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

[toppcat]

A poll on toughest non-high series would be interesting.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

Why is 1960 Topps omitted?

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

[Rich Klein]

IMHO 1960 hi #'s are similar to 59 Hi's in toughness.

[Orioles1954]

As an auction house writer I've been through countless numbers of each set. I think the OPs list is pretty accurate. I would switch 61 and 67 though.

[cesarcap]

Question to Orioles1954: would you rank 66's harder/ higher than 67s? I think people of course don't collect 66's as much (and maybe don't drag along to card shows) so that might have something to do with it.

[Orioles1954]

I would give the edge to 1966s as being tougher because of super shortprints like Coleman, Snyder, Jackson RC, etc. But make no mistake.....ain't nothing rare about any 1960s Topps card....unless, we're talking test issues of course.

[Rich Klein]

I personally would move up 64's one group

[avalanche2006]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

IMHO 1960 hi #'s are similar to 59 Hi's in toughness.

So how tough are they?
I'm doing both sets and didn't see any posts on those years.

[Rich Klein]

A few cards are expensive because they are rookies : 59 Bob Gibson or because they are Mantle/Mays/Aaron All Stars, etc. But nothing really to compare with the 62/66/67 short prints or the 61's general toughness


Rich

[jchcollins]

This...

Thanks for this thread. I went looking for a blog post or article out on the interwebs recently on exactly this subject and could not find anything that was not focused on mainly just the merits of individual sets - but I was curious.

I was born in 1977, so never had to deal with anything like this as a child collector. These days, I would agree with what's been said earlier - no 1960's card outside of test issues should be called truly "rare" due to the prevalence even of SP's and highly desirable items at your fingertips online - but it is interesting to me what cards were actually more scarce back in the shoe-leather days - the infant hobby for example in the early 70's before all the attics had been cleaned out. "Scarce" to me for a '67 high number just means I'm going to have to spend more on eBay than I want. But back in the day I can see collectors going to shows and literally not being able to find something. It's those kinds of stories I find myself more interested in, and seeking out more often.

[Rich Klein]

And the price of the SP's jumped to appropriate levels in the Price Guides as well. Back in the 1980's whenever I had one of the tougher 1967 Mets Hi# and priced them at $15-20 the question would be,, but the Book say the card is XXX.

My 1st standard response was to give the address listed in the Beckett Price Guide and send them a check for the card. My 2nd standard response -- was: BTW -- how long have you been looking for this card? Usually the answer was 4-5 years which my response would then be -- and then you wonder why the card is priced so seemingly high.

By 1991-92 most of those cards were properly priced in the guides

Rich

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

And the price of the SP's jumped to appropriate levels in the Price Guides as well. Back in the 1980's whenever I had one of the tougher 1967 Mets Hi# and priced them at $15-20 the question would be,, but the Book say the card is XXX.

Rich

I'll bet that was Sullivan!

[glynparson]

1970 and 1972 are not difficult at all in my honest opinion they have no business being in the top group. i understand the book price is higher on them but they aren't tough at all to find even if adjusting for condition. Some of the tougher 71 high number s are far tougher then the 1970 or 1972 or even the easier 66 and 67 high numbers. Not sure i agree with your the list. Here is my list and experiences from selling vintage topps cards for the last 40 years include working for arguably the leading vintage topps dealer in the country for about 10 years back in the 90s early 2000s.

Tougher :
1952
1953
1966 (the tough ones)
1967 (the tough ones)

Next:
1955
1961
1962
1971

third:
1957
1962 (the sp)
1964
1965 (SPs)
1970
1972

THe Rest:
Now i considered 1963 in the third group and wouldn't argue if someone put it there. The rest there isn't much or a very slight difference. occasionally there may be a slightly tougher card or two like the 1973 high nuber checklist but overall they aren't very tough.

[skil55voy]

I would like to give a bit of a different perspective. When I was collecting as a kid, I started in 1962. I was able to complete that set as all of the Series released by Topps made it to my local stores. (St. Clair Shores, Michigan). I looked forward to the 63 set. However, I was only able to get cards into the 4th Series. No boxes for 5th, 6th 7th ever made it to the stores. In 1964 I made it to the 5th series. In 1965, I was able to complete the set as all Series showed up. 1966 all the way to the 7th Series. No 7th Series boxes showed up. 1967 I was able to get to the 7th. In 1968 and 1969 I was able to complete my sets.

