I'll say it... I like the look of '66 Topps over '65s or '67s

originalisbest

Well, not that I don't like '65s or '67s as well. But on an overall basis, just not quite as much.

I think for me it's the really nice photography of the '66s, and how their backs tend to be uniform in color (overall.)

For all these years, the centering can often be off, but it seems like the '66s are a little more forgiving in their visual appeal, if they happen to be a touch off center.

With '67s, the backs are the problem for me -- I love, love love love when they're a really rich deep green. But so often, the ink seems to be running dry, and they tend to have that faded green look to them.

With '65's, just a little bit o/c tends to look really o/c.

So anyway, enjoying putting together a '66 set, card by card. I have a bunch of '65s and 67's too, do like them when they're nice, but barring winning a lotto -- I think I'll work on '66s mostly.


Anyone with me? Or am I alone in my appreciation of the '66 photos?
Looking around online for more about the set, Rich Gove was quoted as calling the '66s an "incredibly boring" set.

TheMick6

Are you sure it isn't the price of 66's that you like better? I've never really understood why 1966 is a year collectors dislike so much. I've always thought 68,69 and 70 where kinda bland sets design wise.

originalisbest

Hmm, maybe I do! On a card by card basis, do the 66s trend cheaper? Maybe, but then there are the high numbers to get, scarce, them and the 61 highs I've always understood to be toughest. But I really do like them aesthetically!

MrNearMint

Funny that you mention 66 topps because PSA has an article on their website about 66 topps being one of the most underrated issues of the decade.
Im not a big fan of most of the 60's sets, except of course for 1960 topps, love the look!

Hope the link works:

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/ArticleView/5582/the-1966-topps-baseball-card-set-one-of-the-most-underrated-issues-of-the-decade

cjaccardi

I love the 65 design

SidePocket

I love the 66 set, but I think the 67 set has an edge on photo quality. 65 is very colorful and a cool design. I'll be building all 3 in the near future.

GDM67

It's not really an outlandish opinion. The photography on all three sets is pretty much on a comparable (high) level.

originalisbest

Yep, I suppose so. If I could afford to collect any of them in an uncompromising grade, I think each set would look great. That said, I really do like how my 6 & 7 '66s appear. thanks for the link, mrnearmint, i did run across that one!

JoeBanzai

All three are nice. I prefer the 67 set, the fronts are "cleaner" looking to me. I don't pay much attention to the backs.

fiveniner

67s are awesome imo.

miwlvrn

<< <i>It's not really an outlandish opinion. The photography on all three sets is pretty much on a comparable (high) level. >>



Not that hard to agree since they recycle the same photos for so many years...

lahmejoon

I'm partial to the colorful design of the 65 set

summerof68

<< <i>I love the 65 design >>



'65 is my favorite card design from the '60s--sheer perfection!!

WalterSobchak

I'm not really a fan of the '66 Topps set design myself, but it's a hell of a lot better than '68 or '69.

All the Topps baseball set designs that I really like are from the first part of the decade. '63, '60, and '62 are my favorites, in that order.

SOM

I love all of those sets, too. But I'm always partial to the sets that include those cool, old team logos on the front.

So, 1965 is my choice!

lightningboy

The '65 and 66's are both very nice with the 66 probably being a little cleaner design. But, I'll take the 67's over most any Topps set. I love the simple, clean design like I do the 57's and 84 Donruss. Plus, I think the backs of the 67's are very easy to read.

CubsKiller99

I like all three sets mentioned but I don't particularly care for the 1966 design although the photography is very good.
Compare it with 1988 Topps if you want to see a similar design with inferior photos.

1965 wastes too much space with borders and the pennant and there's not enough space left over for the photo.

1967 gives you the largest photos with the cleanest design and great shots for the most part, although a lot
of the key stars have boring head shots.

I'd personally give the nod to 1967 as the best-looking overall.

My interest in Topps sets decreases as the percentage of action shots in the set increases.
I just like the posed photos much better.

heritage

If I could only pick one it's the 67 set hand down. But with that said I do like the other sets as well.

jmmiller777

My favorite 60's set is the 65. I completed it back in '99. I have been working the 66-68 since(I easily get sidetracked). In 2009, I got a great deal on a Jackson and Mantle, so decided to build that set as well. Then a great deal on 5,000 75 minis started another set. So, I have refocused back on the '69 set, mainly because I have a majority of the set with only a few star cards needed. I think it goes something like this:
1966 set 40%
1967 set 50%
1968 set 90% and still need Ryan an EX-EX+
1969 set 95%

Favorite sets go in this order: 1965, 1967, 1969, 1966, 1968

corncobb

To me the 65 set is hands down the best design and set of the decade.

chaz43

65's are the best no question. I grew up collecting them. chaz

originalisbest

Well, I actually do like most every set, for one reason or another. It'd probably be easier for me to pick a few sets that I don't care for, but then, I'd be stomping all over someone's personal favorite.

originalisbest

While I generally favor the pics on '66s over 65 or 67, there are always exceptions -- think the Yaz in '66 is def. the best of those 3 cards of his, but the '67 for Killebrew is hard to top. Guess I'll just need to collect them all!

CollectorAtWork

I'm not a big fan of the 1965 set in terms of aesthetics. Here's my ranking of the 1960s sets:

(1) 1960
(2) 1961
(3) 1963
(4) 1964
(5) 1969
(6) 1967
(7) 1966
(8) 1965
(9) 1962
(10) 1968

MintMoondog

The odd numbered years are more interesting to me than the even numbered years. How is that for logic?