Which Topps set has most HOFers?

JTB · April 18, 2005 2:38AM

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

helionaut · April 18, 2005 2:46AM

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.

CDsNuts · April 18, 2005 3:02AM

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 · April 18, 2005 3:03AM

I think you need to clarify if you want rookie cards of HOF or any card of HOF.

coachh · April 18, 2005 3:06AM

I came up with 38 different HOF members with cards in 1968.

JTB · April 18, 2005 3:08AM

I was referring to all HOFers, not just RC.

JTB

gregmadduxfan · April 18, 2005 3:16AM

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 · April 18, 2005 3:17AM

1956 Topps has 34 HOF cards (10% of the set).

gregmadduxfan · April 18, 2005 3:23AM

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 · April 18, 2005 10:40AM

1971 HAS THE MOST. SOME HOFers ARE ON AS MANAGER CARDS.

bobsbbcards · April 18, 2005 11:39AM

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 · April 18, 2005 11:53AM

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

goudeygold · April 18, 2005 11:58AM

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 · April 18, 2005 12:18PM

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.

goudeygold · April 18, 2005 12:28PM

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 · April 18, 2005 12:36PM

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%

softparade · April 18, 2005 12:48PM

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

Griffins · April 18, 2005 1:08PM

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

goudeygold · April 18, 2005 1:16PM

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 · April 19, 2005 1:44AM

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.

ctsoxfan · April 19, 2005 1:45AM

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

I was thinking the same thing!

softparade · April 19, 2005 10:25AM

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

(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

Buccaneer · April 19, 2005 11:05AM

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 · April 19, 2005 2:13PM

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?

softparade · April 19, 2005 2:40PM

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!

goudeygold · April 19, 2005 3:04PM

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

softparade · April 19, 2005 3:35PM

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!

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

softparade · April 19, 2005 3:57PM

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

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 !

goudeygold · April 19, 2005 4:17PM

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

)

GG

Which Topps set has most HOFers?

Comments