rare commons within sets

onegaucho

smr (the print version) comes once a month for me and it usually only takes a few minutes to read thru since there's not a lot of articles in there. one thing that i did appreciate about a recent issue was the talk of the 59 topps set - which i love to collect (tho mainly for the thrills cards subset - numbers 461-470). in any case, the article mentioned the prices of some of the cards and also mentioned some of the tougher issues.

billy pierce's all-star card #572 is traditionally in the top 3 of toughest to find in high grade (psa 8 or better). its nice to know that in the cases (tho rare) when i travel to other cities (or even down to my local shop) and look thru binders to know that if i come across one, i should take a closer look at it.

what are some of the really tough issues out there for sets?

i also collect the 50 bowman set and know that billy goodman #99 is tough.

86 fleer basketball collectors know that the ones ending in 11, 22, 33, etc. are tough too b/c of the way they came off the presses (they were on the edges)

other commons to note out there from set collectors?

markj111

Off the top of my head-the tough cards in 59 Billy Hunter, Dave Philley, Lee Walls, Bobby Shantz, Del Rice, Stu Miller, Billy O' Dell, Gus Triandos, R.C. Stevens, Vic Wertz, and Elmer Singleton. I probably missed a few.

For any particular year, go to the set registry and find a set that is complete in the grade you are interested in-it shows the population for each card.

nam812

1962 Topps #287 George Witt.

nearmint

The Jim Woodard card in the 1960 Fleer football set is a killer: PSA has graded only 4 of them above a 6. The Woodard was the card on the bottom left corner of the sheet, and it evidently was prone to damage in the printing and packaging process.

As far as I've seen, the price guides don't recognize that some cards are more difficult to find in top condition because of their position on the sheet. The guides assign checklists a premium because kids marked many of them. They also assign the first and last cards a premium because they supposedly got more wear (e.g., rubber band marks) being on the top and bottom of the kid's stack. It appears to me, though, that placement on the sheet affects scarcity far more than a card's being the first or last of the set.

natetrook

1961 Topps Bob Cerv #563 - Tough high number in 7 or above.

1954 Topps Ben Wade #126 & Gene Woodling #101 - OUCH in PSA 8

Nate

theklonewarrior

Cards that I personally had trouble with

1957 Topps - Darrell Johnson
1966 Topps - Russ Snyder/Cardinals Rookies
1967 Topps - Mike Shannon/ 592 Shellenback/Willis Rookie (which seems to be more SP than normal SPs)

markj111

<< <i>1961 Topps Bob Cerv #563 - Tough high number in 7 or above.

1954 Topps Ben Wade #126 & Gene Woodling #101 - OUCH in PSA 8

Nate >>



I have a 61 PSA 7 Cerv. It is the only card in my set below PSA 8. My 7 looks better than some of the 8s I have seen- I refuse to buy a card that looks worse than the ome I have, regardless of the # on the holder. I'll pick up an 8 one of these days.

RonBurgundy

1952 Topps Herman Wehmeier.