Everyone knows high numbers (pre-1974 Topps) are much rarer/expensive, but are some years more so t

Estil · May 11, 2007 6:22PM

Also, did other sports (b-ball, football) also have rarer/more expensive high numbers as well? Also, how exactly do we KNOW which high numbers are rarer/more difficult to find than others?

yankeeno7 · May 11, 2007 8:12PM

History of supply and demand? Dealers talking about the cards the collectors just can't find? (especially in pre internet days)

nam812 · May 11, 2007 8:16PM

If you collect/buy/sell vintage long enough you will get a good feel for the more rare high numbers based on ability to acquire and demand. In baseball the 1952 Topps high numbers are the most sought after, and by far the toughest to acquire. I do not deal in Bowman cards too often, but I do know that their early issues (1948 - 1952) have scarce high series cards that carry a premium book value, but I cannot attest to the ease or difficulty in acquiring them. Getting back to Topps, after the 1952 high numbers, in my opinion, the next difficult high number series is in 1961. There are high numbers in 1953, 1959, and 1960, but 1961 high numbers are very sought after in the hobby. 1954, 1957, and 1963 have a more rare middle series based on less production (why less produced in those middle series I do not know), but of those three years only the 1957 mid series cards are heavily collected. There are many high numbered series cards in the years 1962 to 1973, but of those years 1972 seems to be more rare and highly collected. As for other sports, the two that jump out right away are the 1972 Topps football high numbers and the 1948 Bowman basketball high numbers.

fiveniner · May 11, 2007 8:25PM

Nick pretty well says it all.As far as the early Bowmans are concerned there were series that were more difficult to find however they were not always the Hi #s.Some of the low #s in the Topps runs of the 50s are becoming more difficult to locate an example of that would be the 59s first series.The prices of the low #s are listed as lower priced than the high numbers however in my experience with the 59s it appears I have a much harder time locating first series than the 7th series.

Tony

Blackborder · May 12, 2007 1:18AM

Looking at the pop reports would probably give a fairly accurate picture of realitive scarcity within the same year. Low #'s vs high #'s.

MorrellMan · May 12, 2007 2:56AM

61's are tough, but they're around. IMO, the truly tough high numbers are 1966 baseball.
Interesting also is the fact that the "high numbers", in terms of value, are the low numbers for both '50 Bowman and '58 Topps.
The semi-highs in the '62 Topps set are somewhat tougher than hi's also, as are the semi hi's in '64 and '65.

As someone said, it's just a matter of experience; knowing what's tough and what isn't.

MorrellMan · May 12, 2007 3:00AM

Pop reports are an indicator, but not always accurately. When it comes to commons, if I have to choose between grading two cards of equal condition, I'll send in the low pop card. That creates an unstable indicator - to really know what's rare you have to look for cards for a long time to see what's available and what isn't, raw or graded.

nam812 · May 12, 2007 3:15AM

1966 (and 1967 for that matter) do have some tough high numbered cards (the SPs), but the non SP high numbers, which are 33 out of the 76 overall high numbers, are very readily available.

1961 are all SPs in my book (just my opinion of course), some even more SP than others, and to find centered, well that's a whole different animal.

As a seller, if you offer me a complete run of 1966 highs in EX condition for only 20% of book, or a complete run of 1961 highs in VG-EX condition for 25% of book value, I will take the 1961's every time.

Estil · May 14, 2007 1:55PM

So basically 1961's are the hardest and 1973's are the easiest?

nam812 · May 14, 2007 2:12PM

No, 1952's are the hardest, and 1969's and 1973's are the cheapest.

f2tornado · May 14, 2007 10:09PM

The 61 and 66 hi numbers are evil. I began my quest for the master Topps Twins team set last summer and quickly discovered the high number cards are a budget buster. I don't really feel like shelling out $50+ for the Twins Team card from the 66 set and $20+ for a few commons. Hoping to get lucky finding a bargain somewhere.

bishop · May 14, 2007 10:37PM

Good input Nick

WinPitcher · May 14, 2007 10:39PM

1966 is much tuffer then 1961 I know I have tried to get both. 1961 are always readily available but the 66's are a true bear.

