toughest high number series from post 50's baseball

[hoot-owl]

how about 1971 OPC--scarce is too nice a word.

Topps--I would go with either 1966 or 1967. The 1961s are a close third--but not nearly as many SPs as there are in 66 and 67.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by hoot-owl

how about 1971 OPC--scarce is too nice a word.

Topps--I would go with either 1966 or 1967. The 1961s are a close third--but not nearly as many SPs as there are in 66 and 67.

1st, they can all be had for a price. But looking at the 61 set, the highs can be had, but how attractive is that set to the collector. I got through series 1-6 pretty easily until I hit the allstar cards at the end. Had to be very patient. I have always Thought on the whole that 66 was tougher. But saying that selected 67's are tougher than the 66's. The 11 very SP cards in 67 (seaver rc, redsox team, #587, colavito etc) are tougher than 66's.
If all the 11 or so very tough 66 sp's were produced in equal numbers, why is #591 so expensive? My thought is that like the '64 flood #103, somebodies hoarding these.

[glynparson]

There was a time not so long ago I had close to a hundred copies. Still probably have around 50. It isn't expensive because of this though. It being considered so difficult is why I bought so many. It has always been tougher partially because of 1) phillies and dodgers collectors 2)it is often miscut and also 3) often will have a black print line in the border. Plus it has the reputation of being so tough.

[BillP]

Originally Posted by glynparson

There was a time not so long ago I had close to a hundred copies. Still probably have around 50. It isn't expensive because of this though. It being considered so difficult is why I bought so many. It has always been tougher partially because of 1) phillies and dodgers collectors 2)it is often miscut and also 3) often will have a black print line in the border. Plus it has the reputation of being so tough.

Did you go after just #591 or Clarke, coleman peranoski just to name a few?