Which Topps set has most HOFers?

Options
JTB
JTB Posts: 186
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
I think this has been discussed here before, but I can't find it in the archives. Which Topps regular issue set has the most HOFers?

Thanks,
JTB

Comments

  • helionaut
    helionaut Posts: 1,555 ✭✭
    Options
    1957 has 5 with F-Rob, B-Rob, Bunning, Drysdale, and Mazeroski. The Leaf set of 1948-49 has the most of any post-war set, though it depends on how you categorize the year. More people seem to see it as a 1948 set, though some people say 48-49 or 49. There's a HOF post-war RC set on the registry, check it out.

    Of course, looking at some rookie speculators, the Bowman sets of the past few years have dozens of HOFers in them.
    WANTED:
    2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
    2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
    Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs

    Nothing on ebay
  • CDsNuts
    CDsNuts Posts: 10,092 ✭
    Options
    Good question. I would say off the top of my head 1968 and 1969 with all the guys who started in the 50s and 60s before anyone retired.

    Lee
  • coachh
    coachh Posts: 529 ✭
    Options
    I think you need to clarify if you want rookie cards of HOF or any card of HOF.
  • coachh
    coachh Posts: 529 ✭
    Options
    I came up with 38 different HOF members with cards in 1968.
  • JTB
    JTB Posts: 186
    Options
    I was referring to all HOFers, not just RC.

    JTB
  • gregmadduxfan
    gregmadduxfan Posts: 556
    Options
    10 Years from now the 1987 sets will have plenty of Hofs.......1987 was an interesting year since it has a lot of rcs that will be HOFs plus all of the HOFs that had their last card that year or almost last year, ie: Seaver, Niekro, Reggie Jackson, Rose, Carlton, Sutton (I know some of them have 88 cards as well). If someone gets some time maybe you can put together the list.

  • packman
    packman Posts: 948
    Options
    1956 Topps has 34 HOF cards (10% of the set).
  • gregmadduxfan
    gregmadduxfan Posts: 556
    Options
    I know Rose isn't in the HOF either but I included him above anyways, just did a rough count off the top of my head and it's around 30 guys or so.
  • Hubcap
    Hubcap Posts: 293
    Options
    1971 HAS THE MOST. SOME HOFers ARE ON AS MANAGER CARDS.
  • bobsbbcards
    bobsbbcards Posts: 3,254 ✭✭✭
    Options
    Here's the list of HOF player cards from 1968. A total of 69 cards feature hall-of-famers:

    1 Clemente/Gonzalez/Matty Alou LL
    2 Yastrzemski/F. Robinson/Kaline LL
    3 Cepeda/Clemente/Aaron LL
    4 Yastrzemski/Killebrew/F. Robinson LL
    5 Aaron/Santo/McCovey LL
    6 Yastrzemski/Killebrew/Howard LL
    7 Niekro/Bunning/Short LL
    9 McCormick/Jenkins/Bunning/Osteen LL
    11 Bunning/Jenkins/Perry LL
    20 Brooks Robinson
    37 Billy Williams
    45 Tom Seaver
    50 Willie Mays
    58 Eddie Mathews
    80 Rod Carew
    85 Gaylord Perry
    86 Willie Stargell
    100 Bob Gibson
    103 Don Sutton
    107 Checklist 2/Juan Marichal
    110 Hank Aaron
    130 Tony Perez
    144 Joe Morgan
    145 Don Drysdale
    150 Roberto Clemente
    151 Lou Brock WS1
    152 Carl Yastrzemski WS2
    154 Bob Gibson WS4
    177 Nolan Ryan
    192 Checklist 3/Carl Yastrzemski
    200 Orlando Cepeda
    205 Juan Marichal
    215 Jim Bunning
    220 Harmon Killebrew
    240 Al Kaline
    247 Johnny Bench
    250 Carl Yastrzemski
    257 Phil Niekro
    278 Checklist 4/Orlando Cepeda
    280 Mickey Mantle
    290 Willie McCovey
    294 Red Schoendienst
    310 Luis Aparicio
    321 Leo Durocher
    350 Hoyt Wilhelm
    355 Ernie Banks
    361 Harmon Killebrew AS
    362 Orlando Cepeda AS
    363 Rod Carew AS
    364 Joe Morgan AS
    365 Brooks Robinson AS
    369 Carl Yastrzemski AS
    370 Hank Aaron AS
    372 Lou Brock AS
    373 Frank Robinson AS
    374 Roberto Clemente AS
    378 Bob Gibson AS
    385 Jim Hunter
    390 Bill Mazeroski
    408 Steve Carlton
    410 Ferguson Jenkins
    454 Checklist 6/Frank Robinson
    472 Walter Alston
    480 Oliva/Cardenas/Clemente
    490 Killebrew/Mays/Mantle
    500 Frank Robinson
    520 Lou Brock
    530 Bird Belters/B. Robinson/F. Robinson
    575 Jim Palmer

