After the '52 High Nos. What is the Scarcest High No. Series

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Most people would consider the '52 Topps high numbers to be pretty scarce. How about after these high numbers? Out of the other Topps sets which high number series is the next scarcest? Perhaps you don't agree with the '52 Topps high numbers as being the scarcest.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>PETER C<br /><br />Try the 1949 Leaf scarce series.<br /><br />Start by reading my 1949 Leaf BB article in the OLD CARDBOARD (OC) magazine....or, if you don't subscribe to OC, then<br /> just read more posts on Net54....the scarcity of the Leaf 2nd series cards (otherwise known as Short Prints) have been <br />discussed numerous times on this forum.<br /><br />The 49 cards in this 2nd series of Leaf's are an order of magnitude tougher than the 97 Hi@s in the 1952 Topps issue.<br /><br />And, just as tough as these Leaf SP's, if not tougher, are the 36 cards of the 1949 Bowman PCL set.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>I might just be on a run of hard luck, but I've found the '50 Bowman low numbers to be a lot tougher than some of the other "scarcer" series cards. They are certainly tougher than high numbers in '51 Bowman, or '55, '66 or '67 Topps, and the 2nd series of '57 Topps.<br />Agreed on the Leaf sp's- at least you can find '52 hi's, you can get stuck forever on finding Leafs in any condition.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>I've had a theory for years that the true test of a scarce series is how difficult it is to obtain the cards in nice shape. The 1950 Bowman low numbers, for instance, seem way tougher to find in nice shape than the rest of the cards in the set. 1967 Topps high numbers, on the other hand, are often found in great shape. Back in the 70s, a collector once showed me an incredible stash of '67 high numbers, all in seemingly perfect condition. Seeing a bunch of supposedly rare cards in great shape makes me very suspicious. It seems to me they were not short-printed, but rather had a limited distribution during the season when they were printed ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Although the '75 minis came out in one series, their distribution was limited to only parts of the U.S., they seem difficult to find in nice condition. Much more difficult to find than the '75 Topps regular set.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>If you stick with Topps, the 61 highs were once thought to be tougher than they are now. Those 67's (and also 66) are tough because of some shortprints but are plentiful enoguh overall. I searched some Topps Hi #'s completed listings on Ebay and here is what I found (includes lots, singles, etc. I just counted "hits"):<br /><br />52T = 34<br />53T = 83<br />57T (mid) = 100<br />59T = 316<br />61T = 163<br />62T = 100<br />63T = 132<br />64T = 108<br />65T = 136<br />66T = 124<br />67T = 148<br /><br />1960 returned too many hits, it picked up all 1960's highs. Very unscientific but it certainly shows how tough 52's are in comparison to other Topps high #'s. But if you want NM cards, the 62, 63, 70 and 71's are going to be harder because of the colored borders.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>good post dave, with the topps hi ,they are a lot easier w/bay then the old show and scd days. i found that completing the 56,58,64,65 were pretty easy pre-ebay because of the hi #'s not being not hard to find at all. where as i had ahard time getting the hi's on 61-66 and 67.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>DAVE H<br /><br />My experience collecting 67T Hi#s and helping others with their wantlists boils down to these 17 cards being the toughest....<br /><br />Barker<br />Boswell<br />Cardwell<br />Clendenon<br />Ferrera<br />Krausse<br />Red Sox Team card<br />Rojas<br />Schneider<br />Shannon<br />Shaw/Sutherland Rookies<br /><br />All of the above 11 cards happen to occupy the same row on the Hi# sheet....interesting ?<br /><br />Also, I'll add....<br /><br />Sandy Alomar<br />Jim Bunning<br />Norm Cash<br />Rocky Colavito<br />Wes Westrum<br />White Sox team card.<br /><br />TED Z<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Some 67's were fairly tough for me and cost a lot more than others (see my post below on 1967 Hugh Number uncut sheets) and not everything corresponded to the guide's SP listings. I gave up on the Topps sets prior to 67 so can't say for certain how difficult the 66 SP's are. Some like the 66 Choo Choo Coleman were going for crazy money last year (one in VG-EX went for $90!) but have leveled. I looked for months for a reasonable one, then found two last year with the same dealer at Hofstra (Joe Esposito) who let me pick one for $5 in EX/MT. I left the other one behind for someone else to buy. But some 67 high's in EX/MT were $40 or $50 when I finished off the set with very competitive bidding. Others were $3., including some SP's.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Dave,<br /><br />Thanks for your list. Apparently the '57 Topps mid-high series is pretty difficult to find.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew</b><p>I know you asked about Topps, but 1965 OPC hi-numbers are quite tough. For those who use pop reports as a gauge, the numbers substantiate this. And for those who may not know, 1974 is a very tough OPC year. I realize low OPC demand plays into the low pop numbers.<br /><br />off tangent...I've never seen a 1965 unopened OPC wax pack, one collector remembers having three about 15 years ago. However, I nobody I know has or has seen a 1969 OPC pack.<br><br>"Take your life in your own hands and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame." -- Erica Jong

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>57 Topps mids are pretty tough. And I didn't search but some Bowman hi's must be more difficult than these.<br /><br />OPC is tough, especially in nice shape, as well but can they really be said to include high numbers?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew</b><p>Not sure which OPCs were issued in series, but fairly certain that 1965 was. Maybe 1970-1974 also.<br><br>"Take your life in your own hands and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame." -- Erica Jong

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>For Topps, 1961 and 1962 hands down. <br /><br />Scott<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>DAVE H<br /><br />The 1949 Bowman regular issue 108 Hi #s (#145 - 240 + the 12 variations) are just as tough as the 1952 Topps 97 Hi #s.<br /><br />Especially, the 1949 Bowman's #145 -180, which are even tougher than the other 72 Hi #s in this set.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />Thanks for explaining to me why I'm having difficulties finding the the Duke Snider in the '49 Bowman High Nos. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>...and why it's very very pricey when you do find one.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>1957 Topps 4th series is a killer. The Koufax in that series is especially hard to find in high grade.<br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>PETER....PAUL<br /><br />Perhaps, the reason you can't find Snider cards too easy, is because I have four of them. here is my most unusual one.<br /><br />An extremely rare SLATE background (color error) example of "The Duke"......Gee, is that a great smile....or what ?<br /><br />This card (#226), as the Paige (#224) and Ashburn (#214), are very tough to find....not only because they are highly <br />sought after HOFer/rookie cards.....but, you have to appreciate that the 1949 Bowman Hi# series (108 cards) are really<br /> tough to find.<br /><br />And, because of this scarcity factor, they have become very expensive.....it boils down to the old law of "supply vs demand".<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/campysnider.jpg"> <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>George L</b><p>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Lordy. I thought Peter C. had returned. I didn't realize that this was an old thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>EMAIL sent regarding your question.<br><br><br>TED Z<br><br>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>marty q</b><p> peter c-, the 75 minis are not only common but maybe more so than the 75 set itself in high grade. take a look at the r.e.a. auction....a ton of case after case of the 75 mini's, even a lot of high grade of 20,000+ cards. this issue is far from scarce, with all of this unopend material i would stay away from these unless you get then for pennies on the dollar,<br><br> i agree with ted z- leaf cards are tough , 50 bowman yes, and also high grade 49 bowman 155-225 for me.<br><br> &quot;&quot;&quot;lol&quot;&quot;&quot; oh geez !!! i did the same thing, i thought peter c was up and running, thats too funny!!!<br><br> i will keep my post up just to show how off this guy was most of the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>After many years building sets, buying, selling and trading, I believe this is an accurate list of high number difficulty. In order from most scarce to easiest to find. In EX condition or better. <br>1949 Leaf<br>1952 Topps<br>1949 Bowman<br>1950 Bowman Low Numbers<br>1966 Short Prints<br>1967 Short Prints<br>1961<br>1953 Topps Short Prints<br>1957 Mid Series<br>1953 Bowman Color Mid Series<br>1951 Bowman<br>1962<br>1952 Bowman<br>1955 Topps<br>1963 Mid Series<br>1958 Low Numbers<br>1959 <br>1960<br>1964<br>1965 <br><br>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>I'm surprised noone has mentioned '72 hi numbers. I realize they are a little newer, but they have always been tough.<br>