The Best 60's Topps Sets

SayitaintsoJoe63 · April 13, 2002 8:11AM

Just out of curiousity, how would you guys rate the Topps baseball sets from the 60's.
My personal favorite is the 1963 set, and it's the first set I've been putting together here in the Registry. 1963 was the year I was born, so it's a little bit of a sentimental favorite... plus it's a very beautiful set with the different colored bottoms providing a great challenge.
I would have to rank the 1969 set as #2.....not because of the design really, but mostly because it represents the changing of the old guard, so to speak.......with the last card of Mantle, and the up and coming soon to be stars of the 70's and 80's.
I would finish ranking my top ten, this way.
#3 1965 (I've always liked this design...the little pennant is cool)
#4 1960 (like the horizontal design)
#5 1968 (this might be ugly to some, but I like it for some reason)
#6 1967 (kinda average to me)
#7 1962 (the wood grain is ok, but some of these cards are just too ugly)
#8 1966 (very average looking set...nothing to get excited about really)
#9 1964 (this one just doesn't strike me)
#10 1961 (blah!)

What are you guys looking for in the sets from the 60's?

zardoz51 · April 13, 2002 8:55AM

Sayitaintso

errrrr, you might want to rethink your ranking. There are certain collectors, mentioning no names, who believe that there was only one set issued during the entire decade, that being the 1967.

1963 happens to be my favorite also. Very attractive design and great portraiture.

Buckwheat · April 13, 2002 11:29AM

I have to disagree with you on the 1961 set. While not loaded with superstar rookies, and not the best looking, it is one of the most popular. I believe this is primarily because 1961 was the best year in baseball for a lot of people. The Mantle and Maris chase after Ruth, the Yankees coming back after being upset by the Pirates in the 1960 Series, and a big year for homeruns.

1961 has the largest number of graded cards for the decade, although it is the oldest set. On the set registry, there are 5 sets over 90% complete, and I know of other sets that aren't registered. Thsi is a very popular and active set that always has good demand for and availability of cards.

Perhaps since youweren't yet born, it seems like reading history.

I think the worst set is the 1962. The brown borders are just ugly to me. But, there is very little activiey in this set, and I one could consider it fertile ground to collect the number one set.

Buck

SayitaintsoJoe63 · April 13, 2002 11:38AM

Good points Buck. While I don't care for the design of the 61's really. I will at least concede that the checklist cards are the 60's best!!

bosoxphan · April 13, 2002 12:04PM

I'll play. I'll make my list for the 60's sets but don't even think about starting one for the 70's sets, those guys are crazy.

1. 1965- Always thought it was the best looking set of the 60's and the Carlton rookie is very undervalued.
2. 1963- Close second, very attractive and the Rose card is THE card of the 60's.
3. 1967- Another very attractive set with key cards of Seaver and Carew
4. 1964- I like the simple design and AL Bombers card
5. 1966- Another simple design but attractive nonetheless
6. 1961- Many don't like it but I don't think they're that bad, a lot of good close ups.
7. 1969- Not bad but I really don't like the name circles.
8. 1960- Many like it but I really don't. Just too darn colorful. The multicolored names are psychedelic.
9. 1968- Yeah it's got Ryan but the borders look like a burlap sack.
10. 1962- Bringing up the rear. The wood grain finish looks like a crappy apartment I used to rent. Landlord was too cheap to bring the thing out of the 70's. Guess you could say this set was ahead of its time.

gemint · April 13, 2002 1:30PM

Here's my list although I like em all!

1. 1967 (nice clean design, RC of Carew/Seaver, tough High #)
2. 1963 (Another great design, Rose RC what more can you ask for?)
3. 1969 (The main focus of my collection but honestly not the best design of the '60's)
4. 1961 (I actually really like this design. Too bad the print quality wasn't good though-lots of fish eyes. '61 Mantle/Maris are the two most important cards (non rookies) of the '60's)
5. 1965 (Nice design/weak rookie crop)
6. 1968 (average design but it has the Ryan RC. Probably Topps' best quality control of the '60's from a production standpoint-lots of 9's and 10's)
7. 1966 (tough high # short prints but again no top tier rookie card)
8. 1962 (Not a fan of the wood grain borders, either in '62 or '87. (A Maris #1 in PSA 9 sure looks great though

)
9. 1960 (The split photo just doesn't do it for me)
10. 1964 (weak design, no big rookies and that annoying coin ruboff area on the back)

gaspipe26 · April 13, 2002 1:40PM

Here's my 2c,

1-1969 Because I said so!
2-1967 Great cards and design
3-1965 Same as above
4-1961 My birth year
5-1964 The cards were made on great stock.
6-1966 High Series make it
7-1963 Tough but boring
8-1960 I have to put it somewhere
9-1968 Same as above
10-1962 Simply the ugliest set ever made.

qualitycards · April 13, 2002 3:25PM

GEMINT -

<< <i>1965 (Nice design/weak rookie crop) >>

Actually the rookies are a major strength of the '65's w/ several Hall Of Famers...
Steve Carlton
Joe Morgan
Tony Perez
Catfish Hunter

gemint · April 13, 2002 3:37PM

Quality - True they are all HOF but none of them are setting the collecting world on fire. Carlton is unpopular because of his personality, Morgan put up great numbers for a second baseman but not compared to other position players from his era, Hunter's career ended prematurely and Perez was a solid RBI man but finished with less than 400 homeruns. Taking them all into account you could say it was a decent crop of rookies. I guess I should have prefaced my opinion by stating the set had no top tier rookies the caliber of a Rose, Reggie, Ryan or Seaver.

jwmerrill · April 13, 2002 9:54PM

There were other sets besides 1967 issued in the 60s???