Like mentioned the 65's the 4th series are tuff as are the 57's.

Steve

nam812 · May 14, 2007 10:55PM

As I mentioned above, 1966 does have some tough high numbered cards (the SPs), but the "non SP" high numbers, which amount to 33 out of the 76 overall high numbers, are really very easy to find in good shape. And 1966 doesnt have near as many centering issues as does 1961. Can anyone say Jim Gentile?

nam812 · May 14, 2007 10:58PM

<< Like mentioned the 65's the 4th series are tuff as are the 57's. >>

Do you mean the 1965 highs? Those really arent tough at all.

WinPitcher · May 14, 2007 11:08PM

No, I said the 65 4th series.

And I disagree 66 Does have centering issues galore.

61's are tuff no doubt but 66 can be as tuff.

Steve

nam812 · May 14, 2007 11:22PM

<< No, I said the 65 4th series. >>

1965 Topps
Series 1 = 1 to 196
Series 2 = 197 to 283
Series 3 = 284 to 370
Series 4 = 371 to 598 (high numbers)

MorrellMan · May 14, 2007 11:48PM

<< 

<< No, I said the 65 4th series. >>

1965 Topps
Series 1 = 1 to 196
Series 2 = 197 to 283
Series 3 = 284 to 370
Series 4 = 371 to 598 (high numbers) >>

I'm not sure where that breakdown above comes from, but it certainly isn't what is generally considered by collectors to be the series breakdown of 1965 Topps. There are two definitions of series: 1) the list of cards on the checklists, usually 7 series; or 2) the groups of cards as they were issued, usually starting with the first series plus the first 22 cards or so of the 2nd series, followed by the rest of the second series and part of the third - generally resulting in 6 "series" of issue.

nam812 · May 14, 2007 11:55PM

Im just reading it out of the Beckett guide, which I know breaks it up primarily by pricing. And, since you've never seen that series breakdown before, I will explain that Beckett is a fairly standard hobby periodical.

diamondman · May 15, 2007 12:40AM

I have an old Beckett monthly Dec 1989 that lists 6 different series of 65 Topps BB.
series 1 (1-196)
series 2 (197-283)
series 3 (284-370)
series 4 (371-446)
series 5 (447-522)
series 6 (523-598)
and from my experience with 65 Topps the 4th series was semitough, and the 6th series was tougher just MOO

and 1966 Topps high # are unreal.

MorrellMan · May 15, 2007 1:02AM

<< Im just reading it out of the Beckett guide, which I know breaks it up primarily by pricing. And, since you've never seen that series breakdown before, I will explain that Beckett is a fairly standard hobby periodical. >>

Gee, thank you so much for that useful explanation. You're very kind indeed. What ever would we do without the oldtimers on this board who have been here for a month....?

nam812 · May 15, 2007 1:06AM

Well when someone says they have never seen that breakdown before, I have to beleive that they do not know what a Beckett guide is. At least my sarcasm came through loud and clear.

bishop · May 15, 2007 1:33AM

Nick....you are losing ground. Remember Abe's advice

WinPitcher · May 15, 2007 1:44AM

Nick you are kidding right?

I just finished building a PSA 65 set. IMO the 4th series cards as defined by the checklist were the hardest to find. They also had the most low pop 8's too.

Steve

nam812 · May 15, 2007 1:55AM

Steve, where did I ever say anything about PSA graded cards in this thread? And, the comments I have made have been my experiences only. I'm sure it all differs from person to person.

mikeschmidt · May 15, 2007 2:36AM

<< Looking at the pop reports would probably give a fairly accurate picture of realitive scarcity within the same year. Low #'s vs high #'s. >>

Not necessarily true, as the rarer series tend to get submitted more often, because of their higher value.

