High Number Trouble
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
60s
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 |
I bought most of my '66 and '67 highs in the pre-internet days, nowadays all those cards are much easier to find.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
It is amazing that a high number common from some of these years will cost you more then a low number star!
|
Boy, do I agree with that having just paid up for a raw centered 1961 Rollie Sheldon!
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
'72 Hi Numbers
Quote:
Cards are notoriously miscut as well..... Z Wheat |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:53 AM. |