Are high numbers really all that rare?

[TheNightmanCometh]

I've been shopping for cards and for certain sets all I have left are high numbers. At this point they're out of my price range, I mean, why pay $20 for one card when I can buy 8 others that I need for $2.50 apiece? Anyways, I assume they're as high as they are because high numbers are "rare" or some such thing, but there isn't a day that goes buy that I don't see one for sale, typically by the same sellers. For cards that are rare there sure are a lot of them.

[conor912]

It's my understanding that high numbers (i.e. the last series or two of a set) came out at the end of the baseball season, usually around September. Unlike the first series coming out in the spring with much adolescent anticipation, by September kids had moved onto other things, like the new school year, and more or less given up on cards for the year. Card companies, in turn, caught on to this trend and began making fewer cards for these series' instead of making a bunch that they wouldn't end up selling.

[bigfanNY]

While I agree that Topps High Numbers on whole are scarcer they are in my experience found in better overall condition. Simply because they were handled less.

[TheNightmanCometh]

Originally Posted by conor912

It's my understanding that high numbers (i.e. the last series or two of a set) came out at the end of the baseball season, usually around September. Unlike the first series coming out in the spring with much adolescent anticipation, by September kids had moved onto other things, like the new school year, and more or less given up on cards for the year. Card companies, in turn, caught on to this trend and began making fewer cards for these series' instead of making a bunch that they wouldn't end up selling.

I guess, tbh, I'm really noticing it in the late 60's Topps sets. Like, I need a '67 Ty Cline and they routingly sell for $20; it's a high number, I get it. Yet, when I check out eBay, and I know it's only one site, but if I go to look up a Dave Nicholson #113 in the same set, over the last three months nearly half have been sold at lest than 10% compared to the Cline. I know this looks like an isolated incident, but it's something I've been noticing about quite a few high numbers I've been eyeing over the last 6 months.

Basically, what I'm saying is that does the idea of "rare high number" effect the price to the point where it skews the reality that maybe the card really isn't that rare. Am I saying that right?

[pokerplyr80]

If you're talking about a 2 dollar card vs a 20 dollar card or cards it could be that for many dealers it's not worth the effort to list the cheaper cards on ebay. They might be saving those for the bargain boxes at the shows. I am not a dealer but for me personally it would not be worth the time to pack and ship a 2 or 5 dollar card.

[the 'stache]

I think it's a combination of scarcity and condition driving the price.

If you look at the 1952 Topps set, there's an interesting tidbit about the high number series cards.

From Cardboard Connection:

Folklore and Legends
No one but the Yankees' scouting department could foresee just what a legendary figure "The Mick" would become, not even the set's architect, Sy Berger. It's been long said that Berger, stuck with several unsold pallets of high-numbered series cases, unceremoniously dumped the cards into the Hudson River with a forklift. This disturbing fact haunts collectors to this day, knowing that one of the most valuable baseball cards ever made likely has several dozen examples entombed in a watery grave.

Hmm.

Anybody got a scuba set, and a HASMAT suit I can borrow?

[7nohitter]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think it's a combination of scarcity and condition driving the price.

If you look at the 1952 Topps set, there's an interesting tidbit about the high number series cards.

From Cardboard Connection:



Hmm.

Anybody got a scuba set, and a HASMAT suit I can borrow?

Speaking of the legend of '52 Topps at the bottom of the river...has anyone ever dived down to look for them? Obviously, cardboard in water erodes pretty quickly, but if these were cases and cases of the stuff, shouldn't something still be down there? Maybe even the pallets?

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by conor912

It's my understanding that high numbers (i.e. the last series or two of a set) came out at the end of the baseball season, usually around September. Unlike the first series coming out in the spring with much adolescent anticipation, by September kids had moved onto other things, like the new school year, and more or less given up on cards for the year. Card companies, in turn, caught on to this trend and began making fewer cards for these series' instead of making a bunch that they wouldn't end up selling.

