Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#2017122 - 05/26/13 05:31 AM Most Under-Rated set
bbo
The Collectinator


Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 3373
Loc: Top of the 1959 Registry

Offline
What set, vintage or otherwise, any year, do you believe to be the most underrated? In other words, for the sheer beauty of the design, or the number of rookies or any other criteria, do you feel a set is not as appreciated as it should be?

I'll go with 1963 Topps. The colored borders make for a very colorful design and the yellow/black backs are easy to read. The high numbers are not difficult and the semi-highs aren't all that tough either. Unless of course you're trying to complete it in high grade.

Under appreciated rookies include Oliva, Freehan, Staub and Dave McNally, none of whom are in the Hall, but all of whom played on Pennant Winners, if not World Champions, at one time in their careers. The Combo cards are outstanding (Pirates-Buc Blasters, Yankees-Bombers Best, Dodgers-Big Three, plus Mays/Musial and Aaron/Banks). Musial's last card is a big plus. Brock as a Cub, Cepeda as a Giant. Frank Robinson as a Red, Bunning as a Tiger. Colavito as a Tiger and Ashburn as a Met!! Duke Snider as Met, but in a Dodgers uniform!!! Classic trivia question answers from a era when players didn't jump from team to team for just the money.

I suppose the reason for the "lack of love" might be the floating heads on the rookie cards and the league leaders. But that's about the only thing I can find wrong with the set. I once had a complete set in high grade (8+ on the other Registry), sold it and now wish I didn't.

What is your opinion of the most Under Rated Set?
_________________________
#1 in 1959 Topps. Officially known as Assassin according to stanthemanfan 3/31/2014 and god of minor league basketball according to cammb.

Top
#2017127 - 05/26/13 02:13 PM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: bbo]
mattbojo
addict


Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 598
Loc: Beaumont

Offline
I will go with 1953 Topps, a set I may or may not be working on at the moment. In person, especially in high grade SGC holders, I think they have more eye appeal than any other cards. The lack of hall of fame rookies; as well as no Snider, Musial, and a few other hall of famers hurts the overall popularity.

bbo: I thought 1963 Topps was the most popular 1960s set, at least it always has been here on the West Coast? If not, I am certainly a big fan of it too. Not to mention it borrows some of it's design elements from 1953 Topps.
_________________________

Top
#2017128 - 05/26/13 02:28 PM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: mattbojo]
FYS
Bid more or post more... tough one...


Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 1665
Loc: Michigan - The Spartan State

Offline
For under-rated, I am going to go with the 64T Set.
_________________________
1984 W.S. Champs RC's



Top
#2017130 - 05/26/13 02:59 PM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: mattbojo]
bbo
The Collectinator


Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 3373
Loc: Top of the 1959 Registry

Offline
 Originally Posted By: mattbojo

bbo: I thought 1963 Topps was the most popular 1960s set, at least it always has been here on the West Coast? If not, I am certainly a big fan of it too. Not to mention it borrows some of it's design elements from 1953 Topps.


It can be popular, but still be under appreciated. Compared to 1961 and 1962, kids should've scarfed up those packs and emptied the shelves back in the summer of 1963. Today with money, the adult versions of those same kids should be driving prices to the stratosphere.

The design comparison to 1953 is a good one. Topps had to have an engineer figure out how to place the players on the sheet, especially with 1963 since many players on the same team have the same colored border.

Trivia Q: What's the highest card number/player with a butterscotch border in 1963?

[HINT: He's in the 5th series, as no butterscotch cards were issued in the 6th and 7th series.]

[HINT #2: His career places him in another rare and highly unique group.]

Trivia Q #2: What's the highest card number/player with a green border in 1963?

[HINT: He's in the 5th series, as no green cards were issued in the 6th and 7th series.]

[HINT #2: His career also places him in the same rare and highly unique group.]
_________________________
#1 in 1959 Topps. Officially known as Assassin according to stanthemanfan 3/31/2014 and god of minor league basketball according to cammb.

Top
#2017135 - 05/26/13 06:01 PM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: bbo]
Mintacular
old hand


Registered: 08/19/09
Posts: 1121
Loc: Pittsburgh

Offline
I think 73 Topps. Great action photos and a nice intersection of old stars on the way out (Mays, Clemente, Aaron, Kaline) and newer stars entering the fray (Ryan, Garvey, R Jackson) Like the chalk white borders and chipping makes it somewhat condition sensitive. Plus a key rookie card: Schmidt.

Also, has high #'s but set is still affordable


Edited by Mintacular (05/26/13 06:03 PM)
_________________________
eBay Listings


Top
#2017136 - 05/26/13 06:21 PM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: Mintacular]
stanthemanfan
If I just sell the car, I can up my bid...


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 366

Offline
My vote is the 1952 Bowman set. The artwork, the facsimile autograph, and printing quality (gloss) all exceed the legendary 1951 Bowman set. The 1952 set has Musial, Mays, Mantle along with a laundry list of HOF's. The lack of key rookies may hurt it but the shadow of the 1952 Topps set is the death blow to this set. My opinion is if you moved the design and quality of the 1952 Bowman set one year forward or back, its an all-time, top 10 collecting set.

STMF

Top
#2017142 - 05/26/13 08:01 PM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: stanthemanfan]
bbo
The Collectinator


Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 3373
Loc: Top of the 1959 Registry

Offline
Good call on both the 1973 and 1952 Bowman. Two decades apart and both are definitely underappreciated/underrated for the reasons cited.
_________________________
#1 in 1959 Topps. Officially known as Assassin according to stanthemanfan 3/31/2014 and god of minor league basketball according to cammb.

Top
#2017146 - 05/27/13 06:31 AM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: bbo]
trex
addict


Registered: 01/31/12
Posts: 592

Offline
Answer to the '63 trivia:

That's way too easy a question for a '63 collector. Let's see now, I'll bet they're both in the HOF and both are pitchers. And they both appeared in the World Series the previous year, '62. One of the player's nickname was "slick," to his teammates. If I mention the other one's nickname it would probably give it away. But he once swung one "mean" bat. Am I close?

I never knew the '63's were under appreciated, they are by far my favorite set. I like the '62's for the challenge of completing a master set in decent grade with how ever many variations and error cards there are in the set, not to mention overall bad centering and condition sensitive, but as for eye appeal and just basic overall beauty, the '63 set tops my list. Only thing I don't like are those idiotic looking floating head rookies and leader cards. Thankfully though Topps deleted the All-Star cards with this set.
_________________________














Top
#2017153 - 05/28/13 08:04 PM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: trex]
aconte
Bid more or post more... tough one...


Registered: 02/22/02
Posts: 1896
Loc: On The Beach....where else!

Offline
I think 1952 Bowman baseball is under rated too.

Not sure where the 1975 mini would fall but it is a favorite of
mine. Love all those colors and the fact is was distributed in
a limited area is neat too.

aconte
_________________________

Top
#2017154 - 05/28/13 08:05 PM Re: Most Under-Rated set [Re: aconte]
aconte
Bid more or post more... tough one...


Registered: 02/22/02
Posts: 1896
Loc: On The Beach....where else!

Offline
Here are a couple favorites from 1975....





aconte
_________________________

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


Moderator:  EARLSWORLD 
Hop to:
Who's Online
0 registered and 2 anonymous users online.
Newest Members
abcdef863349, vwxyz{570399, nopqrs004715, tjf092071, jakerazzle1
1962 Registered Users

Generated in 0.018 seconds in which 0.001 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled.