Toughest cards from the 60's

crsportscards33

I do alot of raw vintage sets and players sets. Not an expert on anything. Some of you here are. I actually keep a notebook from this board about the tough cards, to know what to keep an eye out for at shows. So my question is this: From 1959-1969 which are the three toughest cards from each set to find in high grade. Thanks for the input.

toppsgun

Without checking the populations, here's my list off the cuff:

1959: 11-Hunter, 33-Fitzgerald, 159-Shaw

1961: 128-Repulski, 133-Houk, 559-Gentile

1963: 34-Schofield, 50-Pierce, 328-Williams

1965: 22-Smith, 96-Siebert, 291-Lynch

1967: 2-Hamilton, 457-Etchebarren, 572-Demeter

toppsgun

if you find any, I hope you give me a shot at them.

ZodiacMindwarp

There are 19 cards in the 1969 set that have not yet received a grade of 9. The most notable of these cards is #85, Lou Brock.

The 19 cards are:

21, 85, 108, 121, 212, 245, 262, 290, 313, 426, 448, 462, 477, 487, 489, 502, 509, 512 and 625.

norty

1962 #323 Don Landrum

coach30

I had a complete set of 1960 and was once #2 in the registry before retiring it. The three toughest 1960 commons without looking at the population are #26 Wayne Terwilliger, #111 Vic Wertz and #451 Curt Simmons. Not far down the list are #116 Jim Rivera, #477 Don Ferrarese and #33 Tom Morgan.

My 59 set I liquidated a year earlier At that time some of the toughies were, #330 'Gus Triandos, #293 Ray Moore and #11 Billy Hunter. Good luck in your search.

jackstraw

if you ever stumble upon a 1976 topps Willie Horton #320 mint and centered i am your buyer!

WinPitcher

I would like to add Bob Cerv card from the 61 set that is a tuffy too, as is most of the high number cards from that set. Quite possibly out of all the Hi series cards from 52 thru 73 The 61's are the most difficult to find.

toppsgun

I always heard 1961 highs were tough, but having had some experience in both '61 and '66, I'm convinced 1966 high numbers are in less supply than 1961.

mariner

Here is my take.....

1959- Gus Triandos, Ruben Amaro, Billy Hunter
Honorable Mention Del Rice, Dave Philley, Ed Fitzgerald
1960- Curt Simmons, Vic Wertz, Jim Rivera
Honorable Mention Wayne Terwilliger, Steve Ridzik, Del Crandall
1961- Jim Gibbon, Jim Gentile, Ralph Houk
Honorable Mention Rip Repulski, Bob Cerv, Jackie Brandt
1962- Don Landrum, John Blanchard, Ruben Amaro
Honorable Mention Jim Gentile, J. C. Martin, Dallas Green
1963- Dick Schofield, Vic Power, Billy Pierce
Honorable Mention Curt Simmons, Dick Stuart, Dick Williams

MorrellMan

i'm with toppsgun; I've been picking off '61 high numbers for two sets for sometime - recently started hunting down '66 high numbers and the 66s are much less available. I don't know from 67 up, but, IMHO, I'd say the 66 high numbers are the tougest of the 60s high numbers.

purelyPSA

I nominate the '67 Topps Lee Maye and the '68 Paul Schaal.

mariner

I have not kept up with the '66 set recently but the comment about the '66 high numbers being tougher than '61 high numbers made me check the pop report. It shows that there are quite a few '66 high numbers out there graded. Sure, some are low pop but there are quite a few cards with 30+ or 40+ PSA 8's. I am sure they are the double prints but it still seems to me that there are quite a few '66 high numbers out there graded.

Has anyone checked the '62 set recently. That has to be a monster to try to complete in an 8.

scottsusor

miami3

Great Post Don,

I agree with all of your toughest cards from the 60's list and would like to add one more card from
1962- #287 of George Witt. I have owned 6 of these cards and all of them either have "snow" or
are badly off center.

In terms of compiling a complete set of cards from the sixties, I would have to say that without a doubt
1962 is the toughest.

I recently sold off my near complete PSA 8 set that was missing about 21 cards to a private collector for
an amount far greater than what Howard Tiss sold his to Superior for. I had put a lot of time and effort into this set and hated to see it go, but when your wife wants a new kitchen and you can't cook yourself, something
has to give.

Happy collecting!