Jim

bccards · April 13, 2002 11:56PM

I'll play too:

1967-my birth year and love the design, rookies, affordable and popular!
1961-I love the affordability of this set, the most bang for your buck of all 60's sets.
1960-Visually appealing, colorful, i love the horizontal format.
1964-PLAIN DESIGN,but very affordable,and many cards like the killebrew jump out in higher grades.
1963-ROSE ROOKIE, however the hof cards are overpriced due to the sets popularity.
1966-koufax last card, affordable mantle, simple design
1965-hank aarons nicest card, carlton rookie
1969-#7 by default
1968-visually unappealing
1962-visually disgusting

SayitaintsoJoe63 · April 14, 2002 3:37AM

So far, the '62 set isn't faring too well........it's ranking at or near the bottom of most people's lists. I guess it makes you kinda wonder what Topps was thinking that year. It was the most radical departure from any of Topps previous set designs. The only design that even came close to it, and most collectors will recall this set, was the 1958 Hires rootbeer set.
It seems like the coloring on the '62's is the most inconsistant of any other 60's set.

jaxxr · April 14, 2002 4:50AM

I really like the 50s and the 70,s better, for some odd reason I guess, but here's my ranking;

1 1961 sharp design, still quite vintage
2 1965 nice rookies, SPs, penant is cool
3 1967 classic looking in my eyes
4 1963 very well designed
5 1962 wood grain makes the set tuff, maris card with 61 HRs a super collectable
6 through 10 Five way tie

dude · April 14, 2002 12:47PM

Oh, it couldn't be more obvious:

1. 1967 Topps Baseball
2. 1968 Topps Baseball
3. 1969 Topps Baseball
4. 1967 Topps Pirates Stickers
5. 1968 Topps 3-D
6. 1968 Topps Game
7. 1969 Topps Deckle Edge
8. 1969 Topps Super
9. 1969 Topps Decal Inserts
10. 1967 Topps Red Sox Stickers

I've actually heard some far-fetched rumors that there were cards made before '67.

toppsgun · April 14, 2002 1:36PM

Better late than never. Actually, I can't let "dude" get away with that last comment. Plus I didn't know obscure insert sets or test issues counted. If they do, '64 Giants are awesome, '64 coins and '69 Deckle reek. My ranking:

1. 1967 - Pure baseball card with great photos, facsimile autograph. Only drawback is limited stats due to vertical designed back.
2. 1961 - Another pure baseball card that just looks vintage. Highs are a real challenge and as said before, checklist action is cool.
3. 1965 - Colorful, but not cluttered. Pennant team names. Beautiful blue back. WS subset is awesome (Mantle/Gibson/McCarver).
4. 1963 - Most colorful of the decade, difficult to find nice. Semi-highs vs. highs. Compared to '62 before and '64 behind, stunning!
5. 1968 - RCs of best pitcher & catcher of generation. I had more '68s than any other year as a kid. Burlap don't bother me much.
6. 1969 - Expansion killed off the team cards, but you get Billy as Mgr (Twins), Ted ('Nats), Ryan (alone) and 1st Reggie/last Mantle.
7. 1966 - Toughest high series of the decade, no apologies to '61 collectors, but fairly plain design and avg. backs. NO RC's of note.
8. 1964 - Nothing special (Niekro the key RC??) and a lazy design, very plain. Scratch off hurts high end graded collecting.
9. 1960 - I don't like horizontal cards. They belong in the 50's. No career stats on back is a terrible idea. Front is weak, too.
10. 1962- It's unanimous: worst baseball card design of the century, not just decade. No career stats. My favorite team lost in the WS to the Yanks. (Taking the time to write this comment is a waste of time.) Cuban missile crisis/bay of pigs. Madelyn Murray O'Hare won Supreme Court decision to remove prayer and 10 commandments from public school. [Man, I didn't realize how BADLY I disliked this set.]

mikeschmidt · April 14, 2002 9:50PM

I always thought that the 1969 Topps Supers had the best pictures of any set from the decade....

RayBShotz · April 14, 2002 11:48PM

I'll play also.

1969 - White Letters, Mantle's last card, boatload of HOF'ers, my childhood set of choice.
1965 - Love those pennants. Clean and colorful.
1963 - Great layout, Rose Rookie!
1967 - Big photo area, Nice!
1964 - Tough in nice condition
1961 - Straight forward
1968 - Is it burlap...
1962 - or is it wood
1966 - Blah
1960 - Hate the Horizontal even b4 grading, even worse in a graded holder; hurts the neck.

RayB69Topps

1960BUCS · April 15, 2002 10:59AM

alrighty here is my take

1960-Colorful, 2 pictures and in Mint shape they kick everyones tail. There is no star cards from this set that i think is ugly.

1963-Colorful part 2 electric boogaloo, in Mint shape that kick everyones tail but 1960's. I love the stars in this set even Juan Marichal is killer.

1961-I am 80% done with my Pirate Team set and would someone, anyone, please god find me a NM/MT Joe Gibbon, is that too much to ask??????? I will go crazy before i find one without paying 400 for it.

1964-These cards have always pleased me when they had alot of gloss. The clemente, mays and aaron are just killer in high grade.

1965-I see way to many dull cards in this year. However it is probably the most "classic" designed of any 60s set.

1966-I like em. The clemente is great when centered. The set is underrated in terms of centering and high numbers.

1967-Classic and Ernies card is my favorite ernie of the decade.

1969-Bench and Ryan are two good looking cards and most cards are bargains. However tilts and centering just kills too many high grades for me.

1968-Too easy, too ugly sounds like a bad night at a bar.

1962-1968's fat friend.

The Best 60's Topps Sets

Comments