1967 topps vs 1957 topps WAR!

RipublicaninMass · June 17, 2005 5:05AM

Discuss, what are views from the set builders and admirers alike? SIZE DOES MATTER! How big are the sets comparatively? Also, rookies and stars. Please discuss!
Both full card photos, but 57 is dark backgrounds, 67 is light backgrounds.

Lothar52 · June 17, 2005 5:08AM

DRAW SWORDS!!!! 57 TOPPS RULES!!!!

key rookies of brooks robinson and frank robinson along with SP's of Tony Kubek and Bobby Richardson highlight the set....PLUS..the first TOPPS multiplayer cards feature who else...dodgers and yankees.....

A TRUE CLASSIC

loth

NickM · June 17, 2005 5:26AM

I seem to remember '53 Bowman breaking ground in the multi-player card category.

And '67 Topps has Carew and Seaver rookies.

Of course, '57 also has Drysdale, Bunning, and Mazeroski rookies.

For set design and card appeal, it's '67 all the way for me. Half the '57 Topps set looks like it was photgraphed at night without a flash.

Nick

RipublicaninMass · June 17, 2005 5:32AM

The 57 only features rookie cards of the Robinson twins; Salt and Pepper. I would take Carew and Seaver anyday! Although Robinson did start a fight at 70 years old the other night with Scoscia!

Mantlefan · June 17, 2005 8:58AM

You can also look at the pop reports for some clues:

1957 TOPPS Total cards graded...89,114
PSA 8... 27,801
PSA 9... 2,130
PSA 10... 90

1967 TOPPS Total cards graded...60,854
PSA 8... 21,753
PSA 9... 5,591
PSA 10.... 130

1967 Topps Baseball cards are much easier to find in high grade...10% of 1967 cards are graded PSA 9 or 10 as compared to 3% of 1957 Topps cards. Similarly, over half of all 1967 Topps cards are graded PSA 8, while only 30% of the 1957's are at that grade level. So from the angle of "collecting challenge" there is no contest.

Lothar52 · June 17, 2005 10:46AM

ask kuhlmann....he just bought half of the 1967 set...350ish cards....in near mint condition for 130 bucks in a lot....those lots are not available for 1957 topps....especially in THAT condition.

loth

Lothar52 · June 17, 2005 10:52AM

seaver is a real A-HOLE and I dont know a thing about carew.....he was more of a 70's player......great hitter from what i hear but frank and brooks are BOTH superstars from the GOLDEN AGE of baseball...Honestly Rip...I dont know how a 70's player can ever be considered more desireable then a 60's player (even though brooks played deep into the 70's and was a superstar of the 1970 WS)....I think your VERY confused....then again...maybe your confusion has to do with your love for the BOSOX....TAKE THAT!!! MUUUUWHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA
HIT THE IMPERIAL MARCH MUSIC!!!

loth

pandrews · June 17, 2005 11:15AM

<< <i>Although Robinson did start a fight at 70 years old the other night with Scoscia! >>

Robinson by triangle choke

jaxxr · June 17, 2005 11:21AM

Two really nice looking sets from the "Bubble gum vintage" era of 1951 thru 1980.
Both are in the now "standard " size which did begin with the 1957 set.

Photo technology and quality, had improved a bit by 1967 therefore the cards should be a little more "sharp" overall than the 57s. Also check the last series from the 57 set, many cards looked like color-overs of black and white pictures, not even close to the fine shots from the first two series.

Regarding the "collecting challenge" or percent of higher graded examples, the sets' realative size and age must be considered. 407 in 57 and 202 more for the 67s.
The 57 set has around 250 common-semistars worth about 7 to 10 dollars in raw NM condition.
The 67 set has around 450 common-semistars worth about 2 to 6 dollars in raw NM condition.
So......without regard for superstars and rare series cards, the 67 PSA submitter must be much more concerned with condition than the 57 submitter. A 67 common better have a chance at a 9 or a real solid 8 to have much economical value. The 57 person can hope for a 7 maybe get by on a 6 to get a little return value.