~ms

markj111 · May 15, 2007 3:27AM

My experience (I have a complete 61 set graded, and most of the 66 hi#s) is that the 66s are scarcer, but there is more demand for the 61s. Tough 61 high #s are Gibbon, Cerv, Gentile, Wills, and Fischer. The lowest pop is Gibbon. By my rough count there are 14 cards in the 66 Hi#s that have a lower PSA 8 pop than the toughest 61. Three of the 66s, Cards Rookies, Snyder and Perranoski, have extremely low pops, but will sell for much less than Gibbon , Cerv (Yankee) or Gentile.

WinPitcher · May 15, 2007 5:16AM

Steve, where did I ever say anything about PSA graded cards in this thread?

Where did I say that you did?

My comment to you (are you kidding) stating that 1965 topps had only 4 series.

yes and like you my opinion is based only on my experiences.

Bottom line is that 1961 and 66 topps are tuff.

Steve

nam812 · May 15, 2007 5:37AM

Agreed. With 61 being tougher.....

WinPitcher · May 15, 2007 6:10AM

Tougher? then 65 I agree, but almost as tuff as 66's.

Steve

iamarock · May 15, 2007 6:58AM

<< Nick you are kidding right?

I just finished building a PSA 65 set. IMO the 4th series cards as defined by the checklist were the hardest to find. They also had the most low pop 8's too.

Steve >>

I agree. 4th Series is by far the toughest in the 65 set., especially #'s 320-350.

Russell

MorrellMan · May 15, 2007 7:48AM

Just for the heck of it, and because I don't feel like backing down:

<< Well when someone says they have never seen that breakdown before, I have to beleive that they do not know what a Beckett guide is. >>

That's a pretty massive logical leap, kind of like if someone has never heard a certain word, then they must not know what a dictionary is.

<< At least my sarcasm came through loud and clear. >>

and you feel justified in being sarcastic with me because??? Please don't take it as sarcasm when I ask just who the f**k are you?

nam812 · May 15, 2007 7:53AM

Yes, don't ever back down on an internet thread.

WinPitcher · May 15, 2007 8:00AM

That's 2 questions that you have failed to answer now Nick.

Steve

oops I mean 3..................

You are kidding right?

Where did I say you did?

and "who the f are you"?

Griffins · May 15, 2007 8:52AM

1. Throw out the Beckett garbage and buy Lemke's Standard Guide.
2. Read and learn a while before sticking your foot in your mouth.
3. If you're going to have a sig line don't immediately do the opposite of what it says.

nam812 · May 15, 2007 9:27AM

Mind your business Griffins. That will be my last reading of, and post to, this thread.

MorrellMan · May 15, 2007 9:42AM

<< Mind your business Griffins. That will be my last reading of, and post to, this thread. >>

Dork - he actually is minding his business. We all sort of live here; you're just messing up our house. Glad you're going away.

theczar · May 15, 2007 12:18PM

i have a stack of pretty decent raw 1966 high #'s if anyone is interested. centering is an issue most have nice corners. i have the cards rookie, perranoski, pena, snyder, grant jackson rookie in the lot.

i know this belongs in the buy/sell thread so forgive me. pm if you would like to discuss.

thanks

WinPitcher · May 15, 2007 12:53PM

pm sent

celesterussell · December 2, 2007 2:03AM

just an observation.

Look how much more high quality 1969 cards from the third series go for. If my cluttered memory serves me correctly, that series was only on the shelves for a short time, from the last week of aril 69 till second or third week of may 69.

F1ferrari · December 2, 2007 3:06AM

I'm not trying to take this thread off topic, but I have 2 questions for which I've never heard an answer: why did card companies release their sets in series? and why did Topps stop after 1974?

My guess at an answer the first question is to keep kids buying the cards all year long. You didn't just have a massive buying spree when the cards were released in early spring and sales slowing down after that. Is that about right? If that's right, why end the 'series' releases from 1975-1992?

perkdog · December 2, 2007 3:12AM

Tell you what, I think the '52 Bowman Large Football set has to be right up their with the toughest to find all around in nm-mint + condition.

