A quick monetary note about the disparity in price between these 2 sets. The Reggie Jackson RC, in NrMT condition, books for 2.5 times more than the entire 1980 set. I have a feeling that even though this should be a lopsided vote, the younger voters that have been contributing may show a little love for the '80T set.
Tale of the tape:
- Set Size: 1980 has 726 cards. 1969 has 598 cards
- Key RCs: 1980 Rickey Henderson, Dave Stieb 1969 Reggie Jackson, Rollie Fingers
- Cost of complete set in NM condition: 1980 $120 1969 $3000
- Number of cards with high book at $100 or more: 1980: 0 1969: 4
The 1980 blog has been inactive for just over two years now, while the 1969 blog is still running strong. Jim from Downingtown also writes this blog; I checked and there was no post for Dick Dietz to link to (yet).
I appreciate all the votes that I've received so far, I'm hoping that the total weekly votes will start hitting the mid 20's soon.
Thanks for reading, and for voting, Robert
1969 will be a bit more of a challenge than 1980, so I am going to vote for 1969.
ReplyDeleteI really want to vote for 1980. But I'm not. I like the understated 1969 design.
ReplyDelete1969.
ReplyDelete1969 (surprise!). Sets after 1972 just don't do it for me (except the 1981 Topps set - maybe it's the baseball caps containing the team names).
ReplyDeleteFYI, my Dick Dietz post is on my 1968 blog. (For the most part, I try not to post the same player to multiple blogs.)
I forgot to mention that, even though the early series are filled with capless/airbrushed expansion players, the later series feature nice shots of the new teams' uniforms (including the new Oakland As).
DeleteI have a soft spot for 1969, even though there are so many blacked out caps and capless heads that it's not the most attractive set.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm suffering from 1980 Topps fatigue from Archives, so I'm voting for 1969. Isn't that the set with a bat boy on Aurelio Rodriguez's card?
ReplyDeleteYes, although fellow blogger and custom card maker John at the "Cards That Never Were" blog corrected that last year.
DeleteI was going to say 1980 even though I tend to go with 70s and 60s vintage over the 80s, but then I remembered that the PILOTS debuted in the '69 set (they would also be in the 70 set even though 69 was their only season of existence).
ReplyDeletePut another vote for good old '69 down.
This is a no brainer for me, even though I'm currently working on the 1980 set myself, my vote is being cast for the 1969 set.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go against the grain and go with 1980 even though I know it will lose. I have never really liked the look of either set, but there were way too many reused photos in 1969. 1980 was boring and lacking in action shots compared to the rest of the 70s, but at least the shots weren't reused. BTW, I do consider 1980 Topps a 70's set. It's the end of the decade not the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI have a soft spot for the 69 set. First card of Reggie and the last card of Mantle. The high numbers are not that expensive. Also, first year cards of Totals, Pilots, Expos, and Padres.
ReplyDeleteGoing with 1980.
ReplyDeleteI gotta go with the underdog, 1980.
ReplyDelete1969 features the debut of my Expos, but the 1980 set was the first baseball cards I ever bought on a family trip down to the 'States. Good memories, 1980 has my vote.
ReplyDelete1969 might not get past the next round because of its many dated, badly-airbrushed photos, but I have to vote for the set that includes the Seattle Pilots and the Miracle Mets, along with a better design. 1969, most decidedly!
ReplyDeleteI think 1969 may be one of the more underrated Topps sets ever, so I'll go with '69.
ReplyDelete1969. Although it probably gets knocked in the next round
ReplyDeleteGotta go '69. Because 69.
ReplyDeleteI have to go with 1980. There is really nothing special about the look of the 1969 cards, and the 1980 set was the first set that I had ever completed.
ReplyDeleteNormally I'd say 1969, but I'm gonna go 1980 only because you could knock it out quick and do another one of these tourneys.
ReplyDelete