1951 Topps Blue Backs Baseball Forum

This is a repeat of my previous forum for Series "A" of the 1951 Topps set, since Series "B" is being listed separately in the database.  Please vote to improve the rating of this classic release.

I've not really ever cared for the set, the '51 Bowman blows it away. I'm going to remain neutral in voting for it, as it would bring it down further.

I'd have to disagree with your reasoning. The cards were designed and sold as a playing card game. A 52-card game, not a 104-card game. The wrappers even say "playing cards".  If you were going to play poker, hearts, spades, etc., you wouldn't combine two 52-card decks would you?  They are two separate 52-card game decks.

And those updates were numbered 36 and 52, not 53 and 54. Because they were intended to replace (update) card numbers 36 and 52. Keeping the game at 52 cards, not increasing it to 54 cards.

I agree, I think this set looks like crap.  Slapping the name Topps on it doesn't give it immunity from criticism. 

Interesting.  I've always been fascinated with baseball playing cards.  Here are a few of the major vintage releases that I am aware of.

The 1888 WG-1 was the first baseball playing game set, which actually had about 72 cards.  Although I've seen photos, I haven't been unable to find any reprint sets available for an almost certainly unaffordable set.

The 1904-1906 Fan Craze WG-2/WG-3 sets were also a card game that came out with some really cool cards in a similar format to the 1951 Topps set with a Red Back deck and a Blue Back deck.  There is a reprint set for the WG-3, but it is short and as far as I know, nothing has come out for the WG-2.  This is another very expensive set.

The 1913 National Game WG-5 and Tom Barker WG-6 sets wer also very similar to the 1951 Topps set, with 52 total cards.  I was actually able to acquire a reprint version of the National Game set with some big names for the era.

The 1927 W560 set also came out like a deck of cards, but smaller in size.  There were actually 64 cards in this one, but only 49 of them were baseball related.  I found an affordable reprint copy of this set as well.

The 1968 Topps Game insert set was a nice commemoration to the 1951 set.  I was able to complete an authentic version of this 33-card set, which was originally inserted into packs of 1968 Topps.

I'm really, really late to the discussion on this one, but I do like the set, and I can see your reasoning to consider both the Red Backs and Blue Backs as part of the same set, especially because the cards say "Series A" and "Series B". But, I also like having it separate precisely because both sets are numbered 1-52.

What bothers me more is the voting. Sure, the 1951 Bowman set looks better, and I'd vote it higher, but the Topps 1951 Red and Blue Backs are important. I probably rate it higher because of that. If it were a subset put out in 1965, for the sake of discussion? Well, I'd still probably rate it high. I just like the set.

I wonder if my view of the two sets aren't colored by the fact that they're both "completeable" for me. I'm lacking only a few of the 1963 and '68 sets, but I'm missing the big money Rose (1963) and Bench (1968). I might never complete those sets because of those two cards. I'm also missing a handful of other money cards from 1963, such as Stargell and Yaz. I'd love to complete the 1965 set, and while I have the Koufax, Aaron and Catfish Hunter from that year, I don't have Mays, Mantle, Carlton, Perez, Rose, among others. 

Thank you for the discussion.