    In addition to those already in, the following have a fairly good chance to make it before all is said and done:

    16 Lou Piniella
    27 Gil Hodges
    30 Joe Torre
    230 Pete Rose
    235 Ron Santo
    259 Ken Boyer
    300 Rusty Staub
    330 Roger Maris
    366 Ron Santo AS
    450 Jim Kaat
    571 Tony LaRussa
    bobsbbcards PSA Registry Sets
    bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
  • bobsbbcards
    bobsbbcards Posts: 3,254 ✭✭✭
    Options
    Here's the same thing for 1971. Total of 53 cards featuring Hall-of-Famers.

    20 Reggie Jackson
    30 Phil Niekro
    45 Jim Hunter
    50 Willie McCovey
    55 Steve Carlton
    61 A. Johnson/Yastrzemski/Oliva LL
    64 Bench/Perez/Williams LL
    65 Howard/Killebrew/Yastrzemski LL
    66 Bench/Williams/Perez LL
    67 Segui/Palmer/Wright LL
    68 Seaver/Simpson/Walker LL
    70 Gibson/Perry/Jenkins LL
    72 Seaver/Gibson/Jenkins LL
    110 Bill Mazeroski
    140 Gaylord Perry
    160 Tom Seaver
    180 Al Kaline
    197 Jim Palmer ALCS2
    210 Rod Carew
    230 Willie Stargell
    239 Red Schoendienst
    248 Hoyt Wilhelm
    250 Johnny Bench
    264 Joe Morgan
    280 Ferguson Jenkins
    300 Brooks Robinson
    325 Juan Marichal
    329 Frank Robinson WS3
    331 Brooks Robinson WS5
    350 Billy Williams
    355 Bud Harrelson w/Ryan
    361 Don Sutton
    380 Ted Williams
    384 Rollie Fingers
    400 Hank Aaron
    450 Bob Gibson
    477 Earl Weaver
    513 Nolan Ryan
    525 Ernie Banks
    530 Carl Yastrzemski
    550 Harmon Killebrew
    567 Walt Alston
    570 Jim Palmer
    574 Jim Bunning
    580 Tony Perez
    600 Willie Mays
    605 Orlando Cepeda
    609 Leo Durocher
    625 Lou Brock
    630 Roberto Clemente
    640 Frank Robinson
    688 Sparky Anderson
    740 Luis Aparicio SP

    Again, here's a list of possible "upgrades".

    5 Thurman Munson
    14 Dave Concepcion
    26 Bert Blyleven
    35 Lou Piniella
    62 R. Carty/J. Torre/M. Sanguillen LL
    100 Pete Rose
    183 Gil Hodges
    220 Ron Santo
    245 Jim Kaat
    370 Joe Torre
    511 Chris Short w/Rose
    520 Tommy John
    560 Rusty Staub
    bobsbbcards PSA Registry Sets
    bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
  • goudeygold
    goudeygold Posts: 701 ✭
    Options
    Here is another issue with 50-60-70s set building. Even the most loaded sets don't have 10% of the cards as HOFs. That's probably a "common" rate of 80% or more. Check some of the old pre-war sets from the 30s. Many are pushing 50+% HOF.

