1966 Topps Baseball

markj111 · October 21, 2009 7:37AM

I am curious as to why this set is so unpopular. It has by far the fewest cards graded of any Topps set in the 60s (app. 91,000). The next lowest is 64 with 103,000, then 62 with 119,000. Sixty, 61, and 68 are at 150,000 or more.

On the set registry, the #20 set for five of the years is above 90% complete, for four years it is above 70% complete, but for 1966 it is 40% complete. It is easy to pick up PSA 8 cards with pops in the 30s or low 40s; in many other sets of they 60s they would be considered low pop cards.

PoppaJ · October 21, 2009 7:57AM

My guess would be that the popularity of many older sets was based on its rookie pool. The '66 set had Jim Palmer, Willie McCovey and Fergie Jenkins. I, personally, think it would be an easy set to complete for someone that didn't want to spend a fortune on a vintage set.

PoppaJ

Treetop · October 21, 2009 8:03AM

<< <i>My guess would be that the popularity of many older sets was based on its rookie pool. The '66 set had Jim Palmer, Willie McCovey and Fergie Jenkins. I, personally, think it would be an easy set to complete for someone that didn't want to spend a fortune on a vintage set.

PoppaJ >>

McCovey rookie is 1960

Treetop · October 21, 2009 8:07AM

I love the set! first one I ever collected as a child. Choo-Choo Coleman leads the great high number 7th series cards.

at one time, Some of the low pop's 9's and 10's can go for crazy money. If Richard Weigle needs it and Czar (board member) bids, price can go through the roof!!!

RonBurgundy · October 21, 2009 8:15AM

Seriously underrated set IMO.

itzagoner · October 21, 2009 8:20AM

i don't believe the set is "unpopular" as it were, only a bit less popular than the other sets around it......it definitely has a cool design and colors, including the backs, and a slick, shiny vending card in hand from this issue always looks nice.

VintageCardLover · October 21, 2009 8:27AM

i dont think it's aged well. the 65 set is more colorful, the 67 set dwarfs it in popularity. 1960,61, 62 and 63 are classics. The high numbers though ARE impossible. (well you know what i mean) Personally i dont like the design, but it's not hideous.

HoofHearted · October 21, 2009 10:03AM

I started opening packs in '62 and that's why I collect that set graded -- sentimental reasons. Otherwise, I was so close to having complete raw sets of '62, '63 and '68 that I completed those over the past 20 years. I like the design of the '66 and would like to complete that and the '64 and '65 raw sets once I have the '62 Set Registry completed. For some reason I didn't buy many '67 cards. Must've been noticing the girls at the time...

Nathaniel1960 · October 21, 2009 11:54AM

I bought a nice lot of 66 Highs and that got me started on the set. It grows on you if its in hi grade. The special cards are lame though. And no playoff cards.

gemint · October 21, 2009 11:58AM

I have no problem building unpopular sets. It's easier on the budget. It also means it's easier to find nice raw examples to grade for myself. I don't think it can be compared to the '68 set though. I think that has high populations and registry participation because it's so easy to build in high grade.

heritage · October 21, 2009 2:48PM

I would think it's because the 65 and 67 sets are so popular the 66 set get's lost. I like the 66 set but the high numbers can be tuff and the centering stinks of the set.
I for one hate cards that are o/c

bishop · October 22, 2009 12:30AM

Maybe it is less polular because of Topps dropping the World series cards that year....only kidding. The leaders cards include 8 future Hofers, and the Koufax ( 100) and Roberts (530) were their last active cards.

There were also the 120 Topps Rubb Offs that year, and the Topps Babe Ruth Valentine Foldee , as well as the elusive 1966 prototype Punch Outs discussed in another thread.

Also the new turf in the Houston Dome caused Richie Allen to remark that "I don't like playing on grass that cows won't eat"

And, although I think SCD lists 14 variations in the set, including 3 of card 43 Landrum, I have found at least 5 other variations/printing errors in this set.

I like the set

Trevmo · October 22, 2009 12:42AM

i like sets that are not too hard to complete. i hate waiting years and years to complete something. some people enjoy the challenge but i like to get stuff done quickly. anyways, the 66 set doesnt look bad but too much waiting for my taste

theczar · October 22, 2009 12:50AM

FYI,
Don Spence has taken a fancy to that set and all bets are off on any card he needs. I just beat him on a PSA 10 Julio Navarro (527) and I paid $1025.

I am down to 38 cards in 9 or 10 and if I can get one card a month I would be happy. That did make by 86th 10.

FJM

Morgoth · October 22, 2009 1:41AM

Personally I like 65 better but who likes 67 over 66. The 67 set is severly hampered by the butt ugly Mantle card IMO.

NickM · October 22, 2009 4:21AM

Sutton, not McCovey, is the 3rd HOF rookie in the set.

