Ranking high # series by degree of difficulty (and why?)

[kailes2872]

Now that I am close on my post war set run, I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on the high numbers. Difficult is a relative term because they all seem readily available- it is just that some cost more than others. What I am wondering is why? We obviously know the ‘52 high story - but what happened in ‘66 and ‘67 that didn’t happen in ‘65 and ‘68? Why is ‘69 easier than ‘70?

I would rank them -
Tough (much more expensive than low # commons)
‘52
‘53
‘67
‘66
‘62
‘61
‘55
‘72
‘70

Tougher than normal but not as out of control as the first group
‘59
‘57 (mid)
‘71
‘63

Not much of a noticeable difference
‘54
‘56
‘58
‘64
‘65
‘68
‘69

It has been a while since I built some of the sets so my memory fails me a bit on ‘64 and ‘63

For those who collected these out of the packs, did something different happen in the tough years? Late issue? Better than average football set that diverted attention? I understand the concept of the high series and why collectors might have lost steam, I just don’t understand what makes one year more expensive than another. With the exception of dumping them in the ocean I would expect similar relative scarcity.

Thoughts? Your ranking of toughness?

[JollyElm]

I don't collect the early 50's, but when it comes to the 60's and 70's sets, your rankings are spot on. 1961, 1962, 1966 and 1967 are beyond the pale tough to find at 'reasonable' prices in nice shape. So many of mine need to be upgraded, but I ain't holding my breath.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

Now that I am close on my post war set run, I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on the high numbers. Difficult is a relative term because they all seem readily available- it is just that some cost more than others. What I am wondering is why? We obviously know the ‘52 high story - but what happened in ‘66 and ‘67 that didn’t happen in ‘65 and ‘68? Why is ‘69 easier than ‘70?

I would rank them -
Tough (much more expensive than low # commons)
‘52
‘53
‘67
‘66
‘62
‘61
‘55
‘72
‘70

Tougher than normal but not as out of control as the first group
‘59
‘57 (mid)
‘71
‘63

Not much of a noticeable difference
‘54
‘56
‘58
‘64
‘65
‘68
‘69

It has been a while since I built some of the sets so my memory fails me a bit on ‘64 and ‘63

For those who collected these out of the packs, did something different happen in the tough years? Late issue? Better than average football set that diverted attention? I understand the concept of the high series and why collectors might have lost steam, I just don’t understand what makes one year more expensive than another. With the exception of dumping them in the ocean I would expect similar relative scarcity.

Thoughts? Your ranking of toughness?

Kevin, IMO, you have compiled a very accurate list. I am 25 cards short on the 52s, otherwise complete with all of these other Topps sets. The one subtle change I would make is I would move the 64s hi#s up to the bottom of the middle list. IMO, the 6th series of the 63 Topps set is tougher than the 7Th series....If the 6th series was considered, the 63 set might rank higher on the list than it would if just the 7th series was considered..

Since this is discussed as a "post war" set run list and not just a Topps run, when other regularly distributed sets are considered, the 51 Bowman set followed by the 55 and 53 Bowman sets could be added to the list. If it were my list I would include the 51 set in the top list near the top (obvious reasons) and the 55 and 53 sets to the lower part of the middle list

I have not started on the 48 or 49 Bowman sets so I am not sure where the higher numbers would fall on the list.

[rats60]

The 1963 6th series is much tougher than the 1962 high numbers. I was able to complete the 1962 set collecting in the late 60s, early 70s. My 1963 set wasn't completed until the 80s. My rank would be

1952
1953
1961
1963 6th series
1967
1966
1962
1955.

I posted this before, but my recollection was that some years the final series wasn't released until later in the year. I remember being able to buy 6th and 7th series cards in August 1969, but the next year I was buying 4th series in August and still waiting for the 7th series in September.

[BillP]

My 2 cents as a 60's collector:

61 - selected cards are tougher in high grade. All stars tougher by player Grade 8 of 10 for toughness (10 being highest)

62 - similar with SP cards in high condition tougher. Grade 8 of 10 due to condition of the wood design

63 - 6th series tougher than 7th and still waiting on which 6th series cards are SP's v others as lately this is driving price. Long, #496, Killebrew, Roseboro, Hook, Tresh come mind as candidates. 6th series: 7 7th series 5.

64 - weren't really difficult for me, no SP's per se. So Grade 4.

65 - never have been tough even though SP's exist. Grade 3.

66 - selected cards very tough in centering and high grade, discussed on this forum often. Other high cards very easy to obtain. Tough highs 8, easy highs 3.

67 - same as 66 but higher profile cards makes prices/demand an issue. Even more than 66 easy cards 11-22 of them are readily out there for the same as semi high 6th series. Tough highs (11 cards - produced 2x v 3x or 4x) Grade 9. Easy highs 2

68 - not tough grade 3

69 - 4th series grade 4 highs 2-3.

Comments welcome, billp

[1963Topps Set]

Why is 1960 Topps omitted?

[kailes2872]

My mistake. I tried to do all by memory. I would probably put in the middle bucket around ‘59

[BillP]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

Why is 1960 Topps omitted?

Sorry, I don't collect 1960 so I can't comment.