BobaFett72 · December 2, 2007 3:26AM

I have essentially shelved my 1966 Set to focus on my 1961 topps baseball, which has some really tough cards and expensive Hi# all stars. i'm down to less than 90 cards for the set, guess what series MOST of them are from lol.

MorrellMan · December 2, 2007 3:39AM

Perk - I gotta agree with you - 52 Bowman large football cards, primarily the numbers that are divisible by 9, are very very tough in high grade.

BobaFett72 · December 2, 2007 3:40AM

p.s. to answer why they are issues in series. stolen from the Internet!

card manufacturers issued their sets in two or more series to keep collectors buying their product throughout the baseball season. This also allowed card companies to feature rookies and show traded players in their new uniforms. In most cases the final series would be issued around the beginning of football season, and merchants were less likely to order cards to sell so late in the season. As a result, fewer cards got into circulation, and those final series tend to be scarce when compared to earlier series.

also in 1974...
The practice of issuing baseball sets in several series throughout the baseball season ended with the release of Topps' 1974 set, which was issued in its entirety before that baseball season began. For the first time, an entire set could be put together and sold without waiting for the season to end; after this, a hobby began to develop itself and card dealers began to appear. Topps issued its first set of traded cards in 1974, which were distributed with the regular issue cards in packs sold toward the end of the baseball season; this practice would be repeated in 1976. Annual "Traded" sets would arrive in 1981, but only sold by dealers as complete sets.

53BKid · December 2, 2007 10:12AM

<< p.s. to answer why they are issues in series. stolen from the Internet!

card manufacturers issued their sets in two or more series to keep collectors buying their product throughout the baseball season. This also allowed card companies to feature rookies and show traded players in their new uniforms. In most cases the final series would be issued around the beginning of football season, and merchants were less likely to order cards to sell so late in the season. As a result, fewer cards got into circulation, and those final series tend to be scarce when compared to earlier series.

>>

Also, the high series releases had lower series cards mixed in. So you would buy a high series pack and get a lot more duplicates. That's why you'll find a ton of 1st and 2nd series cards listed in lots, where even the semi-highs can be relatively scarce.

The '72, '67, 66, '62, Topps are darned tough, especially in high grade. The '62 is sick with all the short prints.

The 4th series of the '57 set is tougher than the 5th (last) series, same with the '63. The 6th series is tougher than the 7th.

darkhorse9 · December 2, 2007 11:49AM

Being one of the few on this board that NEVER buys graded cards, I'm curious as to whether the discussion of rare series applies to just high-grade worthy cards or the cards in general.

I collect cards in EX or better and just finished the 1966 set. The high numbers were a bit tough but certainly do-able. Finding the cards wasn't too difficult, but then again my margin of acceptance for centering etc. was certainly larger than many here.

So when you discuss the rarity of 1966 high numbers and 1961 high numbers, is the trouble that they just don't exist in comparision with other years, or that they don't exist in high grade compared to other years?

I am currently working on the 1965 set. I collect by series (meaning I finish series one before going on to series two etc.) I am about to start series four (card #265-352 to solve a rather silly earlier debate) am I going to have trouble finding them in my condition?

BobaFett72 · December 2, 2007 11:53AM

dark, you will have no trouble finding cards for 1965, not in Ex. condition and you said your not looking for perfect centering either. Your golden.

53BKid · December 6, 2007 3:22AM

The 65s are plentiful.

I've worked on the '66 set on and off for years--EXMT or better, well centered. However, I haven't been chasing it, and am in no rush to get it done. I occassionally look for deals on the ones I need, but don't bid aggressively.

Edited to say: Good luck on the '65 set. It's a beautiful set when it's all together.

Everyone knows high numbers (pre-1974 Topps) are much rarer/expensive, but are some years more so t

Comments