Jim

Fuzz

While everyone else has chimed in on BB, I see your original post did not specify a sport.
Therefore on behalf of the IBFCC (International Brotherhood of Football Card Collectors), I would like to nominate 1966 Topps FB Checklist #132. When I checked recently, there were two cards graded 7, no NQ copies in 8 or better. There are a few with qualifiers, usually badly o/c mostly m/c. As far as the registery goes 7 is the top dog.
This card is a royal pain in the tush.
I also have three of the top ten 66 T BB sets and concur with the cards that Scott lists as tough. I think that at least three of them are needed for my first set but I don't remember. There are several others that seem equally tough for that set (Like Cards Rookies #544 and Peranowski in the hi numbers come to mind).
Fuzz

crsportscards33

Hey great replies guys. Keep em coming. I love this stuff. As someone who attends alot of shows this really helps me keep an eye out. Because hey, you never know where they're hiding!!

Chris

SKINSFAN

I must agree with the fuzzman the 132 checklist is murder to find centered even with bad corners.The 1 thing the fuzz fails to point out as that he owns 1 of the 2 lone sevens not to mention the only nine funnyring checklist. That is why we all fear the FUZZ

mariner

Jim....

Yes, the 1962 George Witt definitely deserves to be on a short list.

Great story about your 1962 set and your kitchen. That had to be very hard to part with!!

Griffins

The toughest card by far is the Pepsi John Bateman from '63 I believe. The only one I"ve seen was part of the Copeland collection that was auctioned by Sotheby's 13 years ago. Nothing even comes close.
Other than that I vote for the '60 Fleer variations of #80, Martin back with either Grove, Collins or Tinker front. Very few exist, most are hand cut or cancelled. PSA doesn't downgrade for cancelled cards (they have a big notch torn out of them) although they should. Either way its a tough card to find, let alone in high grade.
2nd runner up is the '67 Topps Maris blank back proof, showing him on the Yankees. PSA will only grade it as authentic, and I've only seen two graded- one in Superiors auction a year ago that I bought and was stolen by FedEx (I got an empty box) and another different one 6 months later that I won, after getting a promise it wouldn't be sent FedEx.
Oh yeah, those '62 Dice game cards are pretty tricky as well.

murcerfan

Nothing even comes close.

1.1969 NY Boy Scouts ( i have 2 that are still not cataloged)
2. Intact/uncancelled 1960 Lake to Lake (other than the easy 9 Yeko bought out as surplus)

HammeringHank

<< <i>Hey great replies guys. Keep em coming. I love this stuff. As someone who attends alot of shows this really helps me keep an eye out. Because hey, you never know where they're hiding!! >>



I can tell you where some are hiding...

I for one still have the baseball cards that I collected as a child in the 60's my 62 set is pristine...not graded...but I don't have to grade it...they've never been touched basically since 1961-62 when I opened them...including the almost 200-300 doubles of have...

My 63 set (collected only the 1st series....again all pristine) looks like I just took them out of the wrapper...the backs are as white as the day I open the packs...not graded...I don't need to...same for the dupes...corners, edges whatever...they are mint...mint...as they were boxed and stored and never touch until I put them into individual plastic holders (sleeved also)...I've never seen cards at any show that look as good as the cards I have...at least 63's...

I almost have a duped set of 61's...

Back then you didn't buy sets...you bought packs...

My guess is...if I have them...others do to...

One day I might just grade them...

murcerfan

The toughest card by far is the Pepsi John Bateman from '63 I believe. The only one I"ve seen was part of the Copeland collection that was auctioned by Sotheby's 13 years ago. Nothing even comes close.

Annex,
actually the Copeland's set was missing Bateman, so it must be a mind-bender.

I don't see his Lake to Lake Braves set nor any NY Boy Scouts ....musta kept 'em or never found 'em.

thanks for sending me back for some more of the torture I feel when looking through that catalog

edited: just to piss ya'll off.

pc

1966
the toughest card despite the pop report
in psa 8 is
216 216 and 216.
others include 224 and 544 (always a slider 8).
the toughest semi star is 350 stottlemyre
which gets $250 in an 8.

toppsgun

"I can tell you where some are hiding...

I for one still have the baseball cards that I collected as a child in the 60's my 62 set is pristine...not graded...but I don't have to grade it...they've never been touched basically since 1961-62 when I opened them...including the almost 200-300 doubles of have...

