![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I was drawn to this forum by the discussion of 66 & 67 high numbers which, as a longtime collector, I have been following for many years. I should add that I am a first time poster on this website.
Starting with 66, for my experience the Clarke and Coleman have always been mentioned as 2 of the tougher SP's, it's only in the last 5 years that the Jackson card has been included. Go back 30 years when I started to piece this set back together. The first thing a friend told me was that the Clarke was tough only because it was a yankee and his RC. The rare scarcity was Coleman, Queen, Tigers Team and Perry. Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig. I believe now as then that these 8 are the true SP's. The others cards that are labeled SP fall in between the DP cards and these. Further, back in the mid 80's I tried to follow this by attending selected east coast national shows looking for sets of complete 66's that supposedly were put together by collectors that year. What I was looking for was the consistent diamond cut of the highs to look for patterns of the 8 vs the others. I won't say it was 100% but pretty close. So that is my 2 cents on the 66's. Opinions welcome. 67: I think that the discover of a supposed "B" uncut sheet shed some light on the groups of 11 that are on the same row within the sheet. The DP or QP (Quadruple prints as I'll call it) are no surprise. They should be priced below the 6th series commons in my opinion. However, the real SP sleepers to me are Shaw/Sutherland, Colavito, Wills and Niekro RC. These to me were the together to find, forgetting about centering, that's a whole other matter. 586 Jimenez has been cited as an SP, but I didn't find it so. Same with 572 Demeter and 561 Alomar. I think there are 4 tiers to the availability of highs. The most common as obvious, the scarcer 2 may be obvious as well, but the difference between them is an opinion. Here's mine: Scarce group: the 4 I mentioned plus Seaver RC, Red Sox Team, Cash, Shannon, BRobinson (who has a different color back and the card number is also a different font), Henry 579 and maybe Jimenez. On the Robinson, I think there was an issue with this card when printed and it was printed in limited supply on a dedicated sheet late in the process. Just my guess. Take a look at the back and compare the font and color of the stock. It's always a darker moss green as opposed to the others. Anyway, tired of typing, Feedback welcome, BIll |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Unfortunately, due to the computer age, dealers at shows these days are very aware of the scarcity of those few high numbers, so you can't get them for a song anymore.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
about Jackson/Shirley only being considered tough in the last 5 years. I have considereded it the toughest card in the set since at least 1993 as have many other vintage card dealers. It is almost always one of the last cards on peoples lists. I have also bought many collections of 1966 high numbers and Coleman is and always has been far easier in my mind than Jackson/Shirley. I worked for probably the leading vintage Topps card dealer for about 5 years from the late nineties to early 2000s and he always considered Jackson the toughest card as well. I agree 100% about those 1967s being tougher that you mentioned.
Last edited by glynparson; 12-26-2013 at 03:55 AM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Welcome Bill, nice first post. I have not done any analysis of uncut sheets, my experience is only from putting the set together. I was surprised how affordable the 66 McCovey was. If that is a true SP like the others I would think it would be going for 3-4x what is seems to sell for.
Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In an earlier post, you mentioned "Through the years I have seen at least 4 uncut sheets of various sizes when it comes to the high numbers. Some have all the DP cards noted, 1 had only the following cards: Tigers Team, Perry, O. Brown RC, Jackson RC, Coleman, Queen, McCovey and Craig."
I wish you had an image of that uncut partial sheet mentioned. I haven't see that one. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Mid Atlantic Coin Exchange?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Anyone need lower grade 1966 T hi #s - Id love to trade them
598 596 592 584 581 579 576 575 569 542 537 536 529 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sounds right. I can't be 100% sure though. I know there were in the Philly area and published ads in SCD.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Good chance then, they had huge ads in SCD back in the day.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lot of 13 different 1965 Topps High Numbers | vintagetoppsguy | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 08-16-2013 07:01 PM |
F/T: 1970 Topps high numbers | SmokyBurgess | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 11-29-2012 07:26 AM |
Did You Buy '52 Topps High Numbers As A Kid? | toppcat | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 3 | 03-25-2010 10:42 PM |
O/T - Did You Buy '52 Topps High Numbers As A Kid? | toppcat | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 33 | 03-03-2010 11:12 PM |
Nice lot of 52 Topps high numbers | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 02-21-2006 08:23 PM |