    All killer, no filler!!!

    GG
  • bobsbbcards
    bobsbbcards Posts: 3,254 ✭✭✭
    Options
    Have to agree with the ostrich on the abundance of HOF players in '30s baseball sets. 1933 Goudey kicks arse!

    1933 Goudey 65 HOF / 240 Cards = 27.1%
    1934 Goudey 20 HOF / 96 Cards = 20.7%
    1938 Goudey 18 HOF / 48 Cards = 37.5%
    1939 Playball 18 HOF / 162 Cards = 11.1%

    NOTE: HOF for these sets are determined by PSA's listings. May or may not be correct.

    Edited to correct # of cards in '38 Goudey set: Whoever did the numbering for this set was drunk. Sets should start at 1.
    bobsbbcards PSA Registry Sets
    bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
  • goudeygold
    goudeygold Posts: 701 ✭
    Options
    Correction:

    38 goudey only has 48 cards and 18 HOF or 37%

    33 sport kings 48 cards 17 HOF or 35%

    32 US caramel 32 cards 27 HOF or 84%



    GG
  • bobsbbcards
    bobsbbcards Posts: 3,254 ✭✭✭
    Options
    As far as Topps supplemental sets that are high in HOFers:

    1969 Topps Game 10 / 33 = 30.3%
    1969 Topps Deckle Edge 9 / 33 = 27.3%
    1969 Topps Super 18 / 66 = 27.3%
    1970 Topps Super 16 / 42 = 38.1%
    1971 Topps Super 18 / 63 = 28.6%
    1972 Topps Posters 10 / 24 = 42.7%
    1973 Topps Candy Lids 24 / 55 = 43.6%
    1973 Topps Comics and/or Pinups 13 / 24 = 54.2%
    1974 Topps Deckle Edge 20 / 72 = 27.8%
    1977 Topps Cloth Stickers 18 / 55 = 32.7%

    bobsbbcards PSA Registry Sets
    bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
  • toadstrangler
    toadstrangler Posts: 10,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    HOF'ers are the bells and whistles of collecting. We all love them! However, don't under estimate the fun in chasing down that mint example of the most obscure players. I dunno, I wouldn't ever put down how anybody else collects. With that said, noone will EVER see me chasing down pre war through the 50's cards. They mean nothing to me. Value be damned. I am obsessed with collecting 70's cards. I was a kid then. That means alot more than HOF'er % or the said value of a card image

    COPPER is gutter !

  • Griffins
    Griffins Posts: 6,079 ✭✭✭
    Options
    Bob-
    Piniella, Boyer and Staub with an outside chance at the HOF? The Baseball HOF?

    Always looking for N690 Kalamazoo Bats and Newsboy Cabinets

  • goudeygold
    goudeygold Posts: 701 ✭
    Options
    I agree softparade. To everyman his own. However I can't see the fun in collecting 600+ high grade commons for a 78 set either. Its good that you are doing what you do. While I will NEVER have a shot at a top 5 set in pre-war, you very well could have the best or one of the best of a very large set.

    GG
  • ctsoxfan
    ctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
    Options
    I'm with softparade as well - though I collect both (a few 70's sets and a few older sets). You have to collect what you enjoy, appreciate, and remember - and if that means cards of Jerry Remy, Rick Burleson, Mickey Rivers, etc. - then so be it.

