generation X-ers will become a little nostalgic and love will be rekindled. And if PSA ever wants help with a write up on this awesome set (yeah, right) I'm your man! >>

Absolutely agree with you. i need to add more '89s to my collection.

CEOBIDMC · February 19, 2011 3:24AM

1964 topps; really enjoy the clean design, doesnt seem to get the love.

digicat · February 19, 2011 2:16PM

<< which sets you guys think don't get the love they deserve, either for poor quality/pics and/or lack of rookies or star power. >>

If a set is plagued with issues like low quality, bad pics, and/or no rookie crop, why would it "deserve" any love at all?

I think it's ironic that one of the most hidious looking sets (1975 Topps baseball) is one that is heavly collected.

<< I'll always love the 89 Topps Set and hoping as graded cards gain popularity, the post Generation X-ers will become a little nostalgic and love will be rekindled. >>

The registry is a powerful drug.

MintMoondog · February 22, 2011 5:58PM

Interesting thread...
I have been slowly working through all the 1970s sets. I can say that the one set that seems to be under-rated is the 1977 (the stock was basically toilet paper, and there are many lower pop 9s, however, it has very few glamor rookies if any) the one set that seems to be totally ignored is the 1979 (My guess is that there is a lot of supply just sitting around with no real PSA buyers).

Ripken · February 23, 2011 3:57AM

Ripken · February 23, 2011 3:59AM

I think a lot of the '60s Topps sets are very clean looking. Simple designs but sharp looking photos for the most part, clean backs and reasonable in size. '62s were interesting but the quality control is just kind of lacking there. Overall, I especially like the '65, '67, 68 sets. Some iconic rookie cards in the last two.

Which Topps Base Sets don't get the &quot;love&quot; they deserve?

Comments

Which Topps Base Sets don't get the "love" they deserve?