Options
Topps high numbers: 1966 vs 1967 - which are more difficult for a set build?
BaltimoreYankee
Posts: 2,903 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have been thinking of my next set build. I was leaning towards 1966 or 1972 Topps but since I recently bought a '67 Seaver card and already have the Carew, I have decided to do the '67 set. (I just picked up a Mantle so a lot of the individual card heavy lifting is already done).
I know the 1966 High Numbers are very tough and I believe the '67's are pretty tough as well. Are the '66's much tougher or around the same as '67?
Daniel
0
Comments
I asked the same question to some fellow collectors in spring of 2017, and they all said 1967 was more difficult. I skipped over the 1967 set, and started working on the 1966 set in raw form, looking for cards with nice eye appeal and not necessarily the best technical grade. I didn't have much difficulty at all in assembling that set, finishing it up this summer. Gaylord Perry, Willie McCovey, and the Bart Shirley/Grant Jackson will be your most expensive high numbers, but are always in the listings and available. I can't recall offhand who else was really a tough card to find. Horace Clark and Choo Choo Coleman were a couple more that seemed to be a little pricey. Denny McClain and the Tigers team card, too. But the good thing, if you're willing to spend, everything seemed to be easy to find. Greg Morris would always have some - about once a week, but we've discussed previously how those auctions go.
I may be ramping up to start the 67 set myself sometime early next year, as the gap in my set run is bugging me. I may do 1965 and then on to 1964 first instead, but I won't go too far into the early 60s before I just HAVE TO go back and get the 67! Haha!
I vote 1967 as the tougher, but the better set in my opinion. Not as many action shots (I prefer those) vs. portrait shots, but I love the overall design. Pinson, Cash, John, are tough if you want PSA 8 or better
I hope I'm not in for a difficult build. I did think 1966 high numbers were tougher but I guess not. I agree the overall design is better on 1967 but the '66's are pretty nice too.
I'm definitely not looking at PSA 8 quality - more like EX-MT and generally ungraded. My head start cards (Mantle, Seaver and Carew) are PSA 6, 6 and 8OC, respectively.
Good luck on the 67s then. I will be very interested if you decide to post about your progress. 2 cards in the 67s that I have heard about being tough, real bears to get, are Mike Shannon and Rocky Colavito.
I found '66 to be much tougher, especially for the last few cards. '67 wasn't that tough, with the exception of Colavito and the Maris proof, those took a bit of searching.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
That's what I was hoping to hear! I had a chance two years back to acquire most of the 1966 set except for any of the high numbers and I shied away because I had hear how tough the '66 high numbers were.
The challenge with '66's is not so much the technical grade but more the eye appeal. The paper quality and cutting process was far inferior for the 1966 set. Many 8s look like crap because of that. Even though they meet the technical grade, the edges and corners are often soft.
I have no personal experience building a set of the 67s, just anecdotal stories, but had always been told how tough it was, which shied me away from the 67s and swayed me to take on the 66 set.
I, too, am glad to hear that perhaps the 1967 set is not as tough as I'd been led to believe, as I will likely be starting on it myself sometime in 2019, then.
Perhaps I just got lucky, but I really had no problem at all with finishing the 66 set. I mowed right through most of the high series until I got down to the last 5 cards or so. I was holding out for the acceptable intersection of condition+price, as the cards were always available for sale on eBay. I whiffed a few times on getting them, as the auctions would sometimes get out of hand, but with a bit of patience and some well timed eBay promotions, got the cards. I was done with the 66s, start to finish, in under a year.
Of the last 5 that I needed, my very last card to acquire for the 66 set was the Bart Shirley/Grant Jackson card. Second to last was Gaylord Perry. Mel Queen, Lou Klimchock, and the Cardinals rookies with Jimy Williams, rounded out the other 3.
Willie McCovey of course, and then as I mentioned in an earlier post Horace Clarke, Choo Choo Coleman, Denny McClain, Tigers team card, and maybe the Twins team card are really the only ones that come to mind when I think of any other high numbers with a reputation for being a bit tough. I had no issues with finding them, though.
Whenever you do eventually consider building the 66s, I would suggest doing a search for current and completed auctions on these specific cards to get a feel for the prices and availability.
I can't comment on the 67's, but I'm currently building the 66 set in PSA 8+. If you can't stand tilts, then this set is not for you. Finding a card both well centered and without tilts is a miracle.
However, I think the cards are readily available even in PSA 8. You just have to be willing to pay the price. Even the Jackson/Shirley card that has somehow taken on a mythical status is out there, but usually only offered as a BIN and is way overpriced.
Most of the tougher high #'s have already been mentioned, but I'll throw out a couple more. Ron Perranoski, Russ Snyder and the Giants Rookies with Tito Fuentes. Personally, I think the Horace Clarke is the toughest high #. Again, readily available but seems to always have an ugly tilt.
@BaltimoreYankee Keep us updated. Threads of this
type are very interesting.
It looks like I am going to abort the collecting of this set before I really even started. I've had the Carew rookie for years and got a Seaver rookie this year because I always wanted one. I recently bought a Mantle and a lot of 148 to get me started on the actual set build.
I just received the lot and while it otherwise fits the description of EX-NM, the cards have a strong cigarette odor (bummer, as it was a pretty good deal) so they are going back. One thing I did not realize about this set is the abundance of head shots and (worse) capless head shots! From the small lot I had, roughly 1/3 were head shots and about half of those were of the dreaded capless variety. I guess I will settle upon a different set to build in 2019. In the meantime, the Seaver, Carew and Mantles are great cards to keep.
Yeah, good action photography didn’t really start until 1971, which happens to dovetail with the beginning of my period of interest, so I’m pleased about that.
@BaltimoreYankee Why was the "cigarette odor " a deal breaker?
Just curious.
The cards reeked! Way to many to try airing them out.
If I ever became single again, smoking would be a deal breaker with a woman as well.