    But, I do see how collecting these 70's sets is a losing proposition. I am currently liquidating my 1980 set, which I had gotten to approx. 30% or so, and it is tough to find buyers for a lot of these cards. With 1978 for example, there are 2 guys on Ebay right now buying all the PSA 10's you can put up, but if they don't bid - no one does. Guess there aren't many of us crazy enough to collect this stuff out there.
    image
  • ctsoxfan
    ctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
    Options


    << <i>Bob-
    Piniella, Boyer and Staub with an outside chance at the HOF? The Baseball HOF? >>




    image

    I was thinking the same thing!
    image
  • toadstrangler
    toadstrangler Posts: 10,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    The biggest thing I don't understand is why a collector should even worry about a buyer. What does the CURRENT interest in a set have to do with enjoying and collecting a beautiful set? Please, I have not heard a good answer yet. Value, and over printing, and modern, and on and on I have heard. Listen, If I was collecting a 27 year old set in 1978 I would be after 1951 Topps. Well that isn't possible is it? So, I am right now collecting a 27 year old set in 2005. Let me introduce 1978 Topps. BUT because these cards are more plentiful by a huge margin than so called "vintage" cards image (thats another good one) they are looked down upon by many because everyone could collect it. But not everyone can collect it in true MINT fashion. That does not make me feel any more the wiser collector than the guy going after MINT 1987 Topps. I hate to say it but this next statement is true as can be in my eyes. People with alot of money to blow sneer at "modern" cards like 1978 Topps, and for some reason consider collecting anything other than stuff that most collectors can not own worthless or crap. I am so happy that I am not in this hobby for the feeling of financial gain or future gain. Stone193 syas it best. Buy stocks and property if you really want to make money image

    COPPER is gutter !

  • Buccaneer
    Buccaneer Posts: 1,794 ✭✭
    Options
    softy, the best answer I can come up with in response is that some time in the future, your focus WILL change. You will then want to liquidate your set(s) to start on another set(s). You know I grew up collecting 1970s cards and I completed 6 raw sets. But as I got older, I have come to believe that vintage sets are truly pieces of art compared to the post-1972 sets. In the past 15 years, the vintage years have remained steady or rising in value while the moderns (post-1972) have fallen in value. I think a lot of collectors - even those that grew up with the 1970s sets - are seeing that. But as I and others have said, it should be about love of collecting and there is nothing wrong with moderns from that standpoint. It just may not be financial prudent to do so (re: a graded set) but one is not forced to do that and can build a very nice raw set.
  • goudeygold
    goudeygold Posts: 701 ✭
    Options
    I think the answer to your question is simply that many people want a hobby that not only builds something "cool", but also has the very real possibility to appreciate in value. This way you can justify spending a huge chunk of money because really its no different than money in the bank and it satisfies the "hunt" us collectors have. And right now pre-war is really where its at especially with low pop sets.

    your seeming to overcompensate for your collection by constantly referring to it as garbage. It isn't garbage, it is a fine set for your desires. HOWEVER, if you actually need the money for something you may be hurting when you sell trying to recoup your total cost, especially if you have to sell it in a hurry.

    Where are you on the registry for 78? I see there are some insane sets higher up on the list.

    GG

    My recent resell examples:

    ty cobb PSA 2, bought 280 sold for 310.
    vince richards sport king raw for 25 sold for 55 as a PSA 4. (over book)
    lopchick sport king bought raw for 45, sold for almost 90. (over book)
    nat holman sport king bought for 100, sold for 155. (over book)
    nat holman GAI 4.5 bought 190, sold 152. (over book)
    bought 38 goudey joe-D GAI 6 2775, sold for 3200. (full SMR)

    All of these I held only for a few months. not too shabby i think. so I not only netted about $500, I had fun with it too. I could just have the money in the bank, but what fun is that right?
  • toadstrangler
    toadstrangler Posts: 10,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    GG, currently I am at # 14 in the 1978 registry (No spokes for these 78's) . I started the set in November 2004. I have a 3 box rack case headed in my direction with one of the boxes going to another member of this forum.

    I know this is a compulsive hobby. However, if I ever have to try and sell my beloved 78's to re-coup anything then shame on me. The money I use to buy my cards is money others use to go on vacations, buy speakers, kickin stereo recievers, etc. Who do you know that worries about re-couping vacation money? Or money spent on top notch stereo equipment? LOL That thought process is a product of this hobby and its a shame.