And let's not forget that the cards were basically sold by Mom n' Pop Shops. As the Summer wound down and interest waned, they had cards from earlier Series that the kids had already had their fill of. I do not believe that the store owners could swap 4th Series cards for 5th with their vendor. They were not going to buy Higher Series cards and let the Mid-Series cards collect dust in the backroom. Kids that truly collected (I was one) were astute enough to notice that one store had lower Series and another had the higher. I would walk an extra 10 city blocks to go to a store with a newer Series. Once a store fell behind, they were screwed....

One final point, even though these squares of cardboard mean something to us on this board, baseball cards were just one of dozens of options for the allowance money. The Mom n 'Pop Shop owners probably didn't give it as much thought as it did to type these lines...."Baseball cards are not selling?" "No! But, the Beverly Hillbillies cards, Marvel Comics and the candy cigarettes are"...... "Oh?...OK"

[glynparson]

Its not an isolated thing. Some years hi numbers are far more difficult then others. Also some of the 66 and 67 high numbers are much tougher than others. Plus comparing how many of a $20 card are listed vs a $2 card is not a gauge of anything. like others said why waste your time listing a $2. You yourself stated those are the cards you need, should tell you right there they are tougher. No wild conspiracy just supply and demand at work.

[Econteachert205]

Even within the high numbers are sp's as well. One of the hardest cards for me to track down was a 71 Dick Allen. The struggle is real.

[Rich Klein]

Most people building their set already have the 67 Dave Nicholson. Most people building their set do not have the Shaw/Sutherland Hi # RC (as an example)

So, you will see more of the card which might, you know, actually sell.

RIch

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

Speaking of the legend of '52 Topps at the bottom of the river...has anyone ever dived down to look for them? Obviously, cardboard in water erodes pretty quickly, but if these were cases and cases of the stuff, shouldn't something still be down there? Maybe even the pallets?

Andrew--What do you think a PSA certified pallet would bring ?

[autograf]

A good way to sometimes avoid paying that $20 is to check out the number of dealers doing set breaks that start all the cards at 99 cents. Greg Morris Cards and some other guys out there either take consigned sets and single them out or sets they buy and do that. Sometimes when I need a few high numbers I'll just search for '1967 topps cline set break' or something like that. Look for a clean card, set a snipe and I do get some of them below that $20/card. You can also look for centering/corners/condition that you need for your set. Doesn't always work but sometimes it does. Sometimes you can get those low numbers for the 99 cents too.

Like was stated earlier, within the 1966/1967 and most sets, there are high numbers AND high number SP's. Grab a big Beckett or SCD book and look through those high number runs and you'll see them pretty well identified as to the SP's.

Good luck!

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Even within the high numbers are sp's as well. One of the hardest cards for me to track down was a 71 Dick Allen. The struggle is real.

I always laugh when I think of that card, because the photographer's knee is right in the picture…

s-l1600-29.jpg

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Even within the high numbers are sp's as well. One of the hardest cards for me to track down was a 71 Dick Allen. The struggle is real.

http://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/1...971+dick+allen

Collectors nowadays have access to all the 1971 Dick Allen cards they could want. Looking to put together high number series cards on a budget and COMC with their combined shipping and access to thousands of sellers is a blessing.

[bbcard1]

So what are the toughest hi numbers? At least in the 1960s, 1966 Grant Jackson and Choo Choo Coleman come to mind. The Belanger rookie always flew out of my shop when I had one. I think the 1967 Brooks Robinson is as tough as any major player of the era. The 1968 Tigers Team is another that is tougher to track down.

[Laxcat]

The '53 Haddix & Gilliam can be quite a bear to find. They have been the last two I needed for both my sets.

[Rich Klein]

Most of the 1962 Rookie Parade cards are very tough as well. One of my local customers who is working on his Indians set needs all of them that have Indians.