My 63 set (collected only the 1st series....again all pristine) looks like I just took them out of the wrapper...the backs are as white as the day I open the packs...not graded...I don't need to...same for the dupes...corners, edges whatever...they are mint...mint...as they were boxed and stored and never touch until I put them into individual plastic holders (sleeved also)...I've never seen cards at any show that look as good as the cards I have...at least 63's...

I almost have a duped set of 61's...

Back then you didn't buy sets...you bought packs...

My guess is...if I have them...others do to...

One day I might just grade them... "

Hammerin Henri, let me advise you strongly to NOT grade them. You might be in for a rude awakening. Print spots, centering flaws and other objective and subjective features you might be blind to, the graders will find. I assure you. This is especially true of 1961 and first series 1963.

However, if you have a 1963 #14, 21, 22, 27, 30, 34, 40, 50, 52, 60, 75, 84, 89, or 100 centered 60/40 or better, that you're willing to send me scan of, I could make you a ridiculous offer.

MorrellMan

1959 Morrell Koufax
1960 Bell Brand Klippstein (and, to a slightly lesser degree, Labine and Alston)

mariner

Just to revive this thread....would love to hear from others on this topic.

Plus, my post count is now 97, just 12,907 behind Vargha

Griffins

<<<Plus, my post count is now 97, just 12,907 behind Vargha >>>

Don, don't give up- Vargha's post count could be frozen any second now!

murcerfan

OK, that's it............. I'm showing off what the mailman just delivered:




edited to add: eat your heart out you Monstronet snakes.

Griffins

Murcer-
whats the tough one in that set, Bruton? and why, was it pulled?

murcerfan

shooting from the hip as usual:
Booney is considered a short print because he was traded in April, like 5 games into the season, and they pulled his cards, they do exist( 2, maybe 3, on e-bay in the past 6 years) but the only 2 ever graded are sitting here on my desk.
Bruton was rumored to be one of those cards withheld in order to control the amount of prize winnings Lake to Lake would have to pony up.
The only one I have ever owned has the ever-present staple holes and a big fat crease.
I have a period milk bottle for Lake to Lake that Bob Lemke sold me...
..............still haven't figured out how they stapled the cards to those bottles

murcerfan

Anthony:
Now that I actually re-read the back of the card and the prize structuring, it makes no sense why a card would be withheld. Perhaps ole Billy-bob, who played 151 games for the Braves in 1960, was lactose intollerant....
.................got cheese?



this one's for Jay:

Griffins

What does PSA take off on the grade for staple holes on this issue? As they were issued stapled to the bottle (must be a helluva stapler) do they make allowances for this, or do they grade it the same as any stapled card?

murcerfan

I assume I'd be looking at a PSA 1.

mariner

murcerfan.....

Thanks for those great scans of your Lake to Lake. That is a set I know little about but it looks very interesting. I assume that the Bruton is about like the Bateman in the 1963 Pepsi Colt .45's set. I don't think that I have ever seen a Bateman. Do they really exist?

ZodiacMindwarp

murcerfan,

From the scan you provided, that Joey Jay card looks a whole lot better than the grade it received.

Is your icon from a series of caricatures that were inserted into the comics section of the Sunday NY Daily News in the 70's?

Michael

murcerfan

A tough grade to be sure, which was the typical result I got during from the Derek G./Iskowitz era at SGC, especially on things they had never graded before. very light wear at the corners does show under magnification on the back.
I don't think PSA graders use a loupe on every card (maybe only to check a particular flaw they detect)
and I get the feeling that SGC does so on most every card, which is may be why they always seemed "corner heavy", whilst PSA has traditionally been "centering heavy"

........but what do I know?

Overall, I have been very pleased with SGC's grading on this set and they present very nicely in their holder....unfortunatly PSA's holder clashes badly with the card design and blue/green tones and I don't care for the little mylar baggie they use to try to limit the card's movement (a half measure in my book):



edited to add:
link to more pics

crsportscards33

Hey thanks for the responses. Just got back from a show and picked up around 200 high quality '60 commons. 90% should grade a 7 or better including the Terwilliger and Wertz. Also picked up a beautiful '69 Banks that has a shot at a 9. Once I go through them again, I'll post some pics.


Chris

murcerfan

The world needs more high grade Terwilligers