    I refer to my collecting habits as garbage only because I so often see these cards that I collect referred to as worthless. Its just a tounge in cheek poke at the absurdity of it all. I will be the first one to let you know that when I am in a pinch and need to sell my stereo speakers, my stereo reciever and whoopin sub woofer. Or somehow need to make back that cash spent on the Bahamas. Why is it different with Sports Cards? How come most need to have the comfort of knowing "I can re-coup my money" ? I think I know this answer. It is the shame of going into debt to pay for the hobby of collecting cardboard. But boats and cars and stereo equipment and vacations is all good!



    COPPER is gutter !

  • goudeygold
    goudeygold Posts: 701 ✭
    Options
    I agree with you, but if people were not doing this to make money then there likely would be no grading services either. I agree with your logic, but for me it is a time killer and satisfies the hunter/collector in me all the while I most likely will not lose anything other than my time. Plus my cards do not take up much space, unlike a summer car, boat, etc... I guess i'm just into making money, and if my hobby can make me money, then i'm double satisfied!!

    GG
  • toadstrangler
    toadstrangler Posts: 10,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    GG,

    although I will never ever have an interest in pre-war, 50's or even early 60's cards I know that is where the big dollars are at. I know! I just could care less about those cards. They mean nothing to me. I would rather spend 9,000 dollars on a unopened 1978 Topps wax case then chasing a tough "vintage" set. But I'm not stupid. The cards you collect blow mine away in value. BLOW THEM AWAY!!!! Let me leave this debate ( and a good one) at this ...... I will not spend money that I know I can not afford on this absurd hobby. I love this absurd hobby! image

    GG, if you are into making money than you are collecting the right stuff! I know this !!!! ....... it is the all too common references to the cards I love to collect as worthless, overprinted, modern, bla, bla, bla that irks me. But why ???? Because they are not money makers thats why. Has NOTHING to do with the year, company, etc . 1990 Topps is not all that different from 30's Goudeys ....they are CARDBOARD!

    Collectors with my point of view (if there is any) might ask you why you collect old pcs. of crap with nasty corners and creases? They look like cow dung! Its because of the money, the value, the potential reward. With this I will quote my good friend Stone193 again. "Buy stocks and property" if this is the driving force.

    Sorry Mike, In no way am I trying to use your thoughts as a way to judge anybodys collecting habits image

    COPPER is gutter !

  • toadstrangler
    toadstrangler Posts: 10,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    GG, in all fairness if I ever came across a nice lot of what you collect i would dance down my street naked. Then sell them the next day .... what you do is awesome! And you love it! Good for you image I will never give up my 78's without a fight. In NO WAY am I trying to mis-represent the cards I collect being a better way to collect than yours. I just have a chip on my small shoulders for those who discount the cards I LOVE as being either worthless, modern, or yada yada. If I could relate to 30's Goudeys I would be collecting them. I would never tell anyone collecting 1990 Topps in graded fashion that those cards are worthless. Although they are in the real life market. PEACE BROTHER ! image

    COPPER is gutter !

  • goudeygold
    goudeygold Posts: 701 ✭
    Options
    Keep working on your set. I agree with your feelings, but I think when most of us drop 2 grand on a single card, I would think MOST of us would like some sort of comfort in knowing that it can be easily sold if needed to be sold, and that it isn't going to lose half its value in a year. But when people are thinking their Bonds rookies are gonna pay for their retirement, or that their PSA 4-5 50s and 60s cards are going to explode in value i'll be glad to offer my opinion otherwise should they ask. Your cards are worth far more to you than anyone else i'm sure. That's great your so attached and content with it. So i guess we essentially agree on the main points.

    1.) Collect what you love regardless of value if your set on love.

    2.) If you expect to break even or want a chance to gain, you better buy right and go with mid-high grade pre war, OR very high grade (9-10) on the 50s to 60s.