In other words, in most cases, the submitter of 57s is not looking for or needing as high a grade, and will submit more marginal cards than a 67 one would. So a higher percentage of 9s and 10s for 67s should be expected. A 77 submitter should probably be even more particular and have a higher percentage of 9s and 10s than the 67 submitter.

In total the 67 set has 609 chances, about 50% more, than the 57s 407 chances to get a 9 or 10. So it should be expected to have more 9s and 10s than the 57 set. The ten years less exposure to card handling also adds to the additional high grade copies.

The lead-off card for 67 is outstanding, Frank and Brooks Robinson, it ends with a fine Tommy John example. But for real class, 1957 starts with Ted Williams and finishes with Mantle and Berra.

My pick, it has to be the 1957 Topps.

Lothar52 · June 17, 2005 11:25AM

softparade · June 17, 2005 11:45AM

<< <i>Two really nice looking sets from the "Bubble gum vintage" era of 1951 thru 1980.

>>

Whoa, how dare you TAG what I collect as vintage. I have my eyes on you pal , If my rep gets ruined as a result of this thread I WILL SUE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bxb · June 17, 2005 12:20PM

I love both sets, but my heart belongs to 1967

RipublicaninMass · June 17, 2005 2:43PM

I was out in Boston, we beat the Pirates! I am starting to like the 57's morte and more. That williams nice a nice #1 and here is a tribute to the last card in the set. OMG OMG OMG!! I would think the 57's may be "cheaper" to grade as a set or crossover, barring trimming PSA 5-6 The 67 would be best picked up already graded in 7-8.

My Homage

pandrews · June 17, 2005 2:49PM

Ted, is that Mantle & Berra yours? awesome card!

RipublicaninMass · June 18, 2005 1:21AM

NO, I wish! It was an ended item on ebay.

Lothar52 · June 18, 2005 6:03AM

LIGHT THE FIRES AND KICK THE TIRES!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAW!!!

.............so when ya going to open some packs up Rip???

Stingray · June 19, 2005 3:07AM

67s rule. The photographs are much clearer than the 57s.

The 57s look dark and gray, might as well be black and white pictures.

Stingray

RipublicaninMass · June 19, 2005 4:32AM

The mantle from 67 is a great picture as well

67ToppsRule · June 19, 2005 7:02AM

I finished a 57 set, mostly 5s and 6s, and much of it raw, a few years ago, and am about 60 percent done with a 67 set right now, with very high percentage of 7s and 8s...I love both sets, but it terms of scarcity and the challenge of collecting, 57 wins hands down...It's just a wonderfully beautiful set, and much harder to find high grade...67 is less expensive and more plentiful...67 does have Seaver and Carew rookies, but they both share their cards on "rookie" cards -- not as attractive, in my opinion, as one guy on his own card...The 57 set has some of the finest single cards in the history of collecting, real pieces of history, if you ask me, from the number one Ted (mine is a PSA 7) to the Berra/Mantle card at the end (mines a nice 5)....It also has a young Mays, one of Mantle's finest -- with classic in action swing -- dozens of Brooklyn Dodgers right before they left town, and tons of great cards of minor stars like Kluzewski, Kubek, Bunning. The Koufax card is a classic, too -- and you have a Drysdale rookie, and one of the best Clemente cards ever. Most average collectors are thrilled to have their star cards grade a 7 -- 8s are going to cost big bucks. A Maz rookie graded a 10 just went for over 5K at a Mile High auction, so you can see what kind of ballpark you're in here. There are also some fantastic single printed commons (hard to find), and cool cards like a young Don Zimmer. Lets put it this way: When I finish 67, I'm pretty sure I'm going to sell it to fuel other collecting. The 57 set, on the other hand, will be owned by my 2-year-old son some day.....