Nick

digicat · October 22, 2009 4:39AM

When I was doing my Giants HoFer sets, the McCovey and Perry in this set were pretty pricy (for me) in PSA 8. The McCovey was around $140 and the Perry was around $200. That's McCovey's 3rd most expensive card (60 RC, 62) in PSA 8, and Perry's 2nd (second only to his 62 RC).

MisterBungle · October 22, 2009 6:10AM

"...and Perry in this set were pretty pricy (for me) in PSA 8"
-----
Yeah, the Gaylord Perry was the last card in the set and a "short print".

So, it's a "high number", a "short print" and the "rubber band" card!!

It's a wonder you even *found* a PSA 8!!

~

bobsbbcards · October 22, 2009 6:21AM

My two favorite '66 cards:

WinPitcher · October 22, 2009 6:44AM

1966 rocks, I like it more then the 65 and I built a PSA 65 set.

My 66 set is mostly raw with a few key cards graded,

Steve

Nathaniel1960 · October 22, 2009 7:00AM

<< <i>1966 rocks, I like it more then the 65 and I built a PSA 65 set.

My 66 set is mostly raw with a few key cards graded,

Steve >>

Your avatar suggests your allegiance.

fur72 · October 22, 2009 7:12AM

Now you guys are talking my language. I have about 80% of the set complete ungraded that is. Its really hard to find high number in good condition with out paying alot out of pocket. The Perry card 598 is hard to get in good condition as well as the Mays number 1 since it was at the top of the stack if in numeric order.

This set is filled with stars but not alot of major rookies(Jenkins, Sutton just a couple off the top of my head). I have flipped Mantles several times in this set. I agree I dont think the design is as applealing as the 64 or 65 sets but for some reason I got hooked. I am always upgrading cards and trying to snag the what I have left of the higher numbers. Of course I need another Mantle.

Done forget everyones favorite Don Mossie. He can fly with those ears!

darkhorse9 · October 23, 2009 6:18AM

This set was an absolute BLAST for me to complete. The first six series were easy enough and the high numbers were a real challange but none of them were priced out of reach. It was more like a treasure hunt finding the ones I needed.

I have that set completed raw. I recently finished up 1965 and have moved onto the 1964 set. Working on those high numbers now.

theczar · October 23, 2009 10:37AM

I hope I do not offend anyone by showing off a few cards from my Registry from this set.

A toughie

The Real HR King

An incredibly difficult card-Only 1 of 2 as a 9.

Hi Number

THE CARD BELOW IS NOT IN MY COLLECTION BUT IS THE WORST 10 THAT I HAVE SEEN IN THIS SET.

leadoff4 · October 23, 2009 11:06AM

Picked up 115 '66s for my set yesterday. I'd venture to say that about 80% of them are NM-MT. Will try to post some scans tomorrow on "raw card Saturday". I'm liking this set more and more. I think I like the backs most of all about these cards.

SidePocket · October 23, 2009 12:09PM

czar, those are beauties and reinforce my opinion that every set is attractive when the cards are centered and clean!

metrotheme · October 24, 2009 12:22AM

Anyone have a low grade Dave Roberts (Pit) from this set?

leadoff4 · October 24, 2009 3:38AM

Besides #544 and #591 what are the other tough cards in 8 or better?

calaban7 · October 24, 2009 3:45AM

<< <i>I hope I do not offend anyone by showing off a few cards from my Registry from this set.

A toughie

The Real HR King

An incredibly difficult card-Only 1 of 2 as a 9.

Hi Number

THE CARD BELOW IS NOT IN MY COLLECTION BUT IS THE WORST 10 THAT I HAVE SEEN IN THIS SET.

>>

Frank , All I can say is DUDE !!!!!!

Very nice cards

------ Sonny

theczar · October 24, 2009 6:24AM

Besides #544 and #591 what are the other tough cards in 8 or better?

i cannot speak on 8's, but as for 9's or 10's #25 pete ward one 9 and one 10, a walt bond psa 9 just sold on ebay i think it is card 431 or 432 that is a difficult card. card # 482 cubs rookie with john bocabell went for over 1600 last year the only 9 ever sold. a couple of tony perez 2nd years each sold for 1300+ at MHCC auction last month. bob allison is a toughie i think that is card 345. there is a senators rookie card # 11 that is a two pop in 9, bill henry card 115 is also a two pop. that cards rookie #544 card fetch a lot of money in any sort of mid-to-high grade.

what is hard for me to fathom is that are at least three cards each have been graded a 10 eight times. they are all relatively close in their series #'s between 411 and 437. there are actually some high numbers that are much easier to find than series 1-6.

personally chasing this set for almost five years i would say that card 482 and 442 are the scarest offered on ebay.

1966 Topps Baseball

Comments