When I started collecting again in the 80's the cards I found to be difficult were the 63 6th and 7th, 66 and 67 7th.

As an aside, I completed sets from 58 through 61 and did not have that much trouble. I was fairly close to completing the 56 and 57 sets but sold the collection before I finished. Also, in 66 you could write to Topps and get cards for 4 cents apiece. I picked 10 numbers from the 7th Series at random and sent away for them.
In 70 and 71 I ordered Series 5 through 7 for each set for $2.25 a Series.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I'll bet that was Sullivan!

Not just him but also Westrum, Alomar, Shaw/Sutherland, etc.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by glynparson

1970 and 1972 are not difficult at all in my honest opinion they have no business being in the top group. i understand the book price is higher on them but they aren't tough at all to find even if adjusting for condition. Some of the tougher 71 high number s are far tougher then the 1970 or 1972 or even the easier 66 and 67 high numbers. Not sure i agree with your the list. Here is my list and experiences from selling vintage topps cards for the last 40 years include working for arguably the leading vintage topps dealer in the country for about 10 years back in the 90s early 2000s.

Tougher :
1952
1953
1966 (the tough ones)
1967 (the tough ones)

Next:
1955
1961
1962
1971

third:
1957
1962 (the sp)
1964
1965 (SPs)
1970
1972

THe Rest:
Now i considered 1963 in the third group and wouldn't argue if someone put it there. The rest there isn't much or a very slight difference. occasionally there may be a slightly tougher card or two like the 1973 high nuber checklist but overall they aren't very tough.

Glyn:

Maybe it is because of the age demographic which come to my shows and the other DFW shows but 1970's and 72's hi#s sell really well for me

Rich

[glynparson]

I do agree that they seem to sell well but i don't think either of them are difficult at all to get. it maybe one of those geographic things where they are just easy in eastern pa so that skews my opinion.

[toppcat]

When I was a weekend warrior at the end of the 80's and in the early 90's, the 72 highs always sold here on Long Island. 70's and 71's not as much.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by skil55voy

I would like to give a bit of a different perspective. When I was collecting as a kid, I started in 1962. I was able to complete that set as all of the Series released by Topps made it to my local stores. (St. Clair Shores, Michigan). I looked forward to the 63 set. However, I was only able to get cards into the 4th Series. No boxes for 5th, 6th 7th ever made it to the stores. In 1964 I made it to the 5th series. In 1965, I was able to complete the set as all Series showed up. 1966 all the way to the 7th Series. No 7th Series boxes showed up. 1967 I was able to get to the 7th. In 1968 and 1969 I was able to complete my sets.

When I started collecting again in the 80's the cards I found to be difficult were the 63 6th and 7th, 66 and 67 7th.

As an aside, I completed sets from 58 through 61 and did not have that much trouble. I was fairly close to completing the 56 and 57 sets but sold the collection before I finished. Also, in 66 you could write to Topps and get cards for 4 cents apiece. I picked 10 numbers from the 7th Series at random and sent away for them.
In 70 and 71 I ordered Series 5 through 7 for each set for $2.25 a Series.

Thx for a very interesting narrative. I think it calls into the discussion that selected areas of the country received later series boxes while others like my area (New England) switch to Football by August. And that's what happened in my area. As an example, by august of 66 it was mostly Philly football with less of topps football. 66 went to the 6th series BB and that as it. 67 to the 6th as well. 68 to the 7th though 69 cant remember. We had selected non sport summer and fall. I had head maybe on this forum that the west coast got the majority of 67 7th series and that Vending 7th series was out there as well. I think this is where the short B Robinson card originated.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by BillP

Thx for a very interesting narrative. I think it calls into the discussion that selected areas of the country received later series boxes while others like my area (New England) switch to Football by August. And that's what happened in my area. As an example, by august of 66 it was mostly Philly football with less of topps football. 66 went to the 6th series BB and that as it. 67 to the 6th as well. 68 to the 7th though 69 cant remember. We had selected non sport summer and fall. I had head maybe on this forum that the west coast got the majority of 67 7th series and that Vending 7th series was out there as well. I think this is where the short B Robinson card originated.

I was in Orange County, CA and we got no 1967 High #s at all. We got a ton of 6th series. We had more 6th series cards than any other series. I think there were some areas of the country that didn't get much of the 6th series, but got more 7th. We did get some 1966 High #s. 1959, 1960, 1964 and 1965 Highs were easy to find. 1961-1963 were almost nonexistent.