67ToppsRule · June 19, 2005 7:03AM

Hey loth: What's the one card you need for 57? I noticed you're 99.51 percent done. Why not just finish it off?

Stingray · June 19, 2005 8:35AM

I wish there was a Koufax in that 67 set!

Stingray

Lothar52 · June 19, 2005 12:15PM

i need hank aaron...and im holding out for a decent centered one in psa 6-7....ONE MORE TO GO!!!!

loth

iamthegreatcornholio · June 19, 2005 1:03PM

'57s are tough, but many are just flat out ugly. 67s are nice, but they both must bow to the mighty '65s

Buccaneer · June 20, 2005 5:09AM

Time to add my .01 cents.

I do not disagree with the view that many 1957s look like they were photographed at night without a flash...and that all of the 1960s sets, esp. 1967, have very clear and bright photographs. However, I believe the 1957s offer a phenomenal snapshot of a classic period in baseball. Take a look at 4 things that makes the 1957 set stand out, esp. over the 1960s:
1. The Classic 1950s style uniforms
2. The backdrop of many photos showing parts of classic stadiums
3. The presence of Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants players and teams
4. The height of the great New York Yankees dynasty and its players

And what makes 1957 stand out among the years around them is the full-card photo that shows each of those things better (as oppose to clipping out the player against a colored or cropped background).

I would rank 1967 as the best designed set of the 1960s but by then, the Yankees were gone, expansion and new impersonal stadiums have started, and the focus shifting to the west coast vs east coast media war all makes 1957 a more nostalgic and classical set.

RipublicaninMass · June 20, 2005 12:01PM

^ Whoa! Shine a little light on this topic, thank you very much!

NickM · June 20, 2005 3:07PM

Stingray - there is, as long as you count league leader cards.

Nick

Lothar52 · January 6, 2006 12:17PM

1420sports · January 6, 2006 12:53PM

In my opinion, the 1967 Topps has the best design of any Topps set. The 57 Topps set is a top five.

1967topps · January 7, 2006 3:05PM

This discussion has gotten so brutal that card #500 is hitting card #365 over the head and still wants in the Hall of Fame.
Next thing you know card #2 will hit card #280 and card # 393 will report 2 years later that #2 was geniunely sorry he
hit #280.

Lothar52 · July 23, 2006 1:07AM

VintageJeff · July 23, 2006 3:04AM

Lothar you just had to bring this one back. Was reading it about a week ago. My choice of course is 67 Topps.

GDM67 · July 23, 2006 1:52PM

^ Even with Minoso having such a gorgeous card in the '57 set?

These two sets are among the most popular for good reason. All the virtues mentioned previously are true, chiefly the clean design, harkening back to the '53 Bowman look, and the great player selection.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who pays attention to the stadium backdrops on cards. One of my favorite things about the '64 Ernie Banks is the staggered design of the left field pavillion in Connie Mack Stadium, visible behind him.

ArnyVee · July 23, 2006 11:07PM

Two of my top 5 favorite sets of all time!

Each one has it's benefits and special 'things' about them. I like the '67 for the 'crispness' of the photos, yet I love the '57s for the time machine effect that it has for me.

Both of them are very simple designs and very pleasing to the eyes....the '57, in my opinion, has a better rookie crop but you can put up Tom Seaver, Rod Carew & others against just about any other set of its time.

RonBurgundy · July 24, 2006 2:09AM

The 1967 set is a top 10 set, perhaps top 5. The 1957 set is arguably the greatest Topps set ever made. When you find '57's in high grade with those snow white borders and that crisp photography, it is like viewing a work of art.

Ron

fsjeter · July 24, 2006 6:33AM

Definately the 67 Topps set for me. No question!

Scott

VintageJeff · July 24, 2006 12:16PM

<< <i>^ Even with Minoso having such a gorgeous card in the '57 set?q]

Yeah if you can find one that wasn't cut with a hacksaw and a blurred photo.

1967 topps vs 1957 topps WAR!

Comments