    I sincerely hope i'm wrong (although it won't matter in YOUR case) about the 60s and 70s being flat or down for a long time as more and more gets graded and packs get opened. But... demand moves with the masses and we know where that money goes.

    happy collecting (and investing image )

    GG



  • 86DonrussGuy
    86DonrussGuy Posts: 53 ✭✭
    Options

    I did a brief search on the PSA Set Registry for vintage (defined by ME as pre-1980) HOF sets by year....it looks like maybe the 1972 Topps HOF Set has the highest card count at 82.

    1975....80 Cards
    1973....80 Cards
    1968....74 Cards
    1969....71 Cards

    Once you get into the 1980's (when cards were printed to virtually deplete the entire world's cardboard supply!!!), I do know the 1982 set has 86, 1983 has 98, 1984 has 93. I can't even consider those years due to the availability. I think most every collector from that era still has unopened wax boxes....probably stored in their mom's basement....next to their bed with the Farah Fawcett swimsuit poster above it :o

    Blessings!~

    @JTB said:
    I think this has been discussed here before, but I can't find it in the archives. Which Topps regular issue set has the most HOFers?

    Thanks,
    JTB

  • lwehlers
    lwehlers Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    83 topps has quite a few hall of fame players from the 60' to the early 90's.

  • craig44
    craig44 Posts: 13,172 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    wow, 20 years between comments.

    is that a record?

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • smallstocks
    smallstocks Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    I wasn't paying attention to dates and was thinking to myself how the poster didn't know that many of those guys are already in!

    Here's the list of HOF player cards from 1968. A total of 69 cards feature hall-of-famers:

    In addition to those already in, the following have a fairly good chance to make it before all is said and done:

    16 Lou Piniella
    27 Gil Hodges
    30 Joe Torre
    230 Pete Rose
    235 Ron Santo
    259 Ken Boyer
    300 Rusty Staub
    330 Roger Maris
    366 Ron Santo AS
    450 Jim Kaat
    571 Tony LaRussa


    Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
  • MinorLeaguer
    MinorLeaguer Posts: 555 ✭✭✭✭
    Options

    Although issued as team sets, I think the 1986 Procards team sets run in aggregate may end up with the most ever "first cards" of HOF'ers and as a bonus is they are much, much rarer than their junk wax counterparts. Serious star power here... First cards of Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Smoltz, Edgar Martinez and then some stars who a few of these maybe someday get in such as Schilling, Palmeiro, Vizquel, Justice, Mark Grace, Moises Alou, Carlos Baerga. More and more late boomers, Gen-X and early millennials are collecting these as a way to find some sense of rarity in cards of their heroes after feeling jilted by Junk wax.

  • 1982FootballWax
    1982FootballWax Posts: 2,842 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 18, 2025 1:45PM
    Options

    If not limited to Topps then I'd say T206 by a country mile and thats either for total HOF's or "Rookie" HOF cards.

    It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
    Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)

  • RonSportscards
    RonSportscards Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    .

    @86DonrussGuy said:
    I did a brief search on the PSA Set Registry for vintage (defined by ME as pre-1980) HOF sets by year....it looks like maybe the 1972 Topps HOF Set has the highest card count at 82.

    1975....80 Cards
    1973....80 Cards
    1968....74 Cards
    1969....71 Cards

    Once you get into the 1980's (when cards were printed to virtually deplete the entire world's cardboard supply!!!), I do know the 1982 set has 86, 1983 has 98, 1984 has 93. I can't even consider those years due to the availability. I think most every collector from that era still has unopened wax boxes....probably stored in their mom's basement....next to their bed with the Farah Fawcett swimsuit poster above it :o

    Blessings!~

    @JTB said:
    I think this has been discussed here before, but I can't find it in the archives. Which Topps regular issue set has the most HOFers?

    Thanks,
    JTB

    If you go to TCDB.com you can filter HOF cards for each set.
    They show different numbers than yours.

    The 1972 Topps, 1973 Topps and 1968 Topps are all showing 87.
    The 1975 Topps shows 86.
    The 1969 Topps shows 82.
    I didn't check other years for Topps.

    The T206 another poster mentioned shows 917 cards with all the variations. LOL

Categories