High Number Trouble

[1963Topps Set]

In working on your Topps set, which year (or years) gave you the most difficulty with the high numbers? (Of course 1952 which is very noted)

I had a lot of difficulty with the high numbers of 1961, 1966 and 1967.

I think they are the toughest....

1964, 1965, 1968 and 1969 are the easiest.

[savedfrommyspokes]

From the 1960s, I would agree on your list...outside of the 52 Topps Hi#s, the 53 Hi#s are tough and the 72 Hi#s can be a challenge also.

[JollyElm]

The high numbers from the years you stated are extremely tough…and then there are the high number SP's that just kick your butt.

[ALR-bishop]

I am so old that I built those sets back in the day when it wasn't so tough

The 52 high numbers did set me back, especially the variations of the 3 DPs and the other variations

[Jim65]

I bought most of my '66 and '67 highs in the pre-internet days, nowadays all those cards are much easier to find.

[rats60]

In working on your Topps set, which year (or years) gave you the most difficulty with the high numbers? (Of course 1952 which is very noted)

I had a lot of difficulty with the high numbers of 1961, 1966 and 1967.

I think they are the toughest....

1964, 1965, 1968 and 1969 are the easiest.

Those three and the 63 semi highs. I had trouble with the 61s and 63s collecting in the 70s. The 66s and 67s weren't as tough because they were newer.

[brewing]

This is what stops me from chasing the sets. I didn't like buying the high numbers for my Tiger run.

I have a nice start to the 1967 set (over 550 different), but those SP high#'s have prices that don't fit in my world.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

This is what stops me from chasing the sets. I didn't like buying the high numbers for my Tiger run.

I have a nice start to the 1967 set (over 550 different), but those SP high#'s have prices that don't fit in my world.

Brent,

I know what you mean. I love the idea of set building but can't ever see myself doing it again. There are just so many cards in so many different sets I want that I dabble in many different sets getting little pieces here and there. I also find myself getting impatient while building a set. Paying big bucks for players I don't easily recognize gets frustrating for me, too. For instance, I really like '53 Bowman Color, but there are tons of other star cards in other sets I really want. Ultimately, I will probably buy the stars from that set I want and move on.

[1963Topps Set]

It is amazing that a high number common from some of these years will cost you more then a low number star!

[moeson]

Boy, do I agree with that having just paid up for a raw centered 1961 Rollie Sheldon!

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Tom: that can certainly be the case! I guess that was the point of this thread. Some of the '53 Topps high numbers I tussled with got interesting.

Howie: congrats on the find. There is something about finding "the one" you need! I guess that's really it. I have been looking through my '53 Topps commons and high #s. It comes back to me why I decided to build the set to begin with. For me, it is simply a work of art from start to finish. Even the most inconsequential common player has an attractive card. I remember having a pretty tough time tracking down some of the high numbers (and even non-high numbers) in the grade/price range I was looking for. I had a lot of fun. This all makes me think I might want to build '53 Bowman Color afterall. As long as I don't let myself look too long at all the other 50s stuff I like, I might be able to pull it off.

[brob28]

Boy, do I agree with that having just paid up for a raw centered 1961 Rollie Sheldon!

Howie, the Sheldon was one of the toughest of the set for me to find in the condition (and centered) that I wanted, Congrats, that's a tough one! The only set that the OP mentioned that I have completed is the '61 set. The high numbers are tough particularly if you are condition sensitive and want good centering I enjoy the challenge. The one set that got to be a real chore for me was the '72 set I found myself just wanting to get it over with...

[moeson]

Thanks Robert and Bill. Yes, 72 can be a nightmare with all those diamond cuts. In other sets, even non-high numbers are effective short prints due to poor centering. For example, I have had trouble finding decently centered 1964Yankees and Orioles Team cards.

[Zach Wheat]

Howie, the Sheldon was one of the toughest of the set for me to find in the condition (and centered) that I wanted, Congrats, that's a tough one! The only set that the OP mentioned that I have completed is the '61 set. The high numbers are tough particularly if you are condition sensitive and want good centering I enjoy the challenge. The one set that got to be a real chore for me was the '72 set I found myself just wanting to get it over with...

I have to agree with Howie & Bill....the '72 Topps Hi Numbers were a real chore. Not so much that all high numbers were hard to find....but that the semi-hi numbers were equally hard to find....and this was one of the last large sets Topps created before they cut the # of cards down to a manageable size.

Cards are notoriously miscut as well.....

Z Wheat

[1963Topps Set]

Howie, the Sheldon was one of the toughest of the set for me to find in the condition (and centered) that I wanted, Congrats, that's a tough one! The only set that the OP mentioned that I have completed is the '61 set. The high numbers are tough particularly if you are condition sensitive and want good centering I enjoy the challenge. The one set that got to be a real chore for me was the '72 set I found myself just wanting to get it over with...

I felt that way about the 1962 set. It was like foot slogging up Mount Everest!

The 1972 high numbers were not a problem for me as I found someone who I knew and took very good care of me. He had all of them.

[brob28]

I felt that way about the 1962 set. It was like foot slogging up Mount Everest!

The 1972 high numbers were not a problem for me as I found someone who I knew and took very good care of me. He had all of them.

I had to laugh (at myself) when I read your post. I went straight into the '62 set as I finished '61. I'm about 95% complete, with the '62 master set. There are definitely some '62 high numbers that have made me cringe as I realized what I was going to have to pay to find a well-centered copy. In the end, I love the challenge of putting